Hookah homophobe revelation, Pt1

Yesterday I got the urge to get out of the house and relax somewhere. I’d been working hard at school and exercise all week, I’d just taken three tests in two days, and I felt I deserved a break. I decided to go to a local establishment that a lot of college students and otherwise interesting people hang out. I’d only been there once before, and so I didn’t really know the customs and expectations associated with it, but I thought I’d set up my computer, kick back, put in some headphones and get caught up on some music listening and some emailing. Alas, when I got there, there was no internet to be found. I couldn’t get a signal for the life of me, and while I initially lamented, I decided I would still take advantage of this time.

So I decided I would get some typing and some listening done. And I'm realizing I'm surrounded by smart, interesting people. Two guys were having a conversation, and the first line of it that I heard was a, "Did you just make a sexist and a homophobic comment?" The guy responded, "…dude, I'm not homophobic." How refreshing! …and how terribly, terribly interesting. Why was it more acceptable to be sexist instead of homophobic? Sexism seems to be an issue that people don't think is an issue anymore. We are not in "post-sexist America" right now. Sexism is here to stay, since women are actually so different. But this is just what's highlighted by popular culture (media): a cherry-picked version of all the evidence that's at hand.

Now I can't claim to have examined all of the relevant scientific data. I don't even claim to have a fair knowledge of any degree of breadth or depth; A lot of what I have to go on, I'll admit, has probably been cherry picked pretty well. One would say that I have not achieved "sufficient evidence" yet. I should still remain skeptical. It could easily be that the illusion of gender differences is, itself, an illusion. What's more, the little evidence I've managed to acquire in my experience doesn't even share the same method of information. I've got 3rd person observation; various percentages and graphs from different magazines; a number of empirical studies on the matter that seem to "tell it like it is", basing it on the concept of whether the hypothesis matched the data, and how well is "well enough"; and what various talking heads have to say. But the most important experience I have is my own first-hand experience. And why is that? Definitely a question for a more philosophical mind state. But I know that it has more impact than any of this other evidence, and that's even acknowledging the fallibility of a singular perspective.

Grey would say that wisdom is to have more than just that singular perspective. He said that it's like being in a maze and being able to zoom up above it and use that information to make the labrynthesque journey of life that much easier. He said it's to come closer to the ultimate objectivity that is the eye of god; unmoving, ever-conscious, and always observing. And so I like to think of myself as wise in that regard, in that if I haven't come close, I've at least tried to achieve higher perceptual ground. It's been my goal, even if I haven't made much progress.

Aristotle was quoted as saying, "All I know is that I know nothing." I'm tempted to apply this adage to the situation at hand, but only before clarifying that claim as I've been taught to. Because [that woman] says that what he really meant was, "I do not claim to know things that I do not know." I think in this case, it could even be appropriate to go so far as to say, "…that I cannot know." Because in reality, I know that I cannot know the truest version of another's perspective. 

So does this apply to say, "These thoughts about gender differences are immoral beliefs because you know you cannot know, and yet you claim to know anyway"? I don't think so. I think this is where the matter of degree comes in. I do have experience, and I do feel that it is in at least some small, flawed way a description of "how it really is." This is why I do not dogmatically claim to know the truth about gender issues and to disbelieve any evidence to the contrary. For instance, I acknowledge, now more than ever due to what I've been learning in human sexuality, that the effects of hormones are very real, and that they can be generalized to an extent. (This is to approach a clinical take on the situation--"This individual is ab/normal because hir scores and tests fall within this range"--but this is where my interest and education in biochemistry fills in scientific evidence--perhaps some of the most sufficient evidence.) 

But, for instance, a recent example from my recent life applies directly to this: I read in a magazine that drinking cold liquids while eating is bad for digestion, because it dilutes digestive juices, making the stomach produce more HCl; After digestion, the level is still high, contributing to stomach problems. What assumptions are being made here? Here's my best guess: "My audience is mostly people who have read this magazine, and my advice in it, and if they're going to heed my advice now, they've probably done it before. This means they've been eating their veggies, exercising, and especially drinking 64oz of water every day and chewing their food 500 times." What does this mean? The people taking this woman's advice had better know the context of her claim.

I didn't think all of this at first. I took her claim at face value, and decided to apply to it the scientific method, if only (and especially) for my own personal gain. What I found seemed to be inconclusive, if not possessing a negative correlation. When I ate without drinking, I would feel fuller, but not in a satisfied way. It seemed to me that her advice wasn't working for me.

Some would say, "Of course not!" and I almost wish I held their convictions that highly. Ignorance can sometimes be bliss. But in this case, the conviction being held is that "everybody's bodies respond differently to different experiences, treatments, and stimuli." This is another claim I can back up with personal and scientific evidence. I really want to believe that this is true, but the ramifications are great. It would imply that maybe the whole field of medical science is off-base, and that seeing my GP again would be like entering the shaman's hut to have some ritual bleeding done. I like to believe that the answers to my problems are close at hand, just a phone call away. To suggest that my body could be completely different from the "ideal average" that pharmaceutical companies operate off of is scary. It means there's much more I have to know, much more to learn. 

But I like learning, and so this desire, combined with my reasons for skepticism, colored my experimentation. So who knows if science lady is right or not, especially seeing as she didn't provide any numerical data? I certainly don't. It seems possible, even likely, that she's wrong, except for the fact that I do take great comfort of being able to call a doctor when something bad happens and he'll make it all go away. Poof. And so wouldn't this make me prone to believing a supposed professional? My interpersonal communications class would suggest that the positivity bias would also play into this equation, making me believe that the nice lady would never intentionally mislead her readers.

At the same time, how do scientists figure out correlations? They probably take a sample of people with no confounding variables. This means relatively healthy people. I do not believe that this is a representative sample of the American population. I think most impartial statisticians agree that it is perhaps the majority of American citizens that have something "wrong" with them, whether it be their weight, their hearts, their reproductive organs, their brains… I think this disconnection with the actual population being studied--us-- runs as deep as the researchers themselves. Imagine how much further the reality of the situation is distorted through the fuzzy connections and conduits of mass media, word of mouth, and various political and religious institutions. By the time the crux of the matter gets to our ears, it's merely a dim shadow of truth, flickering like a star's light shooting untold miles through space and atmosphere. 

So what does this all mean? That's always the core of the matter: okay, I believe so, so what do I do from here? You've read this, so that's a start. The next act is to try to live for the pursuit of wisdom, an altered perspective, a strive for sufficient evidence, a bountiful heap of skepticism. But this does not mean inaction. Skepticism is never an excuse for inaction. In fact, it's almost a rallying cry. So maybe lady is only conveying a very specific version of the truth, but it's got that glimmering point of truth to it. The next step is to establish what level of authority to grant this lady. She may be good enough to be printed, but does she have formal education in the matter? an ulterior motive? faulty information? How accurate and scientific is this magazine? Is this an issue I already feel strongly about (this statement goes on the assumption that my audience already believes in and adheres to some level of Clifford's idea of the morality of sufficient evidence, even if they don't know it by name)? All of this, I feel, ought to balance out to the point that I've come to. "There's only one way to find out for certain if this advice is applicable to my life: Test that ish out. Not only that, but get the opinion of others: namely acquaintances and medical professionals."

One also needs to keep in mind what the goal of this investigation is. It is not to prove that lady is right or wrong. It is only to prove whether or not that set of advice applies to your life. This is not the endpoint, however. Even after personal knowledge has been established, the goal should cycle back to unanswered questions found in the earlier process of skepticism: how reputable is this magazine? this author? Is this knowledge universal, or personal? In short, what is that glimmer of truth? Just because it shines on me, doesn't mean everybody feels it the same way. (Circle back to the fallibility of a singular perspective.) The goal, in essence, becomes the quest for truth and knowledge through the active act of wisdom. 

So what did I end up finding? I determined that my body is still adjusting--to a new climate, a new sleep schedule, a new medication, a new exercise routine--and that these adjustments all relate to my level of hydration, which I have learned over the years (through the aforementioned process) is very important to my body. It's why I always preach to drink water whenever anything is wrong with someone. It's a belief that I've held to such a standard of sufficient evidence that I feel comfortable--even moral--recommending this faith to others. And even in this act of proselytizing for the church of biochemistry, I listen to those who say, "You know, I always thought that, but I actually function better when I'm slightly dehydrated." It's these people that really catch my attention, because they seem to know more about the matter for two apparent reasons: their conviction when expressing their belief seems to be based on some level of sufficient evidence, and the relative lack of people who strongly disbelieve the correlation between hydration and health. In a world with no zealotry, the agnostic becomes the outlier. 

So, really though, what did I end up finding? Besides more questions? I found lady's advice doesn't apply to me at this period in my life. That's the only thing I know for certain. It's a certainty that isn't dogmatic. It's almost too idealistic. It's skeptical certainty. 

"Philosophy is not something that only applies when thinking about philosophy. Knowledge is power always." 

P.S. Part two is explaining why I believe what I do about sexuality and gender, and why I feel comfortable in the moral nature of the act of expressing these beliefs in this way to you, the reader.  

Yes, the language barrier. No, not that one.

Hello and welcome again! For those of you who are returning readers, thanks for your continued interest! Let me know you're here by joining in the discussion. For those of you new to the blog, welcome welcome welcome! Feel free to make your voices heard in whatever capacity you feel is appropriate!

I'm going to take a step away from the topic at hand and back from the viewpoint currently in effect to take a look at language. I feel this topic is pertinent for two reasons: not only is language just about the most variable part of our society, constantly shifting and redefining itself, but it's also the heart of the discussion of bi-ness, seeing as one of the biggest obstacles between humans and absolute fluidity is the words we use to describe it. Or, to put it more succinctly, I am just as interested in studying language as I am in studying bi-ness, and the two walk hand-in-hand, intermingled alongside humanity.

I was given a book by someone who knows me very well entitled "The Evolution of Consciousness in the Bicameral Mind". It's an awfully thick read, and I was only able to get through the first conclusion the author made before I had to set it down and massage my temples for, oh, say, four months or so. The other day I picked it up and paged through what I'd already covered, and was reminded of exactly why I set the book down in the first place: for the time being, the lessons it taught me have almost intentionally sought to pervade every last action and interaction I take part in.

Enough suspense-building. The author's message, laymanized as much as possible, is this: True human consciousness didn't exist until the invention of language. (In this case, the term "language" is defined as "communication through abstract symbolism", as in, for example, that the shape of each letter of every human language is inherently meaningless were it not for our interpretation and dissemination of their meanings.) His assertion was spelled out and proven in a very convincing way, being presented through the lens of biochemistry, psychology, sociology, linguistics...it was a very broad scope. So, before humans were able to communicate, they weren't truly "human", but instead just quite intelligent animals.

Of course, all sorts of arguments spring up when the matter is discussed so simplistically, seeing as the question of "What is human?" has been around since humanity could ask it. For the time being, please trust me when I say that my critical mind was convinced of the author's claims with a minimum of skepticism. If it makes you feel better, let's at least agree on the idea that "Language is of the utmost importance to defining, furthering, and bettering humanity as we have come to know it."

Why is this, though? Well, we need to look at how we define humanity. Humanity implies dealing with all humans everywhere, and so to understand it is to understand what is the most basic level of commonality between humans. Humanity involves some level of society. Society is just a series of complex interactions between two or more people. People have an inherent desire to understand the world around them, and one of the most potent methods of accomplishing this is to tap into the perceptions of others. People perceive the world through their senses. It is their language that allows them to express their perceptions. This language is only effective if it is learned and shared with others.

Let's work from the bottom up. To understand the inner workings of another's mind fully is impossible, for to do so would be to empathize 100%, and this would result in a loss of self. Now, this is not to invalidate empathy; Quite the contrary, it is to emphasize just how important a tool it is in human interaction. (It is certainly possible to empathize with anyone to some extent, but this is only once they use the tool of language to express just what emotions they are feeling that can be empathized with. However, I digress, and will discuss this in my next blog.) However, the actual processing of thoughts, the catacombs and recesses that must be traversed in one's own mind to come to a conclusion that can be expressed with any accuracy using language, are often veiled even to ourselves. For example, take a look at inspiration. If any of you dear readers have ever felt a sudden bolt of realization, a fresh new thought, fully formed, that had never occurred to you before and seems to have no path that can be backtracked through your mind, you know what I mean when I say "inspiration". True inspiration cannot be manufactured; Conditions can be changed so that inspiration is more likely to make itself known, or so that you can latch onto it for long enough to bring it to the front of your mind and duly note it, but to arduously come to an inspirational conclusion is not true inspiration at all. It is inspirational, at best, in the same way a motivational speaker can be.

This is where language steps in. I just said that it's impossible to fully empathize with another's thought processes because it would result in a total loss of self. This reason is secondary to the fact that most of us don't truly know how we come to our own thoughts, inspirational or otherwise. It is some combination of perceptions of the world around us, viewed through past experience and seasoned with personality, that ultimately forms a conscious thought. Through these already muddied details we can glean only a fraction of the reality of our mind, which is muddied still by the fallibility of language. And then the thought is expressed, and it hits our listener's ear, and the process begins anew. And what is that last step before speech? In our mind, we put the words together, we rehearse them in our inner ear (so to speak), and once the proper vocabulary and syntax are present, we let our mouth finish.

But what about the steps previous, the ones that lead to that conclusory act of speech? This is the no-man's land I've just been discussing, but I'd like to make a guess as to its nature. I wager that this space is filled with language as well.

To make this all a bit more palatable, I'll use an example from my childhood. Every child is at some point taught a superstitious tradition about driving through a tunnel. Maybe the passengers need to hold the roof up with their hands, or hold their breath for the duration of the tunnel, perhaps while touching some piece of metal, and at some point a silent wish is involved. I was always taught to hold my breath and wish. However, I changed the rules a bit. I figured that it wouldn't be fair to simply hold your breath under every bridge and overpass...hell, even an overhead stoplight would suffice if the strictest definition of the word "tunnel" were used (there we go again with the variability of language!) Plus, living in the suburbs of Minneapolis meant that there was only one tunnel I encountered on even a semi-regular basis--the somewhat lengthy one on 94E going into Minneapolis--and when I was young it was often a painful struggle to get my wish granted. I thought, it's not fair to deny someone hir wish just because hir lung capacity wasn't big enough. So, I came to the fairest conclusion I could: The wish only counted if one could have feasibly said the wish aloud while still under the tunnel. This ruled out all the "fake" tunnels and bridges one would pass under going 50+ miles per hour, thereby making the "real" tunnels more important to wish on. Further yet, I felt that the longer the tunnel, the greater the feat of breath-holding, and therefore the more potent the wish should be. However, a wish is a wish, isn't it? They're all created equal. So long as one follows the wishing ritual, it floats off into the aether to be granted. But what if one wants to wish for only one thing? Would wishing for it twice cancel it out? Would it anger the wish gods? No, I reasoned, because not all wishes come true. There must be something that makes a wish more or less likely to come true, and I reasoned it was the tenacity of the wisher. Therefore, the more times something is wished for, the more likely it is to catch the wish-granter's ear and come true.

So what was the end result of all this childish logic? "The longer a bridge, the longer I have to hold my breath, and the more opportunities I have to make my wish, but it can only be as many opportunities as I would have if I said the wish aloud." Try conceptualizing it for a second: Think the same sentence in your head over and over, as fast as you can...or, perhaps more accurately, picture yourself saying your wish aloud as fast as your lips can move. "I wish I had a pony I wish I had a pony I wish I hadaponyIwishihadaponyiwishadapony..." There reaches a point where you're "cheating", where all the syllables mash together and are no longer a wish that the wish gods can understand. Now, try conceptualizing it differently. Try imagining that you have a recording of your voice saying the wish, and every time you press a big red button in front of you, the wish is made. Now press it as fast as you can. Can you hear in your head the sentence piling on top of itself? I would wager that as you first start to pick up speed, you can. "I wish I had I wish a pony had I wish I pony had a pony a pony." However, again, soon it gets to a point of muddled confusion, and the true meaning of the wish is lost. There are plenty of other conceptual ways to maximize your silent wishes, but again I say that there is a finite maximum, even if that number is the total time spent inside the tunnel divided by the time it takes a single neuron to fire. Of course, for this to be true, one would have to break down the concept of making a wish into less than most thoughts actually take, a feat that is difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish, much less describe or experience. This is to say, it is an experience that falls outside the boundaries of language...except for the sentence I just wrote, that being the equation "# of Wishes=Time(Tunnel)/Time(Firing neuron)".

I feel that the previous is a fine metaphor for just what I was trying to explain. After reading this, would you agree with me that the line where language ends and cognition begins is very fine indeed? And would you also agree that anything beyond that line is incomprehensible to people, even the person thinking the thoughts? If it helps to be less silly and more concrete, think of it like a ticking clock. Whether it is wound by hand, run by a quartz crystal, or ruled by an atom in Boulder, to the viewer the inner goings-on matter a great deal...but the only part that is perceived, and therefore truly matters, is the ticking of the second hand. Each tick is a thought, a mental sentence, that leads into the next tick of a thought, and the space between is filled by incomprehensible grindings and machinations. And if that hand stops ticking, all the background whirring is for naught. In the same way, stop that whirring and the ticking will follow suit. And further, the only way to tell that the insides whir on is by the ticking. So, the ticking is the language that reflects the processing of the stimuli we take in...that stimuli being the laws of motion and physics that rule over the clock's inner workings.

Whew...long-winded, eh? I'll rest for now, as I consider just how wishes and clocks actually do build up language and humanity. Of course, any hints to this topic would be lovely...so feel free to chime in!

Why saying "I believe" doesn't cut it anymore

Why don't we talk about religion, shall we? I feel it's a highly debatable topic, and in keeping with the goals of this website, I'd like to spur on as much conversation/debate as possible. Of course, I'm trying to do so without being too blatantly opinionated, as well as slowly edging into the more controversial topics, all the while building a basis for the argument for bi-ness.

(Here I feel I must inject a parenthetical caveat about the viewpoint this subject is being addressed from. I was raised in a Christian family. They are Lutheran, mind you, and quite accept folk in general, so I've never had religion forced down my throat. Because of--or perhaps in spite of--this, I no longer believe in that particular faith. However, my time in the church has allowed me to commune with believers (in more ways than one), so I feel this experience gives me some room to speak about/for them. In addition to this, the majority of the believers in this country are Christian, and the majority of my readers are from this country, so I feel like this makes my viewpoint at the very least relevant, and at the very most one hundred percent correct. Lol.)

What makes this topic so interesting is that it invokes a very heavy polarity on itself. Not only that, it seems a great deal of the time and energy invested in it is spent on furthering the myth of the duality of religion. Here, the them's and the us's are spelled out in very plain words, and one can know after an objective analysis of one's person whether or not one lives up to those words.

Or so the creators of major religions would hope. If it were as easy as drawing a line in the sand across countless past generations of humans clear through to millennia beyond the foreseeable future to determine who was "getting it right" and who was failing miserably, this topic wouldn't draw any controversy. (It is true, there is a sharp line between "believers" and "anti-believers"--or, that is, between the spiritual and the atheists. But this is a distinction that both parties seem to be quite comfortable with, and so the topic will be discussed at greater length in a future essay.)

There does exist a gray scale of beliefs, though. Right from the get-go, the concept of religion is riddled with bi-ness. For instance, the fallibility of written word is something that all people can relate to, especially current generations. How many times has a misspelled or improperly chosen word completely changed the intention and tone of a letter, email, or text message? It would seem that the very concept of writing is based on the idea that the symbols used will be up to the interpreter to decipher and derive meaning from--or perhaps provide meaning to. Yet, it is collections of writings that have been passed down for thousands of years that still serve as the rock religion is built upon. Some say they are the exact words of god himself, making the work therefore infallible and so that it should be followed to the letter with no exceptions; Others, simply the description of certain people's touches with the divine. Some feel that only one official interpretation can be valid, while others feel that it should be up to the individual believer to derive what he or she can. All seem to agree, though, that the writings of a religion are still relevant today.

This conclusion I find interesting, because it at once insists upon polarity within itself and yet opens up all new routes of inquiry and doubt about the matter. One of the biggest arguments I've noticed within the Christian faith is between those who believe the Bible should be taken word-for-word literally and those who feel that the book is a collection of lessons and stories that are to be taken in the context of the present-day world. Both groups take themselves to be "true" Christians, and while it may not necessarily be true that they believe those individuals from the other camp are wrong, they are certainly different, which brings us again to them versus us.

Already variation within the category of "believers" is starting to become apparent. Now, it is my personal belief that, statistically speaking, there are more people in this world that fall into the category I will refer to as "interpreters" than there are people who could pass muster in a test of "literalism". Now, could anyone suggest that these people, the majority of the faithful, are not holding true to the tenants of their religions? I should hope not. (For any Christians out there who would vehemently disagree, make sure you're obeying Leviticus to the letter before casting the first stone.) So we continue our dig further towards the heart of this matter by examining the now-newly-redefined majority of the faithful. First, a broad generalization: I would wager that the believers of the 21st century feel that time is not a factor in religion insofar as that the lessons about humanity that their literature contains are the same today as they were when they were written. The interpreters feel that this is true because the holy books are viewed through the lens of the present day, taking into account all that has happened since their conception, whereas the literalists feel that the divine got it right the first time and, being able to view the grand scope of existence all at once (the divine has a wide-screen monitor, btw), designed its laws to take all humanity, past and future, into account. All this is to suggest that the results of religiousness have been different in the past, and they will be different in the future; The difference just lies in the path that leads to those results. I feel that this is an example of the ends justifying the means, and should be harshly scrutinized. Where does infallibility fit into all of this? And what of omniscience? It is these things that define godliness in general, and the Christian god in specific, and they no doubt play an integral role in the "absoluteness" of the truth religions profess.

So, to recap, we already have a few tiers of bi-ness: literalists and interpreters, the latter of which branches off immediately into a murky cloud of interpretations, made complex by the extent to which a believer considers the lessons of faith to be relevant today and whether or not said believer is willing to fill in the blanks with religious doctrine. If we can all accept these conclusions as reasonable, let's take a further step back and discuss a different kind of religiosity.

Agnosticism, I feel, is often misconstrued, confused with it's cousin atheism. Again, I will draw from a dictionary.com definition to begin: the doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. This I find very interesting, considering my layperson definition: the belief that there is no way any religious beliefs that have been stumbled upon by any one person or group of people could be 100% correct. The terms "first principle" and "absolute truth", I feel, are just broad enough, covering not only religious phenomena but also other more scientific observations.

This definition does, however, convey a degree of skepticism that is perhaps only partially correct and proper. Most of us can picture in our minds someone who is overly skeptical. I feel, however, that the term "skeptical" is often used as a personality trait, and there should be some separation between that and skepticism founded in one's philosophical ideals. In this situation, I feel like it's a means to the end of religiousness. I feel that religious skepticism is akin to religious eclecticism, in that if the only thing you're sure of is that you can't be sure of anything, each and every experience you have with religion will be looked at from that baseline, thereby making you more open to that inherent worth or value that eclectics, by definition, seek. Not only this, but it bridges the whole of that second tier of bi-ness among believers that we were previously discussing. So agnosticism, I feel, covers two separate, branching levels of fluidity that are barely understood and often misrepresented.

Of course, this is to look at things through the idea of "active agnosticism". There are those who are irreligious simply because to actively believe in anything--even atheistic ideals--is too much of an effort. These folks, however, I think should be categorized as irreligious to distinguish them from those who take the time to be skeptical, to analyze all everything through a critical lens, not to dismiss or accept any whole doctrine without first understanding it. These are the people who make up what I predict is the bulk of agnostics.

I hope there to be a point where those of you reading the phrase "I predict" will prick up your ears and look for a way to contribute to the study of just what it is that I'm predicting. Every topic that I cover has some aspect of bi-ness in it, and my goal is to convince you, the reader, that this is so. If I'm successful in doing that, I want to be able to gather some data to gauge just how accurate my prediction was. So, for instance, in the case of the entry you're reading right now, I feel like most people who consider themselves agnostics, even in the current sense of the word (that is, including irreligious folks in the equation as well), will be similar: perhaps in their political leanings, or their upbringing, or their attitude towards traditionally religious people, or by some other connection that won't come to the surface until some discussion begins about this topic.

And it is you, dear reader, who can help with this. If you get done reading and have developed some curiosity about the subject at hand, feel free to respond! Once this site reaches maturity, I intend to have the capability to give each user hir own profile that can be linked to hir blog, message board posts, survey responses, essay responses, as well as be able to access the data about the subjects covered on this site that will be gathered and compiled into an easy-to-read format. At that point, anyone will be able to become a part of the community and lend more credibility to the data you and your friends provide.

In the end, I hope you keep reading and thinking. So long as the thoughts get out there, things will be easier for those of us questing for more bi-ness in our lives. And, like I've said before, please do respond with your thoughts on the matter! You could even use this as an opportunity to start writing about what interests you most and sharing it with people who care

Bi-ness as eclecticism

(If this is the first of my recent notes you've read, go back and read the last one I did. This one will probably make more sense.)

As I said before, lots of people are into labels. They accept them, they give them, and they create them. Of course, intention must be taken into account when dealing with situations like these, but I feel that labels can do some good. It makes things easier to distinguish between. It lets our brain function closer to 100% efficiency.

Put bluntly, some people would fall apart if it weren't for labels. They wouldn't know up from down. Labels act like a security blanket in this instance, assuring us that some things will never change, that there will always be differences and there will always be similarities.

My goal, however, is not to persuade you to accept labels, and so now I quit my devil's advocacy. I want you, dear reader, to realize that labels have harmed you in the past, and they will in the future, and that there are steps you can take to keep them from having more power than is absolutely necessary. Of course, I don't expect you all to immediately embrace the concept and apply it to every facet of your life like I have. I don't expect the majority of you to have already accepted the fact that gender is fluid and there's much more to it than male, female, and "other", for example. What I do expect, though, is that you keep an open mind and try to take in as much as possible on the journey towards center-dom.

So I will start with some of the more relatable and entertaining portions of bi-ness. This leads me to a discussion of eclecticism. I consider the former to be a value that is, well, quite valuable. It's one of my favorite things and I strive to maximize it in my life at every opportunity.

For those of you who are new to the topic, I will give a few definitions of eclectic, all taken from dictionary.com:

1. selecting or choosing from various sources.
2. made up of what is selected from different sources.
3. not following any one system, as of philosophy, medicine, etc., but selecting and using what are considered the best elements of all systems.

And, my personal favorite: "making decisions on the basis of what seems best instead of following some single doctrine or style".

Those of you who know me well can see these tendencies in me, I would imagine. And I'm sure you can all see some sort of relationship between eclecticism and bi-ness. They're both broad terms used to define a style or manner or conduct, and in my eyes they both seem to diminish the virtues of a binary reality.

Let's start with some specific examples: style will do nicely. When we were all in high school, there seemed to be many more lines and barriers separating groups from one another, making it easier to define if someone was part of "them" or "us". What clothes one chose to wear was right at the top of the list of ways one could be discriminated against. This was made more troublesome by the fact that there's nothing one could have done to prevent it; In the first few critical moments of judgement, there's a small list of things that are readily observed, and those include race, gender, physical appearance, and style of clothing. It spilled over into social groups until it got to the point that it was impossible to tell if someone wore the clothes they wore because their friends did, or if they were friends only with people who wore the same clothes. There were preps, punks, nerds, jocks, rich kids, poor kids, black kids, white kids, and every combination in-between, and there was an expected uniform for every one. Overriding all these distinctions, though, was the theme of "cool" or "lame". Either you were one of us, or you were one of them.

This rubbed me the wrong way for a number of reasons, first and foremost being that before 7th grade I was mocked incessantly and mercilessly for the clothes I wore. I found that once I finally gave in to the "accepted" dress code, the teasing stopped and my peers treated me better. Of course, it wasn't that I was eager to become best pals with my past tormentors. Quite the contrary, I was only too eager to get the point where I could openly defy them, proving once and for all that the clothes do not make the man.

But in the mean time, the clothes that were in style grew on me, and I found that they were actually more comfortable than the sweatpants and t-shirts I'd been wearing before. This was the whole reason I'd resisted switching in the first place: jeans didn't feel right on my legs, and t-shirts were just so cheap and convenient. I found myself in a position where I didn't want to spend the time worrying about what was cool to wear and the money buying it, while at the same time I wanted to look presentable and remain comfortable.

Solution? Eclecticism! And I soon found that the final result was much more than the sum of its parts. Not only did I feel free to wear whatever I liked for the right reasons (utility, price), it became its own entity: a kind of "un-style", one built off the intentional rejection of emulation. What's more, I was able to get past the initial judgement of "cool" or "lame", making people wait until they actually had a conversation with me to realize I was, in fact, a nerd. (Teehee.)

"But isn't this all a bit mundane?" you may ask. "High school drama is completely detached from real-world issues of sexism and bigotry and the lot." And this is true. I use it as a very basic example, one I feel we can all relate to. Of course, fashion is a concern of the so-called "real" world as well, but I feel that its most important portions fall under the header of classism. The grand point was to give a sort of general overview of eclecticism, as well as a template that all further discussions can be compared to.

So as you go about your days, think about these issues. If you could relate to the above example at all, try to apply the same logic to other binaries: political party, gender, race, age, sexuality...the whole lot! I would wager that it would be more difficult than not to find something that is not a slave to the binary surreality we live in. In my future posts, I will be discussing these very issues, and exploring how feasible bi-ness is to accomplish--or at least conceptualize.

A brief introduction to bi-ness, in boxers

Hello there interverse, and welcome to The Billusionist blog!

Lordy, I barely know how to go about introductions like this. *Catches breath* Okay. Let's do it THIS way.

Bi-ness is not about sexuality, or religion, or political affiliation, or gender, or race, or...really, any of it. Bi-ness is all about understanding that there is, in fact, a difference between black and white. Of course, that's a color reference only...the idea is that society, or evolution, or whatever your rationale, is responsible for convincing you, the viewer, (the HUMAN) that there are only two options for whatever you want to be. Either you're gay or straight, male or female, white or not, and acceptance WILL come...but only before you decide your binary code. How many ones and zeroes are you?

Of course, such a code can be useful. It makes it easier to decide who is "like you" and who "is not".

But I reason that these binary labels are only relevant to those who accept them. How many of you are content to be what you tell people you are? How many are content to be democrat, or gay, or female...or ANYTHING that can be simply summarized in a word?

A forewarning: For those of you who ARE (that is, content with singularities, with telling who you are in a word), cruise away from here.

Because this site, this discussion, this 40 acres of speech, isn't about all that. It's about further defining the middle ground.

Because so many minds before us have insisted, have begged us to believe that human experience isn't all that easy to explain.

Because love is different to everyone.

Because gender is different to everyone.

Because political affiliation is different to everyone.

Because every experience that anyone ever has simply CANNOT be described that...simply. Because I know you know, as a human being, that you live with your reality and will never share it in its totality. Because you strive to do it. Because you wish you could make the whole world realize that just because it thinks things are the way they are, does NOT mean things IS the way they IS.

Keep coming back if you feel it. Ignore this if you don't.

As vague as the last passage has been...if you believe in any of it, comment, and let me know, and you'll be included in the next steps.