Bureaucrats

I hate bureaucrats.  Really.  I don't hate people that hurt me.  I don't hate those that are simply different from me.  I do hate bureaucrats.  Here's the deal: a bureaucrat has a very simple job: follow a policy blindly.  Most of it's job is to push paperwork and make sure all of the forms are properly filled out.  I could save our government and corporations billions annually by replacing them with computers, because to be perfectly honest, a computer can do their job better and costs much less.

My problem with them is thus: as a human, we have this capacity to THINK, to REASON, and to ADAPT.  These three concepts are alien to the bureaucrat.  It does not think, it does not reason, and it certainly does not adapt.  It blindly memorizes rules and follows them.  That they call themselves human is actually rather disgusting.

I'm not saying I hate people with bureaucratic jobs; you do what you have to do to survive (though I would have offed myself instead), but rather those who are legitimately limited to that mentality, who sincerely  believe that a rule or policy, if implemented without exception, servers some greater good.  I'm talking about someone who, if their boss said that Thursday was Jacket Thursday and they must where a jacket at all times, would actually do so in 100+ degree heat.  

Such a person is either sick, mentally handicap, or so insanely consumed by fear that nothing else matters.  What happens, however, when said person is put in charge of something?  It expects the same thoughtless devotion it showed.  It can't explain WHY the rule is needed, it just knows it's needed, and thus it shall be.

These things have two major flaws when put in charge of something.  First, it does not question the motivation of its master, or the reason for the rule.  It simply enforces it blindly, leaving it nothing but a tool for those that may seek to extort others for their own prosperity (or pleasure).  Second, it thinks that a title or position suddenly demands respect and obedience.  Respect is earned, not given, and I've yet to meet such a creature worthy of any respect, regardless of title.  As for obedience, I'm not a slave, I do as I dear and accept the consequences knowing the possible repercussions (which thus far have been limited to a couple of conspiracies, wrist slapping, and self-destructive criticizing).  

Fortunately there's a ceiling for this creature.  It will never be at the top of the ladder, it will never achieve anything meaningful, it will only succeed in fulfilling it's self-important purpose.  And should anything happen that shakes up the status quot...  Well, they won't last long, will they?

Morality

There's a New York Times opinion piece floating around Facebook.  Part of me agrees with it, in part, while part of me wants to mark it as spam, primarily because of the title.  The piece revolves around people not believing in "moral facts."  There is a great deal of problems with the piece, especially the idea of "moral facts."

To start with, we need to understand the objective and subjective space, and the definition of morality.  The prior is easy, but the latter is still a matter of some debate.  Subjective space is what we see, think, feel, and in every way perceive the world.  Objective space is what's left when you take yourself out of the equation and is, arguably, impossible for us to actually obtain.  Who's to say this isn't just some dream?

Morality, on the other hand, can be defined a number of ways.  There are divisive ways, such as by religious laws, which seem to serve as the majority of morality in America and the middle east.  Then, there's also my definition, which is simple and perhaps the oldest: treat others how you would want to be treated.  This relies on no mythology, no scripture, and applies equally regardless of background.  The only contention is when you want to be treated differently than someone else, which seldom actually amounts to much drama, as the basics are rather universal.

What is a fact?  A fact is a unit of information found in the objective space.  The question of whether or not something is a fact can be debated, as is currently the status of evolution and global warming, but the idea of what makes a fact is simple: it is, independent of perspective, creed, or opinion.  Stars produce radiation is a fact.  The sky is blue is not.  Why?  Is it blue on Mars?  What about Jupiter?  Is it blue to someone who is bichromatic and can't see the same colors as "normal" people?

This is what muddies the waters.  Most people would say that the sky being blue is a fact.  I'm sorry, it isn't, mostly because it is a vague, generalized statement that relies on perception.  But the statement is TRUE.  At least, it's true to most people.  Being true does not make it a fact.  What makes it true?  It fits all of the criteria of analysis in the subjective space (and elements of it can not withstand objective analysis, as it is equally correct to say that the sky is WHITE at about 8000K based on a black-body radiation curve.  This is closer to a fact.  The fact would be that the light filtering from the sun at this particular moment in this particular location from this particular direction through this particular lens has a radiation distribution curve as defined as follows...  Do you see the difference?  It is specific, and objective, as it removes the subjective references as much as is humanly possible.

So, it thereby stands, that a statement can be true but not a fact, and that truth and morality are both matters of a subjective space rather than objective, the realm of facts.  It is therefore correct to state that there ARE NO MORAL FACTS.  With this statement I agree completely, but it is also misleading, as most people reading don't understand everything I've just written.

The part I agree about is the issue the author takes with the polar, binary categorization of information into facts and opinions.  That's like saying an object is either hot or round, or bright or brown,  You can not compare information in the objective space relative to a subjective space in a binary fashion!  Let me elaborate.

I mentioned earlier about the blue sky.  It isn't a fact, but it is true.  I could argue that it's an opinion, but really that's a silly argument, for to most readers, it's not an opinion.  A large number of people agree to this statement: it is true to them.  Because it's true to so many, and such a fundamental, seemingly indisputable truth, to call is an opinion is, frankly, insulting.  Here's a the difference:  when the same data is processed by numerous similar subjective entities and they all arrive at a similar conclusion, this is a truth, at least to that group.  If one entity were to say that the sky is pretty, and everyone agreed, it would also be a truth.  Most likely there would be a large deviation in the validity of that statement, as it is highly subjective and relies on concepts that are not physiological constants among the group, ultimately rendering it an opinion.

There are moral truths, but there are no moral facts.  It is wrong to take the life of a person who is guilty of no offence is one such truth.  The golden rule I mentioned earlier is another.  Homosexuality (polygamy, sex before marriage, illicit drug usage, speeding) is wrong is moral opinion.  The difference: the vast majority of reasonable people will agree with the prior, but not so with the latter.  But none of them are facts.

Primal Pt. 1

We humans like to distinguish ourselves from our fellow animals.  We're sooo much more intelligent, sooo much more civilized.  Yet, despite the presumed intellect and largely arbitrary set of rules we call civilization, we are all still primarily governed by the same chemical, basic forces that govern every animal around us to some degree.  We feel the same emotions, and at some level think the same way.

Some of these basic impulses and emotions are productive, even in our machine-mad society.  Love, empathy, compassion: all serve to bind us together and temper our self-centered natures.  Others, however, are outmoded and, to a large degree, dangerous.  Think of the deer in the headlights.  Do would that dear honestly just stand there and get hit if it wasn't scared shitless at that moment?  A natural response to loud unknown object is run, as any hunter can attest.  Fear is one of those emotions that, if we were as smart as deer, would be useful.  For example, that cliff seems dangerous, stay away from the edge.  We don't need fear anymore, but it's still a major influence in our lives.

I was a very fearful child.  Not in a buggyman, monsters, or such sort of way, but instead constantly on guard and awaiting danger.  How this happened I'm not sure.  The knife fights, the bullying, and waking up to a knife near my throat held by a psychopath didn't help, but there's a reason I woke up when I heard his breath.  I had a heard time catching a ball I would cower from, or playing on play sets I was afraid of falling off of (gravity wasn't my friend).

As I grew older, I can to a conscious understating that the fear was negatively affecting my life.  As I matured and gained more confidence in my own abilities, fear subsided and was replaced with a combination of primal, instinctual alertness, and constant calculation.  Eventually I got to the point where some people were mortified to ride in a car with me, as I seemed to make hundreds of split second close calls (all calculated to be really safe, as my accident record can attest).

I soon came to realize, unfortunately, that most of the world's population isn't like me (OK, to be honest I realized this at about two years old), and is primarily motivated by, constantly reacting to, and generally being controlled by fear.  Fear is now the currency by which power is purchased.  Fear is now the means by which the sheep are kept herded, safe from the wolves (though the shepherd eats well).

The obvious demonstration of this is 9/11.  The actual loss of life on that day from the attacks pales in comparison to the loss of life on American road ways due to automobile crashes during that week, and is insignificant compared to the same over any given year.  Yet, America pored in money and resources to destroy freedoms and fight wars overseas that saw stable, though autocratic governments overthrown and replaced with near anarchy (the terrorists we were (are) fighting are the most organized groups left).  We reacted blindly, stupidly, fearfully.  We saw a fight-or-flight juncture, and chose fight.  Nobody thought that statistically, that money would be better served by providing counseling to at-risk youth (a problem still far more deadly to Americans than terrorists).

The not-so-obvious demonstration of fear controlling the minds of the American population is the current debates, laws, and court proceedings regarding "abnormal" gender.  I'm grouping a lot into this category, but I believe it comes down to this one word: gender.  Why would someone be afraid of a gay couple showing affection, or getting married?  A trans person using the same restroom?  The kid next door who you're not sure is a boy or a girl playing with your kid?

Fundamentally, there are three reasons.  First, aspects of that person could remind you of aspects of yourself you aren't comfortable. Maybe you are of similar gender or sexuality, but have chosen to suppress your identity instead of expressing it.  You're afraid of how this person makes you feel, you're ashamed.  Otherwise, it could be more basic.  Maybe you, like most animals, are afraid of things that are new, different, and you don't fully understand.  In this case you don't like the "other' because they are different, and no other reason.  Finally, you could simply be too stupid to have an original thought and have been trained to react this way to the given stimulus.  I used to think this was the case most of the time, I've chosen to believe humanity has more potential than that.

Gender is a word most people don't get.  It really isn't just a socially acceptable way to refer to a person's sex in mixed company or around children.  Sex is a matter of biology: the organs you have.  Gender, on the other hand, is an expression of yourself.  I prefer to use the words masculine and feminine when referring to gender, male and female when referring to sex.

Among the world's population, over 99% fit into a binary sex categorization.  There are some hermaphrodites, and numerous other conditions that can cause sex to not be simply male or female, but for most there are only two camps.  Gender, on the other hand, is made binary be social pressures, stereotypes, and training.  Males, from a young age, are expected to act a certain way, play with certain toys, like certain clothes, and generally be "boys."  Females have their own, often opposite qualifications.  When someone doesn't fit into the mold, they are chastised (overtly or implicitly), demeaned, or excluded.  If they fit into the opposite camp than their sex would dictate, they are considered transgender (a word I HATE).  This can work to varying degrees, from "tom boy," or "butch," to full on identity (a female considering themselves a boy or vise verse).  At the most extreme side, it leads to surgery and hormone therapy to change their apparent sex.

What would such a person do if they weren't taught that boys do this and girls do that?  Does a male who identifies as female really hate their penis and want it cut off, or is that simply a step to help them be physically the way they feel they should be?  What if it's OK to be feminine and have a penis?

So what does this have to do with sexual orientation (which I grouped into it)?  I have a theory regarding sexual orientation.  While we are primally attracted to certain sexual features, we form relationships not out of whether or not someone possesses the right proportion of said features, but out of how they express their gender.  A masculine male is attracted to a feminine female in the "typical" scenario.  In homosexual relationships, you still most often see the two genders: masculine and feminine.  So, it can be said that homosexuality is as much a gender expression as sexual preference.  Indeed, the PUBLIC display is entirely gender.  When you, the reader (Unless you are gay) think of a gay man, you probably think of the stereotype feminine who is great with a wardrobe and colors.  There are an equal number of "invisible" gay men who act like straight men but prefer sex with men (usually feminine men).

Despite the considerable digression, my message is really a short one.  There's no reason to hate these people, or shit on their liberties.  In fact, there's no reason to even single-out them.  A man on the street being gay doesn't affect the straight man in the least, so why does it matter at all?  Ultimately, it doesn't, but in our society we must fear them.  Why is a matter of the individual, but as a whole the issue is the society.  The root of the issue, I'm convinced, is fear.  We should not be afraid to be who we are, regardless of where that puts us in the gender spectrum (or political spectrum, or the optical spectrum...).  We should not be afraid of someone because they are different.  We should embrace them and understand that our differences make us stronger.