Any culture has these basic 'This is a Human' plan. We are raised, we grow, and we become 'Good Human'. But I think that we are doing it incorrectly. Because we constantly have these rules, we update them, and adapt them as we change as a society, and as a people. Pre-Bibical mass duplication (printing of the bible) stoning, hanging (even post), death through dueling was all perfectly acceptable. Then we updated.
We are at a point now where we are as liberal as we're going to get, in South Africa, anyway. I'm fairly certain I could win in the Constitutional court that I should be allowed to walk around naked if I should so want. But what are all these laws for? Why do we have them? What exactly does law do? Well one thing that it does is (and this is the only area I'm interested in this blog, so those of you already adding 'what law does' to your list of things to argue about, fuck off) or should I say, it's designed to do, is to control our Human nature.
And it is here that we find the paradox. It is the Emotion versus the State. In nature animals have emotional wants and needs. To be part of a pack, to mate, to eat, to perhaps bond for life. Those emotions are kept in check by natural means: You can't shag anyone when you're horney because A: You only get horney when someone is in heat, and B: the alpha male of the pack will fuck you up first (Bonobo's, Dolphins, and that weird type of sloth are except from this). Or in other cases, you can't have the desire to mate, because you don't have a penis (or vagina or both). It's fairly straight forward. Females only become aroused (generally, stop looking for holes in my argument...[har har] fuck off) when they come into heat. How easy would that be?
Humans however started out like all the other wild life (sorry Christians and others, if you're right then I'm just stupid and I apologize) and so the dominate alpha male could fend off the horney guys and homosexuality wasn't a word, just a good time with the guys (bonobo's engage in all kinds of kinky sex acts, but unless eek is their word for gay homosexuality doesn't exist for them either, they just know how to have a good time). But as we grew dominate over the animals and as the need to settle down developed (through agricultural discoveries) our numbers grew and our means of control changed.
For millenia, violence prevailed. Want something take it. If the owner disagrees club one another to death. Then family developed and inter-family marriages happened. And suddenly we had to learn self control. Where and when we decided 'mine' is 'mine' and won't be shared I do not know, but that is - in my humble opinion - the root of all evil. I suppose it came naturally. The lazy in the tribe would benefit from the hard-working and so the hard-working would get pissed off. Why should I, Ug, spend (why are cavemen always called Ug, Org, Og, Zog, or Arg?)... let me rephrase: Why should I, Mammothhunterkillerwithonespearwhilstshaggingchiefswife, why should I - have the share the meat that I killed with Ipaintalldayandmakeprettypicturesandsleptwiththechiefswifeyesterday? After all, he just says he made the mammoths appear. Hmmm. It is mine now. And if he tries to take it, I shall fuck him up.
And so the lazy ones realized - shit we need a plan, we're lazy and still thin. Lets invent law. Now Jared Diamond presents a much clearer argument, but I've wildly summarized it in these above paragraphs. Laws came (as did writing) to ensure that what Mammothhunterkillerwithonespearwhilstshaggingchiefswife did was equally measured next to the lazy Ipaintalldayandmakeprettypicturesandsleptwiththechiefswifeyesterday. In doing so a kind of harmony was restored to the tribe. And once you have a rule for one thing, the next set of fifty (forget ten) is so much easier.
'He did what? Right! Henceforth it is illegal to shit on another mans sleeping mat.' Advance forward 12 000 years and this rule is still in effect. It is illegal in almost all countries of the world to defacate on another persons property. Are we not advance!
What is my point? Well as a society we've become so obsessed about creating rules that govern our interactions with society (other humans) that the religions stepped in and developed some rules about how we interact with ourselves - but still on a socially acceptable level. There are many religious rules about how we should be kind, compassionate, love one another (plutonically) and so forth. So we spend our lives trying to A: learn all the rules, B: Follow those rules, C: Breaking the rules and then looking for rules to hide behind, D: Inventing new rules, and E: Changing the rules.
I have been told that I over-analyize my thoughts. That I look to deep. I've been told that it's bad not the analyize your thoughts and just act. I've been told that sometimes you just have to act. And that other times you just have to take it.
Why do we spend all our time trying to learn rules for something that we made up, as opposed to understanding our fundamental natures? We don't have rules on love. Why? Because we forgot about the important things - the fundamentals, and just made some rules about who can love who, how, when, and for how much. There are literally hundreds of rules and regulations on the act of sex. Mentally disabled people cannot have sex - ever. It's considered rape. Even if they have sex with one another. You can't have sex with someone in a coma, it's rape (non-consentual even it's your husband/wife/life partner). You can't have sex in public, even through every single one of us on the planet is a direct result of two people having sex.
What though are the rules on why you want to have sex in the first place? Rule out external influences like peer pressure, alcohol, drugs etc. What draws two people together to have sex (in the cerebral sense) and what then makes them want to stay together (in the cerebral sense). The answer is sadly: nothing. We are acting on chemical stimulants. In a non-externally induced sense of arrousal our bodies are reacting to instinctual urges. (cerebrally we can choose not to act on those instincts) but physically it's not our brains (higher functions - the arrogance of calling it that) it's our genetic make-up (including but not limited to DNA, RNA, Prions, etc).
Then you throw into that bag all the mental baggage that comes with it. If someone was raped, they are arroused but mentally withdrawn perhaps. If someone is clingy then post sex they'll want to hang around, drawing mental energy from their partner in a vain attempt to fill their own lost energy. Why don't we have rules for these? Some guide or training session that every human (we are after all the same at birth) should go through. I'm not talking sex education here, I'm talking self awareness education. Develope the abilities of the individual to understand how their brain is working first. Once you know - Oh shit, I'm a needy person. Then you can work on changing that. If however you go through life concerned about paying your taxes on time, you'll never understand why your husband left you, or why your son thinks you're a demented old cow.
I think that we as humans grew up too quickly, and found a 'quick' fix far to easily in the form of social pressure to contrain and trap our inner Emotional states. We couldn't handle it so we worked around it. And then got trapped in the working around. Why is my seven year old crying when I won't buy him a sweet? He's a greedy pig. No. There may be far more to it than that. Imagine if from the ages of six we began helping children to explore emotions and to learn how to express themselves? By the time they reach puberty and we're teaching them sex education it is not a taboo, it's merely another part of being human - one that they are better prepared for, because it is not seen as something evil.
What a world. And those of you who say that kids are not prepared for it? Really? How do you know unless you try. Actually... fuck off, I don't like the way you think you fucking rules lawyer. Fuck off to your own little corner and go feel guilty about wanking this morning or whatever it is you do to survive the social pressure you put on yourself.
Anyway, my whole point of this long post is that what I've realized from my dilemma about relationships is that you can think too much about them, not enough about them, you can choose to make a choice or not. You can weigh up the 'pro's' and 'cons' and you can make lists and pie-charts (not that I've done these). In the end all you can do is make a decision and hope it's the right one. You can't take another persons feelings into account, you don't know what they are, and the sad truth is, you don't really know what your own are either. You only think you know.
I've realized it is not the little things, or the big things, (smoking or farting in church or whatever) it isn't about the history or the good times and the bad times. It is about what you feel. And since we are inadequetly trained on how to evaluate those feelings in terms of quantitative reasons for existance, all you are really left with is the 'Human Paradox' which is to follow social rules and norms, or to follow your own fucked up emotional urges. The two are very often in complete opposition to one another. One is for the good of others, and the other is for the good of yourself. We don't have rules on when which one should take precidence.
I'm going to called this the Human Paradox and I've just realized I've left off the one part that makes us more 'Human'. The concept of doing things for others. Self-sacrifice. I think we've taken this concept too far. The idea that one man might sacrifice himself to save others (or everyone) is as far as I'm concerned a really great idea for the lazy people to send stupid people out to die. It's become as entrentched in our 'How to be Human' teachings. I think self-sacrifice is fine if a horde of evil zombies is threating to eat the last surviving colony of humans. I don't think it's a good or justifiable idea for one human to surrender a part of themselves for another - for the sake of
So the idea of curbing your emotions for the sake of your sister who hates to see you publically kiss your boyfriend (mine is awesome, so doesn't and if she does she can fuck off and die :p). Because it upsets her? Because that then upsets your mother? Or your own boyfriend? Or girlfriend, or itfriend. We have become far to intolerant of one anothers personal emotions and I believe ultimately that is a result of us not understanding ourselves first, and then making up rules to cover it up.
I know this is a long one, and everyone who reads this to the end will get a cookie. So where does that leave me and my world? Just as frustrated and irratated and deflated as before... kinda. At least now I know: We don't have rules for this kind of stuff, and that it is a good thing. And the rules that we do have, shouldn't apply because they're based on false precepts. I am me. Only one person can tell me what I want, what I don't want, and what I should want. Apparently thats: Steven Mulp of 54 Jerry Lane, Crovenfield, Maine, USA. It's me. Will that stop me from writing these blogs... nope sorry. Will that answer stop me from questioning everything I do? Nope. So what has it achieved? What is the payoff for these last couple hundred thousand words? I've learned that there should be no rules when it comes to emotional internal me states. Only theories of what I feel to be right and wrong. Those theories need to be interrogated in each circumstance, need to be maliable, need to be adaptable, and most importantly of all, need to be understand.
So here is to my next blog - the Theory of Guy, according to Guy, by Guy... for Guy. Dedicated to Guy. Preface, introduction, prologue, and preamble by Guy, with extracts from Guy. It will however contain - I hope - significant contributions from people not called Guy...
This weeks question then is - do you have theories for yourself and where did you theories come from?
7 comments:
On the idea human nature being a Paradox: Here I would say that we are not paradoxical so much as have an array of interests which compete with each other for 'mind time'. Sometimes these interests are mutually contradictory, sometimes they are not; although these interests are in flux depending on the needs/urges/biology of the 'ape' we drive around in.
With respect to 'laws' and the willingness to sacrifice self for the 'group'. Here I propose that 'actually' we ARE social apes, and in that we often place the interests of the group above our individual interests. This is by no means a justification for such behaviour - it is an is. Thus social as we are, within virtually any system of authority (i.e. that of the Romans for example) we would be most likely follow that system of law; even if that system is bad, brutal, savage... or whatever. This is because being social is something most of 'us' want enough of the time - and in this need/desire/interest to live socially we sacrifice part of ourselves to this want.
Essentially I am saying we humans -generally speaking - have an emotional need for the social and what it offers. We humans mostly (at least) like some of each other 'enough' to give of ourselves to exist socially. Self-sacrifice is an extreme extension of this feature... Here we value someone else or the group higher than we value the self. Why? My fallback position is that we 'biologically' have a strong enough social drive to make the aforementioned sometimes and in some contexts the case.
Why should this be so? This question is in biology/anthropology answered in an examination of the evolution of our species, it is really an answer to the question how we have come to be this why (some of the time). The how does not answer the why though, in that 'why should we continue to be this way' is not herein addressed. Rather is a we simply do continue in this manner as such.
Acceptability is a factor of the time we live in, dependent on our history as an individual within a broader cultural history. Change might be a factor of our desire for the social and to prosper therein... such that we seek ways of improving our lot as much as possible whilst maintaining the social as such... in this desire fairness norms and 'justice' arise. Albeit in a very haphazard and piece-meal fashion, with false starts and all too often back-tracking.
I think paradox is a result of the fact that individual interests compete with social interests both on an economic and psychological level. This interaction and the attempts at managing it are the birth place of law.
With the sex talk: Perhaps 'the fear' is that sex in public or in the work place would interfere too much with doing the work that society needs. That the energy given up to sex would better serve the group in other ways thus it is restricted to particular contexts.
Some thoughts
I think everyone has a theory. :)
Personally I blame my father probably for a large portion of mine, as he truly was a very big influence on my life and my way of thinking. He taught me to always look at the context - something I fail dismally at in most cases. Oh, and to appreciate the lovely conundrum in a puzzle in an enigma that is a human being.
I think what I find most fascinating is that societies always tend to try to find balances, and at various stages swing too far to the rules side and then swing too far too the "anything goes" side. It's like our little human situation can never find a perfect balance. We're always overcompensating for something :)
Oh - I disagree with you on one thing. The inital attraction in a relationship I agree is a chemical one - but after that there is a cerebral bond that does enter into it. Though we can debate that some other time.
What Marc said :)
Yeah, what Marc said.
Guy, if we had to assume for the sake of argument that all of our emotions are determined genetically, where would that leave your search for the reasons you have those emotions? Because there's a very strong likelihood that our core personalities are formed before birth, and that only major traumatic incidents during childhood can affect that personality.
Most people hate that idea, but the science behind it is looking better every day.
If true, it means any post hoc analysis of your emotions is pure rationalization - in some examples, you'd be seeking legitimacy for something you've already decided.
Also, here's a notion to consider - I read about it the other day and it seems fairly useful :
When something happens, we have a reaction. That's how we feel about something. However, our response to that event may or may not be governed by that reaction. It may, instead, be governed by our (hypothetical) desire not to cause harm to others, not to hurt their feelings, etc.
You've demonstrated this yourself with your pretending.
And always, when in doubt, apply "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (This does not apply to masochistic sex acts :) )
It's not necessarily our emotions or how we feel about something that needs to be examined. Of far more importance are the words we speak and the actions we take.
What Marc said can be extended further - it's not simply our desire to interact socially, it's actually a necessity - none of us would live very long without cooperation with others, and division of labour (also known as Giving The Angry Lion Multiple Targets). No man is an island.
The law (and you seem to be referring primarily to criminal law) is a list of what not to do - it is proscriptive.
What you seem to be looking for is a prescriptive law (which you call 'theories'), which is, as you point out, found in religion -- but religion seeks to guide our relationship with 'god' and the 'afterlife', and also with the 'priest class', so it's fairly useless.
Can I have a cookie now?
Unfortunately, as you know, I have bypassed analysis as a bad joke of the human conciousness. We have this tenancy to be so analytical that we create entire cultures and societies based on our deconstruction of what is.
My theory going forward is an intensely complicated and deep one at best. Here it is:
If you don't like me, don't talk to me. If I like it, I will embrace it for what it is. If I don't like it, I walk away.
Now the first reaction will be to deconstruct my theory. Some will say its cliché, others will say its over simplified and clearly not thought out, but to quote Guy, fuck off.
Guy, you know what I've experienced recently, and that was due to being far to analytical, allowing it to become paranoia and eventually self combustive. I still am convinced that its all a plot to control us and I was one of the ones that went a little too much into effect, but there it is.
Now, cookies...
I wish a had a memory for remembering useless shit. I read/heard/saw somewhere by some very well educated individual something very interesting.
I think it may have been on Oprah...anyway...i'll sumarise:
Men (and woman), but mostly men, have a chemical need to procreate. We all know that - but - he went on to say that we as men have a chemical requirement to procreate with as many woman as possible, to enhance the gene pool. He said men are designed to have as much sex with as many women as possible.
Basically he was trying to justify infidelity and why most guys like to have sex with anything that moves.
He basically went on to say that if you don't fulfill this need to screw around a variety of bad things will happen because you are messing with Maslows hierarchy of needs....
The point is - to some extent I agree with Guy. There are some rules that we are "forced" to live by (some criminal, some social) that are actually not healthy for us...
Fortunately as a society we are capable of change...
Post a Comment