Well, it's very ironic indeed, Don using the phrase in that context. Totally upside down.
Well, it's very ironic indeed, Don using the phrase in that context. Totally upside down.
True, it's just that he still gets to do this and didn't have to prove himself or work his way up the ladder to do so. He's very lucky, in that regard. I felt the same way about Eddie Van Halen's son, Wolfgang, who replaced Michael Anthony in Van Halen. Wolfie didn't have to do anything to get there. His dad was mad at MA, so Wolfie is their new bassist. Sadly, Wolfie doesn't have one tenth of the same skill.
He is giving up his identity for sure. I think he will regret it. He's giving up his young adulthood to be a caricature of his late father. He will lose out on a lot of years. Yet, when you wave money in people's faces they can be manipulated.
Vince, well I'm not a fan of Vince Gill in any way, I actually think putting the Eagles on his resume will make him better. I don't care how many records he's sold, his musicianship doesn't stand up to that of Walsh, Felder, or Frey. I think even Steuart Smith is a far better guitarist than Vince Gill. But I digress.
At this point I'm not surprised about Don's hypocrisy or the fact that he's gone back on his word. In fact, nothing he can do will surprise me now. Disappointing..
Don's Emerson quote also seems to be based on the assumption that consistency in itself is foolish since I don't see where the "foolish" part would have come in in this case.
EDIT:
I don't mean the actual quote, but the way Don used it.
Last edited by chaim; 06-28-2018 at 01:16 PM.
Only when the consistency is based solely on a reverence for tradition, religion, conforming to the opinions of others, the opinions of the greats of the past - in other words, something that is not really in line with one's own truth. If your past opinion is based on one of these things, it is foolish. It would fit into the "pop culture" definition of the foolish consistency that one may and should change without shame. (In Don's case, is the opinion that the Eagles should end with Glenn's death applicable here? No!) On the other hand, Emerson argues one should be CONSTANT to one's truth. But people use it as an excuse to validate every change of opinion, even when they stray from their conscience, from what they know is right.... as Don did. Thus, he violates Emerson.
The FIRST part of "Self-Reliance" does lend itself to the "pop-culture" interpretation because, again, there are SOME instances where Emerson finds such a change of past opinion justifiable - when that opinion was not based on one's own truth. However, when you read beyond the opening paragraphs, you see that changing one's opinion is not universally justifiable; as I said earlier in my summary, you cannot change from your truth to an opinion that violates your conscience. Reading further, you see his real point:"And now at last the highest truth on this subject remains unsaid; probably cannot be said; for all that we say is the far-off remembering of the intuition. That thought, by what I can now nearest approach to say it, is this. When good is near you, when you have life in yourself, it is not by any known or accustomed way; you shall not discern the foot-prints of any other; you shall not see the face of man; you shall not hear any name;—— the way, the thought, the good, shall be wholly strange and new. It shall exclude example and experience.Admittedly, there are other interpretations, and I've only pulled out a couple passages when there are far more to discuss (not that these are the only ones to support me). However, I despise it when Emerson is used to justify doing what one knows in one's heart is wrong. I do not think that was Emerson's intent. In fact, Emerson was concerned that people would think that "the bold sensualist will use the name of philosophy to gild his crimes." However, he hoped that "the law of consciousness abides" and people would follow their truth rather than use his teachings to justify betrayal and wrongdoing, to listen to those who would "tempt" us with things like money...
[...]
If we cannot at once rise to the sanctities of obedience and faith, let us at least resist our temptations; let us enter into the state of war, and wake Thor and Woden, courage and constancy, in our Saxon breasts. This is to be done in our smooth times by speaking the truth. Check this lying hospitality and lying affection. Live no longer to the expectation of these deceived and deceiving people with whom we converse."
Honestly, overall, Emerson has a lot of problematic doctrines, and the truth is that his philosophy is really not one to live your life by in any case. But if you are going to tout him as your inspiration, be aware of his larger point.
No, it's a good thing, because anyone can CLAIM an interpretation is valid. Since the first part of the essay lends itself to the pop culture interpretation, and most people do not read beyond the opening, it is good for me to demonstrate the proofs of my interpretation.
Don's using it to say that his initial opinion that the Eagles should end with Glenn was foolish. His new opinion is the true one. He now rejects - will no longer be consistent to - his "foolish" opinion. Simplistic, pop-culture usage.
It's not. It's about "living in the limelight..the universal dream," and earning, to quote Jessie Pinkman, "fat stacks," while "slouching to Bethleham," making sure to by-pass Eden along the way knocking back "pink champagne on ice.....(as they) dance to forget!"
Deacon needs to break away and get on with his "search," to avoid the pitfalls of "Wasted Time."