Breaking the Golden Rule

Most people have heard, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This precept is offered as a way to smooth relations and extend respect to others. However, it is as much simplistic as it is simple. It goes so far as to be harmful in some contexts, while useless in most others.

Too many times it is unwise or unkind to treat another person as I would want to be treated. This approach is problematic if for no other reasons than issues of perspective, culture, self-worth, abuse, shadow, and projection. The first two can be easily demonstrated by asking if I understand how a person of another gender or culture (or other background) actually wants to be treated. This is not my assumption and not how I think they would want me to treat them; those are important to recognize in order to see the difference between my thoughts and reality, but do not substitute for the information the other person provides. The next one is a bit tricky, since my own view can be skewed after surviving trauma. Obviously, I don't want to perpetuate the violence I have experienced, but I also need to be aware of my own post-traumatic stress reaction and how that can influence my actions towards others. Next, if I have poor self-image and/or self-worth, then I am liable to have poor self-care and tend to disregard my own needs and wants. Not only shouldn't I do that to myself, I certainly ought not treat anyone else that way. This ties in with shadow - which I understand to mean my unconscious and subconscious beliefs - and how it colours my interactions and decisions. These are often unaddressed, childish ways of seeing things. The same is true of projections, which are the ways I see those undesirable parts of myself in others. These trigger me so I do not think clearly and interfere with my ability to see others as they are.

Furthermore, it is improper for me to treat someone who differs from me as though they were the same. It is no benefit to ignore differences as though they were unimportant. These differences constitute each person as much as their name, and they are important pieces of identity for everyone. It is disrespectful to pretend that someone else is the same as me when they have different expectations for what constitutes propriety and morality. Likewise, if I treat someone with their ideal deference or obsequiousness, am I respecting my own needs? This notion does not sit well with some individuals I know.

Finally, a word on reciprocity. Acting in accordance with the Golden Rule likely means that I expect the attitude will be returned - that the other person will pick up on how I want to be treated and give that to me. Yet how can that be, since if each person was following the Golden Rule, then they would each be pushing their own expectations onto the other in order to get the message across? Contrariwise, if I stop treating the other person how I want to be treated in order to treat them how they want to be treated, then I am breaking the rule.

So is there another way? Can all parties give and get respect in a situation without this Golden Rule? Indeed, but it is not so trite or simple. There aren't shortcuts to this method, but it has a surety to it. It requires acknowledging ignorance, and then finding out for every person at each initial encounter. Raising the subject for each person involved requires an understanding and mutuality that can seem difficult. This difficulty is often because there is competition, an undercurrent ubiquitous and unacknowledged because it is so commonplace.The presence of competition leads to scarcity-based thinking. The expectation becomes that if one person is afforded respect, then another will lose out because there is only so much to go around. If one person gives, they lose out on getting; if a person is given to, then they will hoard and not reciprocate. Instead, the opposite is true: The more respect I give someone the more empowered they are to offer respect.

I recommend rejecting assumptions and instead asking, being brave enough to be seen as imperfect and willing to admit such. It is a great way to demonstrate humility and humanity.

Insidious

This is a follow up of What is a Lie? (13 April, 2015). I mentioned briefly that jokes are lies, meaning they are not reflective of reality. A horse did not walk into a bar, and muffins do not talk. The intent to deceive is tempered with the intent to entertain. However, even jokes can be malicious and harmful. In ways greater, such as bullying, or lesser, as with 'fuzzy logic'. For example,

A man rolls through a stop sign.

A cop, seeing this, pulls the man over.

When asked, the man says, “I paused!”

The cop begins smacking the man on the head.

 The cop asks the man, “Do you want me to stop, or pause?”

As a child, this joke held a number of messages: personal safety, police violence, consequences, others' pain can be funny, hurting others as male 'explanation', surveillance by authority, and the importance of word choice.

The issue I want to focus on here is that the joke that leads to illogic. The man's actions did not warrant physical violence, nor is being beaten an analog for not fully stopping at a traffic sign. To compare potential harm with actual harm is wrong. It would be akin to saying I am justified in locking up a person who accidentally swept up another's checkbook in a pile of papers. There could have been malicious intent, but actually, there was none; furthermore, the harm is only a bit of worry before the confusion is sorted out.

Why is this worth mentioning and exploring? Many of the consequences to faulty logic are real-life and contemporary. Scams require victims to be oblivious to logic or susceptible to making erroneous conclusions. Malicious individuals rely on victims to not make logical choices and connections. This is not cause-and-effect and I am not claiming that laughing at silly jokes will lead to losing all your money to a con artist. I am supporting awareness of the ways we are fooled, and to be conscious of those patterns or instances in order to choose when to be on guard.

The Stake That Sticks Up is Hammered Down

The title of this post is taken from a Japanese proverb (see end of post). The reason I'm repeating a 'tired and misunderstood' aphorism is this simple: special people are ruining the world.

I believe this is the precise meaning and original reason for the saying. Not that every individual must conform or is prescribed a narrow role to fulfill. Rather, I take it to mean that those who "stick out" do not fulfill their obligation to the structure in which they reside. I see ubiquitous examples in a hyper-individualistic society like the U.S. From the person at a stop sign telling others to "go", sociopathic commodities traders, and the lobbyist/elected official 'revolving door positions' to entitled socialites, self-righteous Social Justice Warriors, and privileged children. These are all examples of persons who - by exempting themselves from common rules - cause havoc and unhappiness for others. As they are self-absorbed, it seems likely they rationalize by concentrating on the desired effect to themselves and ignoring the harm to others.

What would be the goal or underlying motivation for such seemingly diverse groups of people to behave so similarly? The simplest explanation would be fear. I could expand or de-emphasize it by using words like scarcity and insecurity. In the end, I am still talking about a belief that if one does not 'bend the rules' then one will suffer or 'lose out'. That belief is simply a story that intellectualizes the basic human emotion of fear. However, and more importantly, this belief confuses a want with a need. If I am willing to trample another person to get to a sale item, I have confused priorities. A TV on sale is not the same situation as boarding the last life boat on the Titanic. Not that I agree with trampling someone even then.

I will state my own opinion here: the minimum expectation to which people could hold themselves is of 'not taking my own stuff out on others.' In this case, eliminating or soothing my own fear at the expense of another is not acceptable. My emotions, even intense ones, are solely mine and for me to grapple with. If I require help, I am able to make requests. I cannot - in good conscience - use controlling behaviours to force others to get what I want.

Another reason why these are 'special' people is that they are not fulfilling a culturally necessary role through these actions. Even 'rebels' and 'deviants' have a place in society: that of questioning or challenging authority and complacency. This is noble and necessary. However, selfishly disrupting the harmonious functioning of culture by interfering with others for ones' own benefit is not. This is not conscious or peaceful protest of unjust laws, it is blindly acting out habitual, feal-based patterns. I will suggest calling it selfishness.

According to http://dictionary.reference.com:
selfish
1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself.

So, in the end, these 'special' people are just selfish people. It may be time to use the hammer appropriately on the selfish, for the benefit of all.


The following links are discussions about the meaning of the proverb:
Reddit
Wikiquote
Cultural Blog

Why Is There No Post Here?

I was inspired to write a critical analysis of The Lord of the Flies recently, and it ended up being a larger project than I anticipated. It has taken much longer than most of my posts, and expanded into something that may require publishing in another format. I am replacing one of the original posts (yes, it was turning into a series) with this explanation, and will need to write new posts to take the place of the other parts. This is at the same time as a number of changes in my life, so I appreciate your patience with my process.

What is a Lie?

I think this seemingly simple question needs to be asked from time to time because attitudes and perceptions change. However, just because one thinks it is "not lying" to not declare certain things on a tax form, to 'keep from hurting feelings' by reassuring someone they are attractive when they are not, consider an act not to be "sex" just because it does not include a penis inside a vagina, or even because "I was the only one there, no one will ever know different."

A lie is inherently and totally a lie. It isn't "half-truth" or even "stretching the truth", it is just a lie. To say otherwise is to lie. The point being that this practice of ignoring small examples of lying degrades the meaning and importance of the concept of truth. Beyond being influenced by popular attitudes about what it means to lie, we can also address what kind of person uses lies and when it acceptable to engage in lying. Let us be clear about what is a "lie" and to agree on that definition; to the dictionary!

LIE (noun)

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture.

3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.

4. the charge or accusation of telling a lie.

5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.

6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.

Synonyms: prevaricate, fib.

Antonyms: truth.

 

TRUTH

1. the true or actual state of a matter.

2. conformity with fact or reality; verity.

3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.

4. the state or character of being true.

5. actuality or actual existence.

6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.

7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.

Here is clear and encompassing definition, but quite dry. One important revelation would be to note that truth deals with reality. This means that if one lies, one is out of synchrony with reality, with the world. If this is minor, then it may possibly not have excessive impact. However, if this is endemic, if it touches on many or most areas of my life, then lies and lying can put me in a poor position to relate and interact with the world around me.

Another piece to note is that lying typically requires some amount of intent, whereas just being wrong or in error does not. This means that I can mistakenly answer a question, but in order to lie I had to want to provide inaccurate information on some level. Only I can know my intent, but others can assign malignant intent to my action or words. This is important because by not being honest about my own uncertainty, I can indirectly invite others to view me as willfully deceiving them.


To be clear, I am not advocating for a standard of always telling the truth, surprising as it may sound by this point. My aim is to clarify and reorient, and to advocate for awareness and choice in truth and lies. This awareness can lead to better outcomes, since people do things based on their beliefs. This does not necessarily lead to changing them, but can mean they are no longer unchallenged assumptions, rather they hold their correct status of personal attitude.

I recognize that lying or even the ability to lie is not totally bad. Humour often relies on untrue premises. Imagination relies on overcoming reality and using the ability to see things as they could be. Sometimes hope in the face of imminent destruction keeps us searching for answers when acceptance of reality would cripple us. However, I believe that blindly choosing one or the other path will not serve. I work to acknowledge and limit my lies so that I can be in better relation with those around me.

Finally, I will leave you with this eloquent and beautiful quote:
Above all, do not lie to yourself. A man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie becomes unable to recognize truth either in himself or anywhere around him, and thus falls into disrespect towards himself and others. Not respecting anyone, he ceases to love, and having no love, he gives himself up to passions and coarse pleasures, in order to occupy and amuse himself, and behaves in the end like an animal in satisfying his vices, and it all comes from lying continually to others and to himself. A man who lies to himself is often the first to take offense. It sometimes feels very good to take offense, doesn't it? And surely he knows that no one has offended him, and that he himself has invented the offense and told lies just for the beauty of it, that he has exaggerated for the sake of effect, that he has picked on a word and made a mountain out of a pea — he knows all of that, and still he is the first to take offense, he likes feeling offended, it gives him great pleasure, and thus he reaches the point of real hostility.
Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov

Safer Sex

I was struck by a difference of focus, and that there are various levels, much like Maslow's hierarchy of needs. What I mean is that we talk about and pay attention to particular aspects, but leave others unaddressed. This is potentially due to the reluctance to discuss such "personal" matters in any detail.

When it comes to talking about sex, there have been advances made in providing information about condoms, gender and sexuality, and protecting against physical attacks. All important topics, and they should be part of every young person's education. Yet these are just basics, and we still struggle to have accurate, rational discussions about them. There are so many more parts, deeper and more intimate than just which fleshy bits go where.

The emotional, spiritual, and mental aspects of sex, and relationships in general, are so much more fundamental as well as essential. I have found that these latter points have an under-recognized (or at least under-discussed) importance, and I want to bring them into the fore. It has been through exposure to many influences that I recognize this, but I want to especially recognize Dr. David Schnarch. I highly recommend his books for everyone.

Speaking for myself, when I don't feel safe to be emotionally vulnerable to my partner, I don't want to be intimate. It has taken me a long time to realize this basic, simple correlation. I am less able to be open, to express my wants, or be willing to fulfill my partner's wishes when I am feeling distant to them. Bluntly: when I'm feeling psychically closed off, I want to keep my legs closed.

Beyond physical safety (a barrier and/or consent), there are considerations for long-term relationships. This is what I mean by "safer". After people have established their power dynamics and safewords, then what? That's where the real relationship of sex begins, I think. That is where not doing the dishes or staying out late begins to influence how attracted I am to my partner. When them getting what they want outside the bedroom begins to influence how receptive I can be inside it.

So, instead of thinking, "I'm not as attracted to them lately, it must be [their hair, weight, or paycheck]." It could be, "I really don't like when they [call me 'fat' or 'crazy', disrespect me in front of others, or dismiss my opinions on meaningful topics." Sex is not merely physical, and neither are sexual "problems".