Grey matter used in interesting ways.

It amuses me no end to see the sheer amount of bigotry inherent in supposedly “open-minded” individuals. I once heard someone say that a mind should be open but not so open that their brain falls out. Unfortunately I do not know who first said this nor how it was precisely worded but I like the sentiment.

As a species humanity is unique on this planet with its ability to reason and understand the things around them. It is uniquely gifted in that it is able to apply logic and reason to the events that constantly surrounds it. It is, however, also cursed in its inability to apply those precious gifts to everything in a consistent manner. We call this curse rationalizing.
Take two diametrically opposed viewpoints. For the first example I shall use atheism and religion. As a belief system one would think that atheism would have zero evangelicals. This is not true. I’m sure we’ve all met militant atheist, atheist who actively preach in a less than open minded manner that there is no god.  My own religious beliefs not withstanding*I am constantly amused that the supposedly enlightened and relatively modern mass belief of atheism has its own evangelical and often times just as offensive proponents as Christianities own Jerry Falwell and the like.

Both sides of this particular debate say hateful and hurtful things about the other in such volume that one often wonders if they are trying to destroy buildings with the simple volume of their voices. Yet, neither side thinks they’re bigots. Amusing.
As a second example modern (extreme) feminism, where as once feminism was a movement for the equal treatment of women (and all others for that matter) regardless of their organic plumbing, many proponents have hijacked what one would consider a very enlightened ideal into something akin to “it’s all the oppressors’ man’s fault”. Hell sometimes I wonder if the dark cabal of manhood forgot to send me an invitation to one of its initiation or planning functions. I have a penis, I want an invite… anybody? Bueller…. Bueller? Yet, a radical feminist cannot be called a sexist or a bigot… why? Because they’re too enlightened. Their mind is open… and they’re brain has definitely fallen out.
Next, “reverse racism” Oh, for the love of god, PLEASE. You’re either a racist or you’re not. However a person who’s skin is not pasty white can’t be a racist? Bigotry is bigotry regardless of its source. Of course that particular sentiment is hate speech… god I love the loops and curlycues involved in rationalizing things like this.
I guess, in the end, what this mild rant’s whole point is, is that regardless of your particular religious belief or philosophy, regardless of the setup or your organic plumbing and personal amusement devices, and regardless of the amount of melanin contained in your skin… keep arguing, keep screaming from the rooftops that you’re right and everyone else is an evil oppressor. It amuses the living hell out of me. I mean, bigotry has to be good for something…

Right?

I mean it’s not like someone could possibly hate something so much that they become the very thing they hate. That would just be… stupid and extremely counter-productive, and we all know humans aren’t stupid and would never do anything counterproductive, that wouldn’t be an enlightened open minded thought at all…

Right?

*for the sake of “journalistic” honesty I’m what’s best described as a cynical agnostic. I.e. I could go either way because there is no proof that there is a god and there is no proof that there is not a god so anything is possible until it’s proved one way or the other.  Extreme proponents of both set religious and atheist amuse me.

No human being can deserve another human being. Deserve implies obligation and entitlement to reward. One human being can of course give themselves to another human being; the receiver does not deserve in any way shape or form that gift. They simply are receiving what’s given, and quite honestly are receiving an obligation in turn. The “Gift” in the end turns out to be the mutual exchange of support and (as someone would say) the “reinforcement” of the bond between two individuals.

This applies of course to all aspects of human endeavor within the basic structures of leadership, relationships, friendships, etc. In leadership those commanded surrender their initiative to the one in command, and the one in command surrenders his or her luxury to think of him or herself first. In relationships two individuals surrender to each other and begin to think of the other person as a part of them and (ideally) work towards supporting and caring for one another. However, Up until the point of surrender though… it’s a bit of a fight, even if only internally. Two people will fight their own self doubts and insecurities until something happens, the point of surrender comes and they stop fighting. Then, (again ideally), normally they find out they were fighting themselves for nothing. The fear and uncertainty will disappear and a sense of comfort will flood them. In friendships, true friendships, much the same will happen with little or none of the romantic aspect.

People are not, and should not be, property. One human cannot own another, either in a moral or real sense. However, having said that, humans can “belong” to one another… if you can see the difference.

                The overwhelming majority of human activity is some form of power play. Be it for benign or malevolent purposes it is a constant of the human condition for the struggle for control to be a large part of our basic personal interaction matrix.

                Vulgar power, or alternatively power based on the strength of arms, the threat of violence or the blatant aggressive use of a means to control is one such common method used. Everything from the threatening stance of an inebriated large man to the threat of police, military, or nuclear war are obvious examples of vulgar power.

                What, however, is the alternative form of power or the inverse of vulgar power?

                Command

                Command is the ability to project power via presence, the ability to influence and direct events, people and policy by the exercise of sheer personal presence and, for lack of a better term, moral authority.