Clearing up some points and explaining self-bureaucratization.

First of all I'll start proof reading my entries, because apparently I have some readers now and it would be courteous. I also want to clear some concepts up that some people may have gotten confused. Just because homosexuality came about in its present form through the changes in definition of love, marriage, and sex doesn't mean it's wrong. Through all of history we've tended to become physical with people we are close to regardless of sex. The next is that normal and abnormal is the opposite and not normal and broken. When I say broken I'm talking emotionally. I believe people are emotionally broken and these people can be very successful in many areas of life, but they aren't truly happy which is more important in order to find success in areas of life that are more personal and self fulfilling. Normal is created by a given dominant group within an institution. The other thing has to do subordinate and dominant groups. When I say "we" and "they" I don't mean there are one "we" and one "they" in society as in one dominant group and one subordinate group. Institutions exist all throughout society and in each institution there is a hierarchy. Some institutions are tangible structures like a church or a school, and others are intangible like a family or civil society. The intangibles are bound together by nothing more than people's bodies that agree that a space exists they share mentally. Dominant and subordinate groups today work similar to a democracy. In the combination of all the dominant groups there are things they have in common and things that aren't common. If for instance an element they mostly have in common is being white and male then this is a shared reality that becomes an intangible institution of its own without recognition of it even existing perhaps. The most powerful institutions are likely family, peers, schools, and the media as socializing agents. Being emotional creatures we will base our morality and outlook primarily on that we are most familiar with meaning family and peers, because we've managed to develop bonds with these people. The only way we bond with an idea or a stereotype is if we haven't had personal interactions on regular basis or a mutual attachment to someone that opposes the idea or stereotype. This is how a school or media outlets can influence us. These institutions fill in the holes for the things we haven't had personal interactions with and explain to us what the world is like. We like seeing the world in the imaginary as much as the real.


This is one of my arguments for being a proponent of religion. If we took the institution of religion away people would still use their imaginations for things people would consider weak, pointless, and imaginary outside of real life. Just look at TV and video games. These things tell us stories too that we don't have real interactions with. We watch them the same as some people would watch a sermon for entertainment and ritual. On the other end where people claim religion does negative things in the world we can still imagine a world where racism, sexism, and any other ism you can imagine would still exist without religion reinforcing it. People will always create reasons from their imaginations and minds to see themselves as different and sometimes better than others. The last thing is the positivness of imagination in religion and other forms. We certainly couldn't have created all the technological marvels we have today if someone didn't first imagine how the components would come together in the abstract such as metallurgy. This ability is also important for understanding laws and morals. If we didn't have an imagination or emotions we'd be robots. So, religion just like any other kind of imagination can create both good and bad things and getting rid of it won't make the world a better place. Just as some would argue religious institutions are places of brainwash I'll make the point that all institutions are places of brainwash. This means our families and peers even brainwash us as well as schools and the media. Since we can't escape brainwash we should try to exist where it feels good and seems to allow us to excel. It's the same as the idea that we can't know or understand all reality. Should we then throw our hands in the air and say forget trying to live or find ideas that make us feel good? Even if life is completely pointless we need to give it a point by finding some kind of ideological traction to run on. It would feel better running on treadmill going nowhere than to stand around wishing we had something to believe in (and mentally run on).

Since we're most influenced by those we have emotional attachments to we seem to approve of their stories the most. Since I believe we are more emotional that rational and emotions precede rationality, then this is the reason we buy into the stories of those things we are least familiar with on a personal basis from our family and peers. If our emotional bond to our family is weak due to an unstructured home we'll lean to our peers more than our family for emotional support and belief in stories. If the television said people of a certain race had certain characteristics and we had personal friends of that race we'd disbelieve the television. If our friends tell us doing drugs is fun and recreational and the television has ads saying it's bad for us, we disbelieve the television. So, our rationality revolves around those we connect to the most. This brings about an important question. If on one hand we should always stay where it feels good while rationalizing around that to be emotionally unbroken, and on the other hand we like to lie to ourselves about what is good due to past painful encounters where we might avoid going to the place more stable instead of the unstable place we've told ourselves feels right, how do we progress? We like to lie to ourselves through storytelling based on emotional pain and pleasure. One example of this is my sister who came up with the ultimate plan to marry a man who she'd never live with in order to never get divorced. It might sound crazy to some people, but the belief is that the purpose of marriage was to avoid divorce in a sense. I chose to ask her some questions so she could critique herself. I'll make the point before I start that she is a devoted Christian who believes premarital sex is wrong at this point. I start with the question why is it wrong to have sex before marriage? The answer is because it goes against god's will. Why don't we want to upset god? Because it's wrong to break the laws of god. Why is it wrong to break the law? Because we'll be judged before god….she almost had it so I decided to come from another angle. Name something other people are really good at that you aren't good at? Math. Why don't you try doing math? Because I think I'd suck at it and I'm afraid I wouldn't do very well. At this point I say let's take these two things and see what they have in common. On one hand we want to obey god and laws because they keep a stable system and they're good for us. The other reason we don't disobey god is because we fear disappointing god and fear punishment if we disobey laws. You personally also fear math, because what we don't understand or aren't good at are seen as things that are bad…or at least bad for us. What we don't understand or fear is what we call bad and what we do understand and feel comfortable with we call good. People we fear or don't understand apply the same. Stories that ended up not making sense or hurt us when applied in real life are called bad, and the opposite good. I then made the claim that they fear a marriage where they'll live together, because neither of them ever had a good relationship, and fear that living together will cause divorce because all the stories they've heard of other people getting divorced happened for this same reason. They don't understand how to make a good marriage work living together and they fear it as well (I was correct on my guess by the way).

How do we exist in a place that feels emotionally comfortable and know it's the place that will be the most stable over time? I can make the point that our natures exist because we used to live in a world of scarce consumption and constant production seeking consumption, so when we're depressed we fall back on nature to seek comfort in consumption and a feeling of control. Avoiding the nature whenever possible beyond what is needed is one way to find more stable production. The question may also coincide with, how do find things to self-bureaucratize in our lives and what things should we self-bureaucratize? This would occur the same way we make friends? We don't tend to go out of our way to make friends. We usually go places and do things that have always been an interest to us and that we managed to find pleasure in on a regular basis. How did we find these things? We find them the same way we find our friends, which is on accident in a sense. Someone told us a story about something that might be fun or interesting to do and we tried it and liked it. If we found that we kept trying it over and over again we kept doing it and eventually realized it was a hobby. The same happens when we make friends. We meet people at places we're doing things we like and may talk to them on occasion and eventually we find that we've been interacting with them more and more over time till one day we say hey we're pretty good friends. When did we meet anyway? It happens in a way that's so unconscious that by the time it does become conscious we've had a habit for a long time. It usually takes a few months to get into or break a habit. If we find that we're doing something more than a few months that seems productive then we should keep doing it. If we meet friends doing these things that we keep talking to after a few months we should keep them around. Self-bureaucratizing then means that once we find something that seems productive and keeps bringing long term pleasure is something that we should continue doing on a regular basis in our lives. The more things we can create in our lives like this the more stability we will have and the less chaos, which will give us more emotional stability. People who try to take us away from these things or that we have to change these things for are people looking to harm us even if it isn't intentional on their end. When we find people doing the same things that we are in our lives, and then realize that we're friends and these people are part of our rituals, then they should be brought closer in our lives to help make these processes easier for both of us. These are the kinds of people we should marry too. Anyone who doesn't already share many of the constructive things in our lives most likely won't able to do well with us in the long term if they only exist for the sake of marriage and having a family. If we never find anyone who matches these requirements then perhaps we should never get married, because marriage, love, and sex don't equal happiness in themselves, and the true purpose of life are the rituals and the friendships that come with them. The rest only exists to make things better. Even if these things seem redundant and like running on a treadmill or a track at least it's our track, and that's better than standing around wishing we had an ideology to exist for. Only broken people will run on tracks that aren't circular or treadmills that run out of time, because they seek pleasure from doing what is the opposite of pain rather than going after the things that will really bring long term pleasure and keep producing. When we are out of rituals for a day we should try to learn something we think we would be interested in through a story (conversation with friends, a movie, documentary, book, or news). This is the place where we first get the ideas to try new rituals in our lives if we've come to feel limited through our family and peers. Knowledge is the most important ritual because it creates all other rituals. The second is production and the last is consumption.