[not political] The Limits of Democracy

[John Smith]

I was resting in bed the other day, and I felt like changing my position. I thought that sitting up in bed, perhaps legs crossed and arms stretched, would make me most comfortable at that moment. And then two thoughts occurred to me. First, what would my wife think if she found me in that position, and second, how ridiculous it is that I was bothered with the first thought.
Just to let you see what I mean, here is an example. When I lived in Russia, it was inconceivable to sit on the floor in a public place. When you live in an evil empire, you either sit on a chair, or don't sit at all. If you sit on the floor, people would think that you are either drunk or crazy. Now you can imagine the shock and awe of the Russian immigrants just arriving to America and observing the locals to use the floors everywhere in public buildings as something what the floors are not!
America is, of course, a country where freedom of position is stretched a little further than it is in Russia. Yet the limits are very well defined. Look at those rows and rows of "ergonomic" cubicles in your office. Bull shit! The most ergonomic position for me when I am working on a problem is lying on my back, eyes closed. Similarly, when a national anthem is playing, I may want to assume an infant position and express the appreciation for my country while my body is in that particular configuration. And when I want to stimulate my emotions, I'd like to stand on my head for a minute or two.
But I can't. The geometry of my body parts in space is already decided and reserved, not by my individual nature or desire, but by the standards of the society to which I belong, according to the time, place, and the circumstances of the event. I can't close my eyes when I am in the meeting, and I can't open them when I am in surgery. It's OK to jump up and down when you are a father playing with kids in the backyard, but you'll never be forgiven if you do it during the funeral service. There is something definitely, definitely wrong, completely unnatural, very disturbing about it.
If there is an advanced civilization some place, I can tell you one thing about it: whatever the shape of the agents of intelligent life may be over there, these agents are free to bend their bodies in any way they seem most productive, relaxing, or stimulating, no matter what the situation may be. In an advanced democracy that is a dimension away from ours, there is no such thing as "inappropriate posture". How else could it possibly be?

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

Ummm, yeah.
Anybody who's even taken an introductory Psychology course had a lecture about "social mores," and I know plenty of people who've had the classic "social mores" homework assignment: go out and break one, and report back on what happens. There are an astonishing range of things you just can't do in any given society. I still remember what I did: rode up and down in an elevator for a while, with my back to the door, making eye contact with whatever poor souls were trying to ride in it. It absolutely freaked people out -- they thought I was insane! And over such a trivial thing.
But we need societal norms. If we don't have them -- if any person can do any random thing at any time -- it'd be chaos. It's crazy, really, but we depend on other people acting in predictable ways. It hardly even matters what those ways are, really, just that we expect them.

[Joe Pluta]

There is something definitely, definitely wrong, completely unnatural, very disturbing about it.
Actually, the problem here is that you, Eugene, want to do whatever the heck it is you please, AND have the rest of the world accept it. It's not enough that you can do whatever you want and nobody will put you in jail, but you want us to like it, too. And that isn't going to happen. If you break social mores, you will thought of as an uncaring, self-absorbed clod.
There is a known response where sometimes people laugh during a funeral mass. It's an uncommon but occasional way that the mind deals with loss. However, for those not so afflicted, the laughter is inappropriate and even painful; some of these people are probably thinking they'll never laugh again.
So, when someone with normal human empathy laughs at a funeral, their first reaction is not "these people should accept my free expression of my feelings, not repress my ability to reach my full potential" but instead "I hope my unexpected response isn't causing someone else discomfort". Normal people are embarrassed, and attempt to stifle the laughter. Interestingly enough, the effort of trying not to laugh often leads to even more laughter, and eventually the person is forced to leave the room.
Anyway, my point here is that, unless you intend on living in a hole in the ground with no human contact, you might want to spend less time worrying about how humanity infringes on your sacred right to do whatever the heck you please, and instead start concentrating on how you can best interact with the rest of the world.
Paraphrasing Kennedy, ask not what the rest of the world should allow you to do, but instead ask what you can do with the rest of the world.
Joe

[John Smith]

The Mores
I feel more morose about the mores,
The mores are a force made of remorse;
It's a recourse for the sanity overdose,
The mores are a curse to a peaceful doze.

[Michael Ernest]

Our bodies as we use them do express meaning -- to ourselves, to the people around us, sure. We're also taught propriety in the way our bodies appear in coderanch, sure, but this is not radically different from animal nature as a whole. Others understand us by how we express ourselves.
You can think of this as a form of tyranny, I suppose, but the thought that what the body says "shouldn't matter" or shouldn't be confined by cultural constraints, or whatever, seems rather precious.

[Mapraputa Is]

Joe: It's not enough that you can do whatever you want and nobody will put you in jail, but you want us to like it, too.
So you refuse Eugene in his right to be loved for what he really is, but you will be glad to love him for that special talent of behaving like a social robot? No wonder, he had to sink his despair in poetry!
Eugene, I stole a quote for you from a neighbor forum:

Lacking the reins of the maternal tongue, the foreigner who learns a new language is capable of the most unforeseen audacities when using it . . . since he belongs to nothing the foreigner can feel as pertaining to everything, to the entire tradition, and that weightlessness in the infinity of cultures and legacies gives him the extravagant ease to innovate.
Julia Kristeva, Strangers to Ourselves (Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991), pp.31-2

Michael: Others understand us by how we express ourselves.
I think, you contradict yourself here, Michael. If we express ourselves by behaving like everybody else, then we don't express too much.

[Jignesh Malavia]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
If we express ourselves by behaving like everybody else, then we don't express too much.

asds2 sds2f fkpf- fdjfjd;g;lckgs' jkdsjf g dgdgs g2rg
[Translation:
If we don't express ourselves in a language understood by everybody else, then we don't express anything.]
Isn't proper use of body language as important as that of the written or spoken ones for effective and 'unambigious' communication? Random acts of twisting ones body are probably as meaningful as randomly uttered words.

[Joe Pluta]

So you refuse Eugene in his right to be loved for what he really is
Where did THIS mystical right come from? Perhaps that's the problem you and Eugene share: you want to do whatever the heck you please, and you want us to love you for it.
How wonderfully self-absorbed!
Eugene can do whatsoever he pleases, he just has to realize that people will look askance at him if he does something those around him consider to be socially unacceptable.
This mysterious concept that you can do whatever you want and still have everyone love you is a bizarre one. If you truly insist on marching to the beat of a different drum, then you must have the self-esteem to quit worrying about what everyone else thinks.
And whatever you do, don't expect me to march to YOUR drumbeat.
Joe

[Jeroen Wenting]

Eugene, what you want is not democracy but anarchy.
Many who grew up under a dictatorship, and especially the tightly controlled Soviet block, consider the two to be very similar if not identical when clearly they are not.
Democracy means the law of averages, accepted behaveour is that which is the behaveour of the majority. Effectively it's mob rule by general consensus.
In theory, anarchy means no rule at all and everyone indeed doing what he wants and everyone else accepting that. In theory again this gives everyone total freedom but at the same time it means everyone has to constantly be extremely paranoid because violence against others is also perfectly OK as under anarchy there is no social pressure to prevent it (nor law enforcement as there are no laws).
In practice, anarchy will quickly become a dictatorship like the Stalinis era or the rule of the Baath party in Iraq where a small but ruthless group has power of life and death over all others and rule by fear.

[HS Thomas]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:

If there is an advanced civilization some place, I can tell you one thing about it: whatever the shape of the agents of intelligent life may be over there, these agents are free to bend their bodies in any way they seem most productive, relaxing, or stimulating, no matter what the situation may be. In an advanced democracy that is a dimension away from ours, there is no such thing as "inappropriate posture". How else could it possibly be?

A world with nobodies , perhahaps......
Bodies are a part of being so it is quite natural that bodies define what we are. Society will be more willing to accept any shape people like to assume as long as there is some furniture to go with it.
Following that thought:
Ikea and Democracy as Furniture
[ December 15, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
When I lived in Russia, it was inconceivable to sit on the floor in a public place. When you live in an evil empire, you either sit on a chair, or don't sit at all. If you sit on the floor, people would think that you are either drunk or crazy.

---
Of course they would.
But the matter is that in evil Russia those who are not drunk are surely absolutely crazy. So you can sit, lie, stand on your head or hang on your neck - society will treat you O'K.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
The geometry of my body parts in space is already decided and reserved, not by my individual nature or desire, but by the standards of the society to which I belong, according to the time, place, and the circumstances of the event.

Ignoring for the moment that some postures are inherently less natural and less functionally appropriate (some postures restrict/disturb blood flow and/or the flow of chi/ki/prana), there are general aspects of posture that naturally reflect the emotions being experienced. For example, in a general way, the positive emotions such as happiness or joy, lead to opening and relaxtation in the posture, as opposed to contraction and contortion seen when fear or anger is experienced. These general reactions transcend culture and time, and reflect the physical/biological structure of us as human beings.
Eugene, some of the postures you have desired in the circumstances you have described do not seem to be consistant with the emotions that are expected in healthy human beings. The inconsistancy could be the result of past trauma that has distorted the natural/normal functioning of your emotions and muscular system. Refer to the works of Dr. Wilhelm Reich (an original student of Freud) for more in depth explanation.
Now , you certainly have every right, and justisfication, to feel how you feel, and to express yourself as you see fit. But, as a result of your past traumas, you are no longer able to respond to certain stimuli in a naturally human way. Other humans wills sense this and perhaps be disturbed at your disturbed condition, which is a natural human response.
[ , but some of this is true
[ December 15, 2003: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Joe: Where did THIS mystical right come from? Perhaps that's the problem you and Eugene share: you want to do whatever the heck you please, and you want us to love you for it.
I think the idea, how you understood it, bothers you and you reject it without giving it any chance to find a place in your heart. Which is to say you reject it too easily.
"you want to do whatever the heck you please" -- I need to elaborate on this. Maybe like with "kill and murder", we need two different words for "enjoying yourself as long as this doesn't bother anybody else" and doing the same because "I do not care about other". We aren't going to insist on our right to spit into your coffee, you know.
The problem me and Eugene share is perhaps (I can be wrong) that it's easier to see an arbitrary nature of some (not all of course) rules. One example, I was visiting a historical place near Saint-Petersburg, a big tourist attractions, and overheard conversation of two women who worked there. One complained about a group of German tourist who all started to walk on the grass. This is traditional, Russians don't walk on the grass unless it's somewhere in the wilderness. For this woman German tourists were "uncultured" and she really believed it!
Another example. During a family dinner here, people around me started to pray. I've never seen this before Then I thought: Ok, but what *I* am supposed to do? I didn't want to interrupt social harmony by proclaiming my atheistic beliefs and asking: "Hey, what are you all doing? You look funny!". I decided to follow "Be nice!" rule and do what everybody else were doing. After several doings so, I started to feel absurdity of the situation. Why do I make my body to express what I am not experiencing? Who will be happier because of my doing so? And I stopped.
Joe, haven't you ever experienced gratitude when people accepted your "otherness" and let you not play by the rules that aren't internalized by you? Without thinking "We know better, but what good can be expected from this poor soul? Sigh." That's what I meant by "Eugene's right to be loved for what he really is" - a little more freedom to breath when it doesn't harm anything but somebody's notion of "propriety".

[Joe Pluta]

I think the idea, how you understood it, bothers you and you reject it without giving it any chance to find a place in your heart. Which is to say you reject it too easily.
No, Map, I simply don't have the same basic anarchic bent that you and Eugene share. And frankly, I think you're both a little bit insincerein your anarchism . A sincere anarchist wouldn't waste all this time trying to get non-anarchists to agree.
This is my point: you want both anarchy AND acceptance. A true anarchist needs acceptance like a fish needs a bicycle.
Joe

[Michael Ernest]

ME: Others understand us by how we express ourselves.
MI: I think, you contradict yourself here, Michael. If we express ourselves by behaving like everybody else, then we don't express too much.
Why insist that all is either utterly original or utterly conformist? One could think of commonly-accepted expressions simply as a framework by which original expressions are both perceived and ultimately understood.
We express of ourselves plenty, but typically by variance from some perceived center. Even in aberrant expression there is typically a pattern. The only word we have for individual expression for which meaning is totally private is autism. That's a condition that expresses plenty -- we just don't know much about how to understand it.

[Mapraputa Is]

Joe: No, Map, I simply don't have the same basic anarchic bent that you and Eugene share. And frankly, I think you're both a little bit insincerein your anarchism . A sincere anarchist wouldn't waste all this time trying to get non-anarchists to agree.
Maybe this means we aren't that much anarchic as you want to believe?

[Mapraputa Is]

Michael: Why insist that all is either utterly original or utterly conformist? One could think of commonly-accepted expressions simply as a framework by which original expressions are both perceived and ultimately understood.
That's what I thought after I made my post, and was going to clarify, but you made the point better than me. I was thinking about body language, and that while certainly there are "rules" of interpretation, it also takes some time to learn someone's "personal" rules, and that this is in part what distinguishes deep intimate relationship from passing contacts. Sorry for not expressing it better...

[Mapraputa Is]

Joe: This is my point: you want both anarchy AND acceptance. A true anarchist needs acceptance like a fish needs a bicycle.
I just got it!
Joe, you think that (Ok, let me talk for myself) I want you to love me in my outsider state of spirit for my own benefit, and I was thinking about what's best for you!

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

Another example. During a family dinner here, people around me started to pray. I've never seen this before Then I thought: Ok, but what *I* am supposed to do? I didn't want to interrupt social harmony by proclaiming my atheistic beliefs and asking: "Hey, what are you all doing? You look funny!". I decided to follow "Be nice!" rule and do what everybody else were doing. After several doings so, I started to feel absurdity of the situation. Why do I make my body to express what I am not experiencing? Who will be happier because of my doing so? And I stopped.

Ah, well now we're talking about real tyranny. I go through that all the time.

[John Smith]

Map: The problem me and Eugene share is perhaps (I can be wrong) that it's easier to see an arbitrary nature of some (not all of course) rules.
Yes, that's what I was trying to convey, thanks Map. I was not really protesting the mores, but rather questioning the oddity and the origin of some of them. Some of the mores, such as "do not kill" and "do not steal" make certain sense and can be explained in terms of the welfare of the society and the well being of an individual. Other mores, such as "do not walk on the grass" and "do not sit on the floor" are obviously highly relative, -- in some cultures, they make perfect sense, and in other cultures they don't exist at all. Yet this difference can be explained, too, in terms of the culture.
The particular more that I am questioning in this thread is somewhat different. I can think of no culture or no circumstance where my body bent like a letter "S" can offend or endanger anyone, or cause harm to the government. You may have a claim that it will interfere with the blood supply to my left ear, and that's why this posture should be strictly prohibited, or that it may have been the result of my childhood psychological trauma when I observed my mother urinating, but these are just the rational explanations for the unknown. What is known (to me, at least), that the social mores on the postures is a continuous trauma to a human being, an attempt to regulate and institutionalize the mind of a person. This is what marching in military is all about, -- break the will of a soldier by limiting the degrees of freedom in his movements. The opposite example is Tai Chi: the seemingly weird postures are to stimulate and open your mind, to free it from the constrains.
Do you have a favorite chair in your house/apartment? I have two identical chairs in my living room, located next to each other, symmetrically to the walls and the TV. Yet when I am in one chair, I feel relaxed and tranquil, but when I am in the other chair, I feel uneasy. The three feet distance between them somehow makes a difference. I am sure you have similar oddities. That makes us all a bit autistic, I guess, and what I suggest is that we should not discount it as a mysticism or irrationality in a negative sense. Maybe the real irrationality is the belief that two identical chairs in two different places are the same char.

[Joe Pluta]

Okay, Eugene, if you find a Zen sort of difference between two chairs to be a remarkable thing, then that's cool. But the concept of social mores being "definitely, defintely wrong, completely unnatural and very disturbing" is a long way from saying "my chairs are different".
Ah heck, maybe I'm just overwhelmed by the grandiose nature of the discussions of late. I'm just a poor Polack from the wrong side of the tracks trying to make good in a frustrating world, and I sometimes get the feeling that these are "luxury" arguments.
No matter.
Seeya all on the funny farm. I've had my couple of days of MD; I need to go get work done.
Joe

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:

This is what marching in military is all about, -- break the will of a soldier by limiting the degrees of freedom in his movements. The opposite example is Tai Chi: the seemingly weird postures are to stimulate and open your mind, to free it from the constrains.

That's a curious one-two, given that tai chi is a martial art. I've heard my sensei describe the art several ways, but never as a series of postures meant to stimulate and open the mind and free it from the constraints. Focus the mind, yes. Tune the body to live within its constraints, yes. Liberate it in some metaphysical way -- not so much.

[Sonny Gill]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

... that tai chi is a martial art. I've heard my sensei describe the art several ways...

A bit off topic. Just curious what martial art you do Michael. Tai Chi is chinese and i would expect you to use 'sifu' rather than Japanese 'sensei' if you were doing Tai Chi. Aikido?? just guessing.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
This is what marching in military is all about, -- break the will of a soldier by limiting the degrees of freedom in his movements.

This is incorrect. The purpose of marching in the military is to teach discipline and teamwork.

[John Smith]

JM: This is incorrect. The purpose of marching in the military is to teach discipline and teamwork.
Umm, that's what I said.

[Jason Menard]

"Breaking the will by limiting the degrees of freedom in his movements" is breaking the will, not teaching teamwork and discipline.

[Jeroen Wenting]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

This is incorrect. The purpose of marching in the military is to teach discipline and teamwork.

And to prevent them all from tripping over each others' legs when walking in close proximity to each other.
Unless you march in beat/step you will easily kick one another when walking as close together as marching soldiers do

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Sonny Gill:

A bit off topic. Just curious what martial art you do Michael. Tai Chi is chinese and i would expect you to use 'sifu' rather than Japanese 'sensei' if you were doing Tai Chi. Aikido?? just guessing.

The form we practice is the variant developed modified by Cheng Man-Ching.
Our instructor does not have us address him by title. He may have used the term 'sifu' at some point -- assuming one of us asked -- but I don't remember when. We get a *lot* on philosophy and teaching on what is meant by meanings of certain Chinese words important to grasping the meaning of the art. But terms of address isn't one of them.
Thanks for the clarification on terms.

[John Smith]

Jason, what I am trying to say is that teamwork and discipline in the military constitute the broken will of an individual.

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
"Breaking the will by limiting the degrees of freedom in his movements" is breaking the will, not teaching teamwork and discipline.

There's room for overlap among those categories.
[ December 16, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
Jason, what I am trying to say is that teamwork and discipline in the military constitute the broken will of an individual.

This may have been more tru in the Soviet army where individuality and initiative were frowned upon.

[Sonny Gill]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

The form we practice is the variant developed modified by Cheng Man-Ching.

Interesting link, Michael..thanks.
I was very interested in Tai Chi at one stage, but it is very hard to find authentic teachers who have mastered the art. Along the way, I discovered Aikido, and have stuck to it.