I Was Working as a Waitress in a Coktail Bar...

By -
that much is true. Now, I like this song, and I admire the songwriters for expressing their position so honestly. But notice how thoroughly they live in the world of Pascal's "second self," that self that exists solely in the mind of others:

You were working as a waitress in a cocktail bar
When I met you
I picked you out, I shook you up and turned you around
Turned you into someone new
[IN THE EYES OF OTHERS, OF COURSE -- SHE CERTAINLY WASN'T "SOMEONE NEW" SPIRITUALLY.]

Now five years later on you've got the world at your feet
Success has been so easy for you
But don't forget, it's me who put you where you are now
And I can put you back down too

Don't, don't you want me?
You know I can't believe it
When I hear that you won't see me
Don't, don't you want me?

You know I don't believe you
When you say that you don't need me
It's much too late to find
You think you've changed your mind
You'd better change it back or we will both be sorry

I was working as a waitress in a cocktail bar
That much is true
But even then I knew I'd find a much better place
[IN THE EYES OF OTHERS -- WHAT IS WRONG WITH SERVING PEOPLE FOOD AND DRINKS OTHER THAN THAT "THEY" DON'T RESPECT YOU DOING THAT?]
Either with or without you

The whole "Don't you want me?" is set against a backdrop not of how much either singer thinks the other really loves him/her, but how foolishly damaging to the others' image this breakup will be.

Love in the postmodern world.

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy5:39 PM

    I think we should stop looking at restaurant patrons as "customers." So dehumanizing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah5:45 PM

    Different relationships demand different levels of personal care as opposed to treating others as the totally anonymous ideal type of "customer."

    At one end of the spectrum is perhaps a buyer on an exchange of a commodity. The vendor simply delivers the commodity.

    A restaurant interaction at a decent restaurant ought to be much more personal. A doctor or teacher even more so. And I hope you don't consider Clark a "customer" for your parenting services!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more