Sanctity

[Cognisant]

I think the British monarchy will die with Queen Elizabeth, oh sure the title will get passed on but there's something to a monarchy that's missing from the modern era, the idea that there is a hierarchy among men, that there are some men that are simply more than others. Obviously she's not that kind of "queen" but the shoe fits, Queen Elizabeth has a regality about her, a sanctity that in the modern world is all but impossible to achieve, by which I mean if by some quirk of fate you happened to be in just the right place at just the right time to snap a photo of Queen Elizabeth picking her nose what would you do?

You would delete it of course.

But why?
The same reason why if you're a Freemason you keep all the rites and rituals a secret and probably the same reason why pedophilia is such a problem in the Catholic Church (you must be dying to know where I'm going with this) because nobody likes a blabbermouth. We want our sacred things to stay sacred, there was a time when the crown prince could visit a gentleman's club and it wouldn't be in the papers the following morning, indeed you could ask the people who were there and clearly saw him and they'd either deny it or threaten you for making up scandalous stories.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Eeehhhhhhhh, it's a thing.

In the modern world we only seem to raise people up for the purpose of casting them down and that speaks to the inherent nature of sanctity, nothing held sacred can ever really stay true to the ideals it was raised up to represent and in the information age no lie can stand up to the intensity of modern scrutiny. In this day and age you could post that photo of the queen picking her nose and minutes later it would be all over the globe and there's nothing anyone can do to stop you, which is not to say there won't be consequences after the fact.

Should you though, or should you not?
On one hand sanctity elevates us, it's a like a group of kids all playing in the dirt and it doesn't matter because that's the truth of reality that no matter how well you clean yourself you'll never stay clean but what if one kid wants to be clean, to wear fancy clothes and wear cologne and gel his hair and present himself in that elevated manner, to look good. But on the other hand by doing so he sets himself apart from his peers and they must make a choice, do they allow him to set himself apart and make his appearance this sacred thing not to be tarnished by their dirt-flinging play, or do they fling dirt at him until he is no less dirty than they and thus free him of the constraints of the pedestal he stood upon?

It's not a perfect metaphor but do you see what I'm getting at, that sanctity has this fascinating duality about it in its ability to both elevate and corrupt us.

On one hand I vehemently oppose religion, belief in that which is not real, but on the other I laud the artificial and I realize there is a hypocrisy there, one I have not yet figured out how to resolve.

 

[Grayman]

If nationalism is revitalized maybe? If the king to be embraced it, maybe. Or is the lesbiananti anti-prostate culture too strong for the kings of England!

 

[scorpiomover]

I think the British monarchy will die with Queen Elizabeth, oh sure the title will get passed on but there's something to a monarchy that's missing from the modern era, the idea that there is a hierarchy among men, that there are some men that are simply more than others. Obviously she's not that kind of "queen" but the shoe fits, Queen Elizabeth has a regality about her, a sanctity that in the modern world is all but impossible to achieve, by which I mean if by some quirk of fate you happened to be in just the right place at just the right time to snap a photo of Queen Elizabeth picking her nose what would you do?

You would delete it of course.

Speaking as a Brit, you don't delete it. But you don't sell it to The Daily Star for money, to be splashed across the tabloids with the headline: "Queen caught on camera eating human remains."

We want our sacred things to stay sacred, there was a time when the crown prince could visit a gentleman's club and it wouldn't be in the papers the following morning, indeed you could ask the people who were there and clearly saw him and they'd either deny it or threaten you for making up scandalous stories.

In those days, if your uncle was a doctor who was never married and seemed to never be with a woman, you didn't ask. He was good at his job. He saved lives. He never did anything to harm anyone. Why mention his private life?

But when Profumo, a politician who had access to secrets of national security was found to be sleeping with a woman who was also sleeping with a Russian naval attache, and he talked in his sleep, he might have been talking about defensive plans in his sleep. He was a threat to national security. He had to resign.

In the modern world we only seem to raise people up for the purpose of casting them down and that speaks to the inherent nature of sanctity, nothing held sacred can ever really stay true to the ideals it was raised up to represent and in the information age no lie can stand up to the intensity of modern scrutiny. In this day and age you could post that photo of the queen picking her nose and minutes later it would be all over the globe and there's nothing anyone can do to stop you, which is not to say there won't be consequences after the fact.

In the modern world, fame is fleeting. One day, Elon Musk is taking us into the future. The next, everyone hates him.

The people who become public celebrities with a reasonable attitude, understand they are figureheads, actors who are getting paid well for a gig that might last years.

Those who last the distance and make real change, are like the real Elliot Ness. They stay OUT of the public eye.

As a result, the modern world is even less transparent and more obfuscated than the old class system.

Should you though, or should you not?
On one hand sanctity elevates us, it's a like a group of kids all playing in the dirt and it doesn't matter because that's the truth of reality that no matter how well you clean yourself you'll never stay clean but what if one kid wants to be clean, to wear fancy clothes and wear cologne and gel his hair and present himself in that elevated manner, to look good. But on the other hand by doing so he sets himself apart from his peers and they must make a choice, do they allow him to set himself apart and make his appearance this sacred thing not to be tarnished by their dirt-flinging play, or do they fling dirt at him until he is no less dirty than they and thus free him of the constraints of the pedestal he stood upon?

If you're in the middle of a coronavirus pandemic, you start to realise that the germophobe may have been smarter than the extroverts.

It's not a perfect metaphor but do you see what I'm getting at, that sanctity has this fascinating duality about it in its ability to both elevate and corrupt us.

On one hand I vehemently oppose religion, belief in that which is not real, but on the other I laud the artificial and I realize there is a hypocrisy there, one I have not yet figured out how to resolve.

Sanctity has its place. If my professor is gay, I don't want that influencing my ability to learn from him.

I just don't want him to put his hands down my pants while I'm asking him a question after class. If that happens, I'll be so worried about being sexually assaulted by my teacher, I won't be able to concentrate much on my lessons.

Either one violates my sanctity, and the benefits everyone can get from having that sanctity.