My Two-Bit Opinion #3: Human Beings

After 24 years on this world, I've come to the conclusion that I must be from another planet.

I feel like an observer of these strange creatures, humans. I'm not sure where to start explaining this, so I'll just go with what's currently on my mind.

Love and Trust

Humans desire to have some purpose in life, because unlike most creatures on the planet, they've achieved the misfortune of consciousness. Hence, man asks many questions, the greatest of which on man's mind, aside from corporeal concerns like food and sex, is "why are we here?"

While no one person has quite answered this question to the satisfaction of the rest of the members of the race, there seems to be some consensus that Love is involved somehow. Love is a favoring affection of various sorts, and at best it is an attempt by humans to fully know and understand each other. Unfortunately, it is impossible to know anyone fully, so humans do the best they can by using a concept called Trust.

Humans often ask "How do I really know that I am truly loved by the person whom I love?" The only available answer to the question of a loved one's intentions and actions is Trust. Trust is a Leap of Faith based on previous actions and statements made by a particular loved one.

Trust figures into all levels of Love, from Passionate Lovers to Friends to Acquaintances. The situation that led me to discover the importance of Trust and its evident absence in many humans is as follows:

I am what is commonly known as a gullible person. What this means is that I trust people very easily, in an effort to bring greater Love and Trust to the world. Very often through my childhood and even on through college, my associates and even my friends would take advantage of my gullibility (Trust) for whatever reason. Friends would tell me untrue things and I would believe them because I trusted them. They would then reveal their untruths and proceed to ridicule me. They would laugh at me because I trusted them! Is that not strange?

So, example #1 of why I don't understand humans: Trust is often taken for granted or not valued at all.

Schadenfreude

This concept relates to the previous as humans very often wish to denigrate each other to feel better about themselves. The original definition of this word is "pleasure at the misfortune of others," and is generally used in regards to situational misfortunes - a man feels pleasure in his enemy's pain. However, I believe the word has numerous lateral applications.

Definitions in this universe are only possible through comparisons. Hence, for humans to define themselves they must compare their characters with others nearby. If they should see a relative deficiency in their neighbors, they can feel better about their own characters. If they see a relative sufficiency in their neighbors, they have two options: improve themselves or deny their own deficiency and find another one (or conjure one) in their neighbors to attack. Obviously the latter is the easier and therefore more popular activity. In successfully attacking a neighbor's deficiency, a kind of schadenfreude is achieved. A more detailed diagram is found below:

Neighbor's Relative Sufficiency 1. Improve Self 2. Find or create deficiency, exploit, schadenfreude

Neighbor's Relative Deficiency 1. Assist neighbor in improvement 2. Exploit, schadenfreude

Entropy being a more powerful force in this universe than organization, the easier option of exploitation is the road more traveled. Improvement involves work, and is therefore shunned. I suppose I shouldn't complain - after all, entropy is Nature's law. However, the purpose of humans may be to constantly fight entropy by organizing and creating things, as they so often create large buildings and organize great structures physical and psychological. Perhaps schadenfreude, an agent of entropy, can be combatted by the construction of Love, an organizing force.

Example #2 of why I don't understand humans: Exploitation is favored over improvement.

Appearances are Reality

This is a sticky one. I really can't blame humans for this, since it's not their fault. Humans have a limited means through which they experience the universe, so they do the best with what they've got. Nevertheless science and religion both suggest that there is much more going on in the universe than what the five senses would have us believe. So we should not invest so much in outward appearances.

I often compare humans to raccoons. Raccoons are woodland mammals who, like humans, enjoy shiny things. Sparkling pieces of tin or rock are very valuable to both raccoons and humans alike. Humans think so highly of shiny objects that they often base their economic systems and thus their lives on the rarest of pretty rocks and the various shiny things that can be made from them such as jewelry and televisions and automobiles.

I remember reading the book "Where the Red Fern Grows" as it recounted a tale of how a raccoon could be easily trapped by using a shiny piece of tin as bait. A particular raccoon, when trapped, had to choose between the shiny object or becoming a coonskin cap. The raccoon would not let go of the shiny piece of tin. Humans are much the same way. Numerous humans will not let go of their expensive shiny things, and in doing so, they often doom themselves. Humans and raccoons rely too much on their visual senses. They believe that because something is shiny, it is good for them to have. This is simply not so.

In a related matter, the choosing of mates by many species is done through the evaluation of visual characteristics. Humans most often choose their mates based on colorful plumage and aerodynamic shapes rather than actions, skills or other less visible factors. We can grant this kind of shortsightedness to monkeys and lemurs, but humans really ought to be smarter than this.

Unfortunately our affection for shiny things often transfers itself into affection for others. Yes, as Darwin says, the strongest and most attractive mates are chosen first, as they are assumed to be the best genetic specimens with which to procreate. But, as humans have so far removed themselves from Nature's plan, we should be able to do away with such archaic notions. There should be more important factors in mate selection to consider these days: intelligence, kindness, conscientiousness, patience, respect, sincerity, humor and so forth. These are not characteristics generally displayed by the biggest and strongest of the species. Humans needn't worry about survival anymore. Humans should be concerned with the pursuit of happiness.

Example #3 of why I don't understand humans: Appearances supersede other more important factors.

Words

Like appearances, words mean more to people than they should. Humans have a peculiar tendency to to find certain words more distasteful than similar words. Connotations are more important than denotations - appearances are more important than definitions. Profanity is a good example.

I mentioned "Where the Red Fern Grows" earlier. In a small town here in Arkansas recently, much harumphing was made by the local school board regarding the profanity present in the novel. Numerous usages and variations of the word "damn" were made in the book, and parents and administrators were gravely concerned about the adverse effects of such language on the impressionable youth of the community. No doubt such language would cause the area fourth graders to rise up and commit senseless acts of sex and violence, pillaging and running amok through the streets engaging in rampant naughtiness.

Is not the world in such a wonderful state of affairs that this sort of thing is considered a problem?

What magical ingredient separates "damn" from "darn"? "Crap" from "shit"? "Jerk" from "asshole"?

This magical ingredient does exist - it IS more satisfying to say "dammit" than "darnit", but why make certain words socially illegal when there is no definable substance that makes them so evil? Criminalization only makes people relish the usage of these words. Part of the appeal of saying "fuck you" is the pleasure one receives at breaking out of social constraints. Another part of it is simply the percussiveness of the consonants. I favor using the word "dagnabbit" as it is a highly pleasurable release of air pressure.

But should we discipline a child for saying "damn" and instruct him to use "darn" instead? What has been changed? He's still experiencing and expressing displeasure. Using profanity to express contempt is another matter; if a child is expressing disrespect or contempt, then he should be punished regardless of any use of profanity. Usage should be of greater concern than diction.

My grandmother used to say that cursing evidenced a poor vocabulary. To some extent this is true, but despite the extensive vocabulary of this writer, he is not about to express his displeasure at hammering a spike through his thumb by saying, "oh, this peculiar predicament has caused me anguish and consternation the likes of which I have never known!" A simple "fuck!" will suffice.

So profane interjections should not be illegal - simply uttering "Shit!" "Fuck!" or "Goddammit!" at the reception of distasteful sensory data is merely an involuntary reaction. It is what humans do rather than growl or hiss. Interjections are not intended to be intelligible communication as there is no rational thought attached to them. So there are no logical grounds for punishment.

Moving away from profanity, another interesting linguistic case appeared in the news some time ago regarding the word "niggardly". A college professor had used it one day, much to the alarm of his students. The sound of the word "niggardly" phonically resembles the word "nigger," a dangerous epithet when wielded offensively, and the students had assumed a correlation between the two. There is none whatsoever. The word "niggard" is of Scandinavian origin and means "miserly" or "stingy." Nevertheless, the professor was severely chastised for his usage of a perfectly benign word. Guilt by phonetic similarity.

"Nigger" is, to many, one of the most heavily loaded words in the English language, and rightly so. In just two consonants, over 200 years of the darkest of America's history is connotatively encapsulated. Many conscientious white people fear using it lest they be branded as racists, for it is a word that can cause discomfort regardless of intent. Other white folks defend themselves for using it by pointing out that many black people often use it. Perhaps these white folks are disgruntled that black people can use a word that white people can't. Personally I would submit that the word "nigger" need never be used by anyone, as its definition is inherently disparaging.

"They use it all the time - why can't we?" Possibly because when black people use it, there is a certain ironic camaraderie attached to it ("wazzup with my niggaz?" for example). I refer to my gang of associates here at Pointed Stick as "Losers" in a similar way. We don't seriously believe ourselves to be losers; we're quite exceptional people. We can call each other losers, but if someone from outside the group tries to, they are not likely to be clued in to the ironic usage of the word because they are not part of our group. White people generally are not part of the same group as black people, so there is no camaraderie, and no irony is established. The only thing established is the default social setting of whitey not understanding the brothers.

Words cannot hurt people. Or at least, they should not be able to hurt people. Concepts and ideas can be offensive. We cannot stop offensive ideas - nor should we try. At best we can attempt to deal with symptoms rather than diseases by constraining active expressions of offensive thoughts. We should discipline children for contemptibly saying "fuck you, bitch," not for involuntarily saying "shit!" when they stub their toe. It's just a word. Would you prefer they express themselves as animals and howl?

Example #4 of why I don't understand humans: Connotations are definitions.