This progression is very important

Here's what I think...

I find morality, in its most common definition, to be a particularly base form of willful, self-righteous ignorance and paranoia. Its proper use is a personal one: the moderation of our own actions, regardless of accepted norms and of any other person's opinions, according to what we feel is right. Primarily, it is there sheerly to force us to be honest with ourselves. Most frequently, however, "morality" is employed as a means of passing judgement against others, on the correctness of whose actions we have no business commenting.

It is human to compare ourselves to others, to place blame for events we would rather not have experienced, to define right and wrong according to what makes us happy and what we find intolerable, to fallaciously attempt to justify our beliefs in those norms according to some kind of "logic," and to use "rational thought" to establish an ethical framework that we can impose on others to facilitate the aforementioned comparisons.

But human as they are, these processes are outright offenses to logic, and furthermore accomplish absolutely nothing positive for any parties involved. Comparative notions of human value are irrelevant; blame is meaningless; right and wrong are nothing more than abstract, empty concepts that we use to falsely legitimize our knee-jerk reactions to people and the world, and true logic should tell us only that our ethical framework need not - and cannot - extend beyond our own selves.

Each person's actions are the result of an incomprehensible number of influences - neurochemical, genetic, environmental, circumstantial. There is nothing to be gained for anyone by attempting to find blame in a bad situation; all you need to know is that people are what they are. You are what you are, you were what you were, he was what he was, and when you and he were put together in those circumstances, what happened is what happened.

I don't believe for a minute that we should ignore our feelings of revulsion or anger. If there is something in the world that contradicts your being so deeply that you cannot tolerate it, I simply don't believe morality or self-righteousness are either justified or necessary in the process of eliminating that thing.

I'm not preaching forgiveness or forgetfulness, only acceptance. If you decide not to take action against something you feel is wrong, you really have no further recourse *but* acceptance. If you can learn from yourself and whatever mistakes you made, if any, then that's excellent. But while you're letting him off the hook, don't be too hard on yourself either.

Well, that's sort of the thing. He's off the hook, 'cause it's kind of too late to do anything about it... but it was shame that made me keep quiet... There is, I think, some ridiculous human (or perhaps female) imparitive that makes people feel ashamed when they shouldn't. Then, they feel ashamed for feeling ashamed, because they know they're being weak... then it just kind of folds in on itself, until there is just this big, horrible shame monster where your spine and self-resect should be.

But yeah, it's over now, and unloading it onto unsuspecting readers has definitely made me feel much better.

I have to disagree with Quigley on just one point, though, and that is the logic of placing blame. While I don't believe blame is finite, and I don't think dividing it up as though it is makes any sense at all, in this case, it falls on him. Squarely and 100%. I have my share of blame in related matters, granted, flirting and soforth, but the actual 'event'--what happened happened because HE made it... My problem was that I *wasn't* placing blame where I needed to.

I think I did a poorer job of expressing myself there than I wanted to. I'm not suggesting that cause and effect can't be reasonably determined in most circumstances, and I'm quite sure that you didn't do anything I would object to in causing the event to happen, whereas he certainly did. My problem with blame isn't to say that I don't think the cause can be isolated but that blame takes causation to another level wherein evaluative judgements are made regarding who is "right" and "wrong" in causing the event, and who is therefore a "better" person, and I don't believe in such evaluations. I believe that each person is an individual and does what is true to their own self, just as a dog does, just as an ant does, or a whale. So, I feel that, while saying it's his "fault" in that he was the primary cause is just fine, I don't think I could say that what he did was "wrong" or that he "shouldn't" have done it - simply that I would never do such a thing, and that a person who is willing to makes me particularly uncomfortable and angry, and that I would try to stop such an event from occurring if I was present.

It's a tough thing to explain, and I have yet to find a way that makes sense to everyone. But don't worry - I didn't mean to suggest that his actions were not contemptible or that yours were; I feel otherwise.