What is the Good really for?
1)The problem of the really good is a deep problem of direction
2) What goodness itself is relatively simple. It is the demand and the ability to reach into others lives, and enrich them.
3)on makes therefore connections for and across others- connections which are actual (and not merely notional), and which will allow that others a greater series of options and possibility for what they do and when.
4)Goodness is therefore the ach servant: But a wed serving –for in enriching it is a servant that never does quite what its is told. It is always at it, always contacting, always creating. It cannot be trusted to stay still, and stay in one place.
5)It cannot be allowed a free hand, as if it were, where the heck wood it then go?
6) Goodness is therefore really weird, it explode, across a world surely.. but then how does one action it? And what des it itself contain?
7)It clearly cannot be held down in a single personality. No human can be in themselves good, as goodness registers across humans, and adds to where they are.
8)Goodness might radiate out from humans, allowing challenges and enabling, and yet it does not belong to anyone as such
9) Or perhaps better, it conjoins facets in one human which opens them into another. That is which allows another to change what and where they are.
10)This chances (which is also a challenge0 will then
11) To contain it might be complex: One might, in the face of what is good attempt to shout as it into oblivion and order. One might therefore attach and re attack it- and hope that is stops bleeding across the extra dimensions of ones mind. The trouble is of course that it is conjurable Each time you go for it, it challenges the rules, and one ends up attacking something different, and configuring ones respect for what is good in itself.
12)Perhaps one can contain nit with money, but then that is a problem Money as a facsimile of the good it takes it enabling and kicks out the understanding and the tailoring element. It is good without the other human being good (and yet never owning it). Money by contrast is of course owned,, and only enriches the owner. They might give it way- but then there are usually strings attached in that giving.
13)Money therefore is pitched into half the same landscape of goodness (it is irruptive as well) and yet is the full enemy of the good for itself.
14) The Good would rather make proper use of what one already has. The is thee is a tendency in being good to come from somewhere, come from a practicable live. This life unwanted bleeds into the ability to help.
15) Where one is good is therefore is moving out from where one is.
16)this last fact places up no goodness a science of direction and conjure.
17) There are two clear directions to goodness:
18)It can follow the Boffin’s way of being eruptive oddity.
19) That is it can be seen in the never quiet being aright of their actions.
20) They have become into money, and want to do tight by it (and therefore by their dead masters whims). And yet their cart is old and their intentions noble and kind.
21) More than that goodness which so irrupts is essentially hidden and secret or perhaps sewing. The Boffins are an odd collection of vice and other vice – prides and whims which lack the pretence of the good: They are never wholly good. It is merely that they end up being as good, as the good action, in allowing other also to act enrich themselves, and so grow, while the ret of what they are, stays within the rubbish.
22)Goodness is therefore not central, and yet it will become in time the dominate partner – the that which grows challenges and changes a mind. The that which allows it to be as it might be.
23)Goodness is therefore the sewing of the mind into being better or different or enricher than it had otherwise been.
24)However there is another possible direction to what is good. Another possible path. One might be good by deliberately holding oneself down n the realm of the good.
25) One might be poor, and have more children than one can cope with oneself (and no money), and yet one will b determinedly good and kind.
26)However there is in such goodness an oddity. One does not seem to want to trust ones own life as good. One is therefore always holding down a goodness to an abstract point.], beyond what one is.
27)Goodness as an abstract point is then capable not only of destroying ones own nature and undermining ones own world.
28) But also it has a problem with its value. For what good is the abstract good? Of beet how can it take on this dimension of abstraction?
29) It can only do so if it includes within itself a presentiment of norms. The role of these norms it to make good the everyday which the good would otherwise lack in the abstract.
30) One becomes then good on the level of the society or the community or as a rich persona helping the poor: to be good becomes a mere able or a life choice. It looses then its special place within a mind.
31)The difference between these two is that the former is what no one can lay claim to. One is good as a point of journey in a journeying, one is good by what one is, and inspire of others sneer. The latter is what is meant by the good individual. The one who sacrifices what they are for a morality. The one who no doubt does old, and yet that goodness is limited and seldom explodes. It lies limited because it is defined to be held within institutions and relations and never allowed out of these holders.
32)It is therefore riveted into certain places- charities and far off lands, and lacks the real power of goodness: the power to turn up uninvited the power to take people into he unawares, and upon a journey
33)Those who would be good therefore have the whiff of hypocrisy around their attempts – a whiff which remains even when unjustified, as it is a necessary by product (if no more) of the attempt to extend ones orbit self consciously (literally as this is how one is conscious of oneself) into other dimensions and minds.
34)But them what ones a domestic house do where the cart of goodness turns up, intent of doing the right thing.
35)Well one might hide, but then goodness does not know to go away. One dos not get rid of it that way.
36) The would be friend or lover of the house, then man caught in his own desire can do noting – he is rendered powerless.
37) But the others, the odd trinity of Wilfer – face expressions, and expressed to?
38)It is clear that the expressed to must be sent out. Goodness as after all caught up in receiving. But then such an individual will not be able to limit goodness or not directly. All they will do is feel hat somehow they are ancillary in the exchange. What is being given s not given to them: it is giving after all to everyone or to some else: it is not a particular things –an expression one ought to be learning and reading.
39) Goodness is at once too bland for those who are reading expressions to copy. it is too clear: Or else it dos not concern them, as it is about other than they. They hope to be an individual within their reading. That is they hope to create a dimension in which their mind is resolved. They do not really understand therefore the explosion beyond minds/
40)Nor can the body fare much better. It likewise has very little to say to goodness itself. It is merely a presence – it just their. All it will do is attack the expressed to. It knows that somehow between what it is the frame for the expression, and the reading of that expression in another the domain or the good lies (and though to be respected and respected by everyone one). To attack the reader the expressed to in the name of the Boffins, in the name of the good, is therefore to include them
41) But what of the expression itself. It might like to reject he good. I is after all necessarily a Coquette and an ornament. Why else should it not reject the goodness?
42)And yet that ability to reach into other and influence them gently, is just what this coquette loves to do and be. it sees then something more in the goodness.
43) It sees I their actual selfless as the are being good something it might be, or something that reflects what it is and extends it back into itself.
44) it understands therefore their genuineness – even as it understand where and what they are doing. it sees their worth (even though it knows that as it an expression it has other claims it plays: They are good on the landscape it is, and is not – necessarily good).
45) It therefore manipulated and inhabits where they can only enter in kindness.
46) However seeing that kindness (the empathy of an expression), it knows goodness.
47) However the math is not perfect or better, goodness includes within the family circle the missing man – the lost husband and alive lodger.
48) Goodness will include this man as a mutual friend (which hit of course it names). The that is it includes the mysteries point of exchange) the mutuality whose nature has not be as yet defined or resolved.
49)There is an exchange somewhere and with something, beyond mere money, but it I not clear what.
50)The bluff confidence of the good then drags this exchange into he scene, and forces everyone to befriend this odd stranger- this root beyond the family.
51)The Good therefore is not merely the appeal to the between of the expression, which conjures p presences in a glance, but also that odd unresolved goodness to come. The transforming power f the mutual to move beyond the present, where it is in the expressions .
52)To blast a pathos goodness becomes therefore to open an exchange between the framers of the moment, and the friend who tumbles in from elsewhere, and who is a mystery.
53)At its deepest level (the Boffins heart) goodness is this exchange, and conjoining. On the one side lies expression which wants the moment and wants the resolution on the moment , and the creation of an exchange here and how. One the other side lies that who promise is always of what is to come, and who eludes or is odd or mysteries in the moment (and is so because it could in another world as a another person, as Harmon claim the moment for its own and own it completely): It power lies in not doing that).
54) Goodness is therefore the power or the simply trust that conjoins these two and forces them not a relation or rather simply expects that they will relate, that everything will be alright in a deep sense.
55) This factor of course has then the effect that the expression will attempt to capture its anathema the friend in an untruth(knowing the Boffins for ages),and so label it and so despise it as a liar. The mutual avoids this trap (although as Harmon it has of course known the Boffins before and forever ).
56)That is the goodness actual risk something here. The mutual of the friend can simply claim the expression as its own (and do so in the name or guise of the good). It could do: We all express don’t we? It the abstract level therefore the coquette f the expression is that which that which defines levels between us all as an automatic right to. It ca simply subsume it, and force it them to behave itself, and to be as it is.
57)It could do this (the rights of humans which we can al cite, and all ignore) is always possibility: that is the abstract world of good is always open and clear to us ll. Always a right we might want to claim.
58) However that other goodness which engages, and which is happy to find it own level demands a far more complex exchange. The Expression but come in itself to vale what it does not contain or frame – the tumbling good from outside which is mere a lodger in what it knows.
59)It is on this relation this double think of rights unclaimed and so owned both the Mutual friend but also the power of goodness as mutuality turns.