In the Age of Irrationality or perhaps better put as the age in which irrational themes are pronounced with the rationality of those who have or attempt to assume some right to advance a perspective based on a socio-pathic level of ego-centricity shared in common with others; we find selective social protests claiming the need to recognize the many flavors of narcissism. For example, the wide-spread practice of taking one's own photograph reminiscent of a chimpanzee having reached some level of self-recognition by seeing themselves on a reflective surface. Such a recognition, if not recognized as oneself, is reacted to as a threat by those animals that interpret their own reflection as that of another animal whose initial startle or fear reaction causes a reciprocating escalation of threat posturing to that image which is interpreted in a like manner. Such an activity takes place in many instances of human social interaction leading to conflicts in business, government and religion as well.
As an example of the previously mentioned 3 -to- 1 patterning, the singular person, from an "advanced" stage of self-identity as separate from any particular social group, custom, tradition, culture, community, tribe, clan, nation, organization, etc., is expressed by the three-patterned vocalization of "me, myself, I". The person, like the concept of the Christian Trinity as being "three persons in 1 godhead", is playing out a theme which is expressing an environmental influence related to the Sun's three "moments" called dawn-noon-dusk, which are themselves a 3 -to- 1 pattern, but more than this, exhibit the on-going "fusion" of these three biologically influential "moments" into a singularity as the rotation rate of the Earth continues to slow and the Sun continues to expand towards its burnout.
As part of this increased acknowledgment and emphasis of a person's identity being exhibited by individuals whose sensitivity to environmental changes is not also being recognized as part of this phenomena of an environmentally influenced increase in ego-centricity; is that they want to also be recognized and accepted for who they think they are, by everyone else. Thus, increasing levels of personal sensitivity is projected onto social themes which, like the "me-ism" of a child who plays out the role of a planet around which all do and must rotate as if they were an only child; demands that everyone (by way of law if necessary), adopt the same level and type of self-centeredness. Thus, we have an example where a one- two- three formula is expressed, but its presentation and practice is not place into the context of a larger occurrence of cognitive changes taking place on various symbolic ways according to the context and applicable language being used. For example, the segregation of public restrooms by race such as white and black, featured a dichotomy of having separated white men and women "water closets" (an old reference to restrooms which preceded the notion of "bathroom"), was counter-posed with having separate public restrooms for black men and women... or they were non-existent, depending on the prejudicial attitude of an established business proprietor.
In time, a sort of "equal rights" was established which permitted both races to share the same restrooms, though men and women were still segregated by a perspective of genderism in public restrooms, though they would share the same restroom if they were married, or had some relationship with respect to family membership. However, though the black/white dichotomy has been, in most instances, altered into the dichotomy of separate men and women restrooms, the ongoing sensitivity of attempting to "fuse" the identity of humanity into a singularity is being played out by those who are protesting for the idea of permitting "transgender" individuals (those who are confused about their gender orientation), to use either restroom (men/women... boys/girls), as if they should be entitled some sort of diplomatic immunity to do as their (wavering) consciousness dictates. Even though their numbers are few, others who share in a distortion of their own sexual identity, are supporting them as a means of attempting to use the situation as a preparatory shoe-horning effect of being able to impose their rationale on a majority, who, because they are a majority, are not permitted to exercise a similar level and type of imposition on any minority. In other words, minorities are clamoring for greater equality, in so much as it permits them to have a greater say so. They don't actually want an actual nation or global-wide equality to be shared by all, they want a personalize "me-ism" form of equality. If this can be achieved through a pretended democracy such as is practiced in America, so be it... otherwise they will prefer to subvert the reality of an actual Communism or actual Socialism so that it can conform to their self-centeredness.
The progression of restroom signs has been introduced as a one, two, and three variability, though the reader must not fail to include those provisions made for permitting infants and children of the opposite sex to accompany a parent into their gender-denoted restroom. Likewise, though the question of an established gender has not been an issue, the accommodations for wheelchair occupants has become an established routine of public restroom design.
|The signs above represent a "three"...||... and this "plural" designation is a "one", though in its own way, it too expresses a 3 -to- 1 ratio.|
The chorus of "me-ism" (also identifiable in the designated names of some magazines), frequently finds its way in the socially referenced admission of "coming out", though typically it is associated with some sexual orientation, but doesn't have to be. As such, it may one day be acceptable for having bathrooms for pedophiles, rapists and molesters, as well as those whose sexual fetish is to watch people using the toilet. Indeed, by designating the Female, Androgynous, and Male varieties of restroom with a frequently used three-lettered abbreviation (FAM), we might eventually "progress" to viewing such a situation as the identity of the human FAMily... whereby any and all privacy one either practices (or doesn't practice) in the privacy of their home, can be justified as acceptable based on the new criteria of an "anything goes" allowance.
Since homosexuals have set the stage for encouraging and supporting those who "come out" about their other-than-typical sexual practices as something to not be ashamed of and in fact boast about by conducting periodic parades for, such a level of assumed hyper-sensitivity to individual states of mind, should likewise be extended to all forms of psychological identity. As such, it should be acceptable that the media, politicians, business executives and religious leaders be able to openly lie, cheat, steal, murder, rape or what have you, by simply defining them as individualized states of one's personal sexual orientation. The underlying psycho-pathology shouldn't matter. What should only matter is that they are publicly recognized and respected for whatever form their sexual orientation takes. And this personal identity should not be diminished, disguised or defined in any way by those "alternative" life-style individuals whose own sexual identities deviate from custom or traditions exhibited by any majority in any given era. In other words, just because the present era of LGBTQ community members define sexuality according to some agreed-upon standard arising from the perspective of a socially designated few who view sexuality as a game whose rules are as variable as are the impulsive inclinations of the players involved; does not mean such a standard is to be used as a means to designate the only allowable standard of permitted sexual deviation from the tradition mean.
Because the LGBTQ (and others) view themselves as a designated "color" or rainbow collection of sexually permitted identities imposing their views on a practiced social orientation, does not mean they should likewise be permitted to define the limits of psychological discordances. They should not be able to impose their views to become established laws that everyone abides to, but is then recognized as a standard of insensitivity to those whose sexuals orientations are felt to be more progressive than their own assumed progressive sexual practices. Whereby, public restrooms should thus be forced to accommodate Presidents, Judges, and other social leaders who want to have sex with anyone they can delude into having sex with them, as well as be able to practice molestation, rape, or whatever they want to... because their sexual needs must be fully addressed by being accepted and respected by everyone. Indeed, child pornographers should not only be permitted to engage in their sexual preference, but be encouraged by an "evolved" sense of equality that surely surpasses the old LGBTQ standards. It's only natural for us to consider that the present LGBTQ orientations are fast becoming a recognized antiquated standard and must progress to an evolved standard in order to maintain its officiousness of presumed propriety.
Whereas the LGBTQ community wants the nation and the entire world to kow tow to its variabilities of orientation, it wants to be adopted as a tradition that can not be supplanted by views which think it is an antiquated establishment. Shame on anyone who would think of it as an established antiquated tradition! Imagine a younger generation "coming out" by declaring a right to practice their brand of sexuality involving the rape of children after they have been given drugs. Shame on the LGBTQ community for denying anyone their right to express their sexuality in any manner they want, even if it is against established laws that were once fought against by the LGBTQ tribal community itself! And for those who practice a celibacy, for whatever reason, this can't be permitted because it is a sexuality of anti-sexuality... unless of course it is a practice which takes place in the confines of an adopted religion... though religions generally involve a community expectation of expected sexual behavior... and those that don't, are viewed as a sexual deviant.
And let us not forget about those whose preference is to practice an orgy like in days of old where a group would have sex amidst various body excrements that were scraped off the floor and drunk as an aphrodisiac. Yes, let's allow public restrooms to be used for any flavor of sexual orientation and practice, or have society be judged as being too insensitive to the needs of minorities. The views of the majority don't count and this is why there aren't any actual practices of a real democracy... except for perhaps the variant being used by Switzerland... though it is a far cry from a fully established Democracy and entails the application of their measure to a small population.
And not only must the "me-ism" of today be expressed in various "coming out" themes such as sexuality, criminality, and murder-suicides, but also the deliberate instigation of trying to provoke perceived expressions of disgust or disapproval by engaging in same-sex behaviors that were once commonly reserved to different gendered relationships, even though public displays of affection such as kissing were once even thought of as a social impropriety. It is an encounter many readers may no doubt have experienced... where a same-gender couple deliberately engages in a public display of attention while scanning the environment for the sole purpose of trying to distinguish whether or not their action causes a presumed level of disapproval from others nearby. They are not in the practice for an exchange of affection, but as an anti-social protest... a deliberate social antagonism like an adolescent with a chip on their shoulder.
Such a form of protest must be seen in light of using a "hierarchy of needs" chart in order to arrange a schematic of different types of protest orientation. For example, is one's protest based on a personal need, or on a need to protest on behalf of another? Is it based on an identity with one's family, one's friends, one's colleagues, one's fellow employees, one's community, one's nation or one's species? Is it a protest for an assumed lack of justice, freedom, liberty or justice? Is it based on a personal agenda for using a protest to be entertained by, as if participating as an extra in a movie, or because the movies, theater and music themes being produced today don't evoke the type and intensity of emotion one is seeking to experience as one's drug of choice? Is one's motivation for protest based on sexuality, gender, money, or power? Is it based on misinterpretation, miscalculation, or unrealistic expectations? Is it based on science, religion, or some "complexification" in the manner of an artist engaged in the psychological construction of an attempt to produce a presumed expression of creativity, originality, genius or simply individuality? And above all, does one's protest involve an underlying tactic of trying to get others to voice a shared opinion, though upon close examination, have exceptionally private views that defer to whatever mood prevails with a crowd at any given time?
Some people do not protest with all of humanity in mind. Their argument is centered around a single issue that may never be considered to be a symptom of a much larger problem. In many cases, a person's protest may be described as an anti-government or anti-establishment expression, but they are actually against the whole of the government in terms of seeking a new formula of governance; they simply want a particular issue addressed in a particular way. Many people do not argue directly against the presence of Capitalism or Democracy, just some variable thereof. For the most part, people want to leave the same government intact, and only change a given practice therein... such as those who want to implement a new amendment to a Constitution or Bill of Rights, unless to change an already existing one; but they rarely call for a complete change in a Constitution or Bill of Rights... or for that matter, establish one or the other by which a Nation is expected to abide. Yet, the presence or absence of either can be problematic for those seeking some precedence with which to argue a point in their favor, or those who must argue against an established protocol though it may be extremely antiquated for a given era.
If people believe they live under a governing system that is a democracy, though it actually isn't, they any attempt to alter the current model may appear to be anti-thetical... anti-rational to the belief guarded by an embraced assumption. Those who are protesting for a change in the overall type of government that is in practice, might well find themselves up against others who are protesting from a perspective which essentially keeps the current formula of government in tact. In other words, their interest in making improvements is based on a superficiality such as a fresh coat of paint, and not any real structural change. Their interpretation is like a person who judges the quality of a restaurant by a perceived ambiance, and not according to food or service quality, nor cleanliness of employees, eating utensils or furnishings. When you have protestors who are more inclined to interpret the value of a governing practice by the standards they apply to music, art, or other aesthetics such as religion, it is difficult to get them to think in terms of applied science, mathematics or philosophy.
By taking a survey of different types of protest groups, many of which are so localized and short lived that they don't become catalogued, once is forced to admit that getting all the many views to think in a collective sense can be appreciably difficult... particularly in one's attempts to communicate with them. The following Wikipedia link provides a small sampling of different kinds of groups: Protest.
In attempting to get both the media and the people of a Nation focused on the same orientation, the government regularly enlists the tactic of fear based on potential dire consequences, destruction and violence, as well as obstinacy in passing a needed form of legislation. Much of the time their tactics are used for attention getting purposes, like children on a playground wanting to make sure some parental figure or sibling is watching them. Though they are all supposed to be adults, a lot of the behavior exhibited by those in government and the media is quite reminiscent of childhood and adolescence. And we couple this to an increased example being exhibited by people in the general public, it's a wonder how many things get accomplished. If any nation were truly a populace of adults, we would be light years ahead of where we are in terms of progress. Indeed, all present governments would cease to exist since they express a commutative effect of the Freudian trio of id, ego, and superego.
In trying to deal with some protest groups, instead of the image of confronting a lynch mob, one is faced with having to quiet a hospital nursery of crying newborns. Trying to tell them to shut up is a waste of time, just as is one's effort to try to breast feed them all at once. Or, give each of them a bottle that requires attempts at creative thinking at how one is to keep individual baby bottles propped up, or insure all non-formula pacifiers will remain in place. The same goes for when the public is faced with a confrontation of political leaders. Communication is acutely difficult when each uses a different jargon in expressing either the same idea or different interests. Because those who are designated as Congressional Representatives must live and work in a world that in some ways differs substantially from those whom they are supposed to represent, the so-called "real world" of both can not possibly create the same perspective, unless one or the other forces their counter-part into a pauper and prince exchange of experience. In other words, the public either forces the government to see things from its perspective, or the other way around. A so-called "compromise" venture usually entails the public getting the short-end of the stick, in the very moment of application, or sometime later through insidious alterations.
The form of Capitalism being played out is a type of ongoing protest of various protest formulas being executed by the government, business interests and the interests of the public. And regardless of any stated "win-win" situation, it is the public that must remain the most vigilant for potential abuse from either one or the other, or both... and the public has not real recourse of correcting the problem except through forms of protest which force one or both to make concessions... though inevitably, as history points out, concessions are extended in the same frame of mind that King John of England used when entering upon an agreement with Barons seeking some measure of greater equality, that he later was able to refute. A short jaunt into the situation may be of value for some readers not familiar with the tale:
On June 15, 1215, the rebellious barons met John at Runnymede on the Thames. The king was presented with a document known as the Articles of the Barons, on the basis of which Magna Carta was drawn up. For a document hallowed in history during more than 750 years and frequently cited as a forerunner of the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, Magna Carta is a singularly undramatic document. It is thorny with problems of feudal law and custom that are largely untranslatable into modern idiom. Still, it was remarkable in many ways, not least because it was not written in a purely baronial interest but aimed to provide protection for all freemen. It was an attempt to provide guarantees against the sort of arbitrary disregard of feudal right that the three Angevin kings (Henry II, Richard I, John) had made familiar. The level of reliefs, for example, was set at £100 for a barony. Some clauses derived from concessions already offered by the king in efforts to divide opposition. The celebrated clause 39, which promised judgment by peers or by the law of the land to all freemen, had its origins in a letter sent by Innocent III to the king. The barons, however, were not attempting to dismantle royal government; in fact, many of the legal reforms of Henry II's day were reinforced. Nor did they seek to legitimate rebellion but rather they tried to ensure that the king was beneath rather than above the law. In immediate terms Magna Carta was a failure, for it was no more than a stage in ineffective negotiations to prevent civil war. John was released by the pope from his obligations under it. The document was, however, re-issued with some changes under John's son, with papal approval, and so it became, in its 1225 version, a part of the permanent law of the land. John himself died in October 1216, with the civil war still at an inconclusive stage.
Source: "United Kingdom." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
In other words, King John went along with the concessions in public, but in private, he schemed to undermine all that had been documented. It is a perspective garnered not only from the above reference but also other references such as the following:
In August 1212 recurrent baronial discontent had come to a head in an unsuccessful plot to murder or desert John during a campaign planned against the Welsh. Pope Innocent's terms had included the restoration of two of those involved, Eustace de Vesci and Robert Fitzwalter, and, although the barons soon lost papal support, they retained the protection of Stephen Langton. John, skillfully isolating the malcontents, was able to launch his long-planned campaign against the French, landing at La Rochelle in February 1214. He achieved nothing decisive and was forced to accept a truce lasting until 1220. Returning to England in October 1214, he now had to face much more widespread discontent, centered mainly on the northern, East Anglian, and home counties. After lengthy negotiations in which both sides appealed to the Pope, civil war broke out in May 1215. John was compelled to negotiate once more when London went over to the rebels in May, and on June 15 at Runnymede he accepted the baronial terms embodied in a document known as the Articles of the Barons. On June 19, after further revisions of the document, the king and the barons accepted the Magna Carta, which ensured feudal rights and restated English law. This settlement was soon rendered unworkable by the more intransigent barons and John's almost immediate appeal to Pope Innocent against it. Innocent took the King's side, and in the ensuing civil war John captured Rochester castle and laid waste the northern counties and the Scottish border. But his cause was weakened by the arrival of Prince Louis (later Louis VIII) of France, who invaded England at the barons' request. John continued to wage war vigorously but died, leaving the issues undecided. His death made possible a compromise peace, including the restoration of the rebels, the succession of his son Henry III, and the withdrawal of Louis.
Source: "John." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
As can be seen, not only were the concessions troubled by King John's underhanded manueverings, but also by disputatious Barons amongst themselves, under whose leadership no doubt many lives were made socially unstable... like and extended form of disruption (with much greater consequences!) amongst fanatical sports followers who win and rub in the winning to a loser, and losers who seek some alternative means of winning by concocting a situation they will win at, or taking advantage of an opportunity to undermine a winner in which they derive a winning level of satisfaction from. It is a story that has played out numerous times between different factions of nations. In short, no real equality is ever achieved for good... for short or extended periods of time, yes, but not forever. They can't be because humans are subjected to eventuality of unstable circumstances because of continually deteriorating environmental circumstances humanity is forced to re-establish a measure of equilibrium in. While there is an expression that the only constant is change, they don't attempt to develop nor construct a social philosophy which could improve their chances of achieving a stability of greater equality without sacrificing the growth of individuality... though some may perceive both equality and individuality as symptomatic illusions.
All in all, one might want to interpret our circumstances of living on this planet as a cause of social problems that can not be dealt adequately with, because the very process of change influences us away from establishing the level of social philosophy needed for creating better conditions... which inevitably results in helping us to get away from the more severe detrimental effects of the deteriorating environment. And with such a comment in mind, it may be that the present social philosophy will not be applied to present concerns, but will have to wait application by those who know they must leave the Earth. They are those whose own contemplations have resulted in the consideration that trying to correct the problems of so many dysfunctional social situations is a tide that will take an enormous effort of stopping in order to construct a useful reservoir of potential energy and resources, either by the acts of a few or an unexpected act of nature. Such people are fully aware that we need a Cenocracy and would like to help, but at present, they see the task as being next to impossible. Yet, we Cenocrats have a different order of faith and do not easily succumb to doom and gloom equations. It is time for you to consider joining in our views of hopefulness.