And now for something completely different

[maradydd]

The Head Minion recently stumbled across, and thus I am compelled to share with the Web at large, the video to the Pet Shop Boys' "It's A Sin". It is decidedly an '80s video, one of those moody and contemplative set-pieces in which not very much happens and everyone has costumes which must have looked awesome in 1987 but which now (rather like every Cyndi Lauper video ever shot) give off the unmistakable aura of rejects from the wardrobe department of The Road Warrior or possibly The Wicker Man. Still, if your music-video-watching interests include monks in cassocks, a set resembling the backstage at a post-apocalyptic theatre, chicken-wire cages and/or Neil Tennant in chains, it's definitely worth a look. Other things for which to keep an eye out include each of the Seven Deadlies, pseudo-religious iconography (is it a cross or an upside-down boat anchor?), and precisely what constitutes a sin in this context anyway.

I mean, really, Meat Loaf at least told us, at the very end anyway, what he wouldn't do for love. Chris, Neil, you've left us hanging seventeen years now. Will you ever cut us a break?

Edit: Right, I guess it'd help if I had the correct URL, wouldn't it.

Comments

[mattwagers.livejournal.com]

Dizzingly mad props to meredith.

[dorianegray.livejournal.com]

He did tell us.

"Everything I've ever done
Everything I'll ever do"

Very simple. If Neil Tennant has done or will do it, it's a sin (though possibly only if it's him doing it).

[maradydd.livejournal.com]

though possibly only if it's him doing it

That would make everything a lot easier for the rest of us, but in which case, sucks to be Neil Tennant.

[dorianegray.livejournal.com]

Indeed.

(Not to mention the lines I forgot at time of earlier posting: "For everything thing I long to do, no matter when or where or who - it's a sin" - so not only anything he has has done or will do, but also everything he wants to do!)

Let us all give thanks that we are not Neil Tennant.

And thanks to this post of yours, I've had the song stuck in my head all day!

[maradydd.livejournal.com]

Let us all give thanks that we are not Neil Tennant.

My brain has just gone back to the dusty archivy bits where most of the Anglican hymnal is stored, and is poring through the "Hymns of Thanksgiving" section, looking for one which can be suitably filked to involve giving thanks for not being Neil Tennant.

Curse you, Dorian, you and all your lineage from now until the end of time. (I'm not telling which end.)

[dorianegray.livejournal.com]

When you find it and filk it, send me a copy, please!

(I'm not sure why you're cursing a bunch of people who (apart from my parents) are all dead, but carry on if it makes you happy - I don't mind being cursed, and I doubt my parents will either.)

The plot thickens

[maradydd.livejournal.com]

Of course, this does lead to another question: if Neil Tennant wants to do it, but someone else does it, are they guilty of the sin, or is Neil? Or both? It's clear that the action is a sin, because Neil longed to do it, but which is the guilt-bearing thing, thinking of it or doing it?

I guess this hinges on whether "sins of contemplation" count.

(I am so going to hell for this.)

Re: The plot thickens

[dorianegray.livejournal.com]

Neil says that anything he longs to do is a sin; therefore, if he does anything he longs to do, he's sinning. Also, longing to do something is a sin, because he also says that everything he's ever done or will do (which includes longing) is a sin.

So, are we going absolute here? Is "anything that Neil Tennant has ever done, ever wanted to do, or ever will do" the absolute definition of sin? If so, most of us are probably dammed for things like eating and sleeping - and will all be damned for dying!

But if that definition applies only to Neil himself, logic dictates that the rest of us also get to define our own sins. Which leads to the uncomfortable conclusion that the psychopathic paedophile is not sinning, because he sees nothing wrong with his actions.

Perhaps sin is defined by consensus? Majority vote? Arbitrary decision of a (some, fewer or many) god(s)? Sticking a pin in a list?

Now you're making my head hurt.

Re: The plot thickens

[maradydd.livejournal.com]

Yes, and there's the question -- does the definition apply only to Neil, or is Neil the definer of sin for all humanity? This is difficult, because anything that Neil longs to do, he can only do himself; i.e., Neil can eat breakfast, but I cannot eat breakfast for him. Is engaging in the act of breakfast-eating a sin, or is it restricted to specifically the act of breakfast-eating that feeds Neil?

On the other hand, if Neil Tennant wants to feed me breakfast, and I have breakfast, have I sinned? Now I'm making my own head hurt.

(I feel like I'm skirting giddily close to proclaiming that Neil Tennant will die for our sins. And I'd like to stay far, far away from the idea of the second coming of Neil, thanks very much.)

Re: The plot thickens

[dorianegray.livejournal.com]

Eek.

Okay. Anything Neil has done is probably only a sin for him, because anyone else would do it not quite the same. Neil might have, say, eaten cornflakes at 6am, facing south, in a damp but warm environment, while wearing only a hat...etc. etc. So that's a sin. But I have eaten toast with cheese at 8.03am, facing southwest, in a dry and vaguely chilly environment, while fully dressed... So that's not a sin (or at least, not the same sin).

However. If Neil longs to eat breakfast under the circumstances that I eat breakfast - which, to be super-exact, would require him to long to eat breakfast in my house, as me - which basically requires him to long to be me...well, longing to be me is a sin (because it's Neil longing to do it). But me, eating breakfast, is not a sin, because I do not long to be me, I am me. I'm not Neil longing to be me, eating breakfast in my house under my specific circumstances.

So it can be argued that yes, Neil is the definer of sin for all humanity - but in order for our longings to exactly conform to his longings, he must become us, or we must become him, which is I suppose possible, but unlikely to vanishing point.

(And if he does die for our sins, that becomes a sin too!)

So we're probably reasonably safe.

I LOVE THIS SONG!

[extropic-artist.livejournal.com]

I remember hearing this when I was in junior-high (when it first came out), I love it then (it speaks right to someone whose in the grips of coming to understand the evils of Catholicism), and I still love it. It got me into the Pet Shop Boys for awhile, although it really ended up being the only song of theirs I really liked.

...the music video is sort of, *meh*.
Kind of like a bunch of moody art students on valium.

That said the Catholic imagery is decent, and the chick with the Tina Turner hair and whipped cream all over her face rocks!! LOL!

Re: I LOVE THIS SONG!

[maradydd.livejournal.com]

I can't imagine you wouldn't like "Opportunities." I mean, with a refrain like "I've got the brains, you've got the looks -- let's make lots of money..."

Re: I LOVE THIS SONG!

[extropic-artist.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I forgot about that song. I liked that one too (along with others) although not nearly as much as "Its a Sin". Believe it or not, but I've never really been all that interested in money -- at least never as much as I've been into philosophy, politics, religion, science, etc...

(...and actually, in recent years I've moved away from Objectivist-style Libertarianism as a political and social philosophy -- bet you weren't expecting to hear that ;-))

Re: I LOVE THIS SONG!

[maradydd.livejournal.com]

in recent years I've moved away from Objectivist-style Libertarianism as a political and social philosophy

Okay, now this is an explanation I have to hear. *buys you coffee, sits you down, and waits for an answer* ;)

political theory in a teeny-tiny nutshell

[extropic-artist.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm.... well, the terse, shallow, and unsatisfactory answer is that:
A) Objectivism has a critical error in one of its central premises -- mainly the idea that humans are born Tabula Rasa. This I totally disagree with. Human beings are animals with the same instincts and hormones as any other animal. The fact that we can override much of this through the conscious application of our intelligence does not change the fact that we have it to begin with, and undercuts Rand's claims that 1)reason is the only tool that humans have for survival, and 2) the claim that any and all negative or harmful tendencies the individual has exist due to the conscious acceptance of corrupt philosophies by the individual (I believe these points are made in Philosophy, Who Needs It? amongst other places). This error in part, I believe, can be contributed to the fact that Rand knew next to nothing about evolutionary theory (I think it is in the Playboy interview she mentions this, but I could be wrong). If true, this is, btw, a completely inexcusable intellectual error on the part of any twentieth-century philosopher, but I digress.

B) Lassie fair (sp?) libertarianism is as unworkable in real practice as socialism is, largely because the masses cannot be trusted to take care of themselves. They can and will be swayed by charismatic demagogues, hormones, appeals to fear/emotion/envy, personal apathy, and general ignorance. Whether or not it is their responsibility to overcome all of these hurtles is besides the point, the fact of the matter is that they wont -- and the powers-that-be, namely the large corporate interests and the politicians they own, will do everything in their power to make sure this situation worsens dramatically (and these places are run by people a lot more competent than Jim Taggart). In an isolated, Gault's-Gultch type self-sustaining commune, where exceptional people are hand-picked and join only after understanding fully their rights and responsibilities, a lassie fair system could work in theory. However, I am convinced that given the state of the human animal, anything less than this is doomed to failure.


...any more detailed explanation will either require sitting down with me over real coffee, or me writing a short essay (which I'm not at all opposed to doing, the exercise would help me straighten out some arguments) sometime when I have reference material and am not currently at work ;-)

Re: political theory in a teeny-tiny nutshell

[maradydd.livejournal.com]

I can definitely understand what you're moving away from, and it dovetails nicely with a lot of the practical issues I've had as well. (I have to cut Rand a little slack where evolutionary theory is concerned; bear in mind that Watson and Crick were, what, 1954? and Atlas Shrugged came out in 1957; not to mention that all through the 60s, Skinnerian behaviourism ruled the land of psychology, and a lot of what we've discovered about humans and instinct has been in the last 20 years or thereabouts. But that's neither here nor there.)

Actually, I was more interested in what you're moving toward, but that can wait for coffee. :)