Ruling

 
The below was written at 7pm on 19/1/2013 Saturday at a cafe in town:

The biggest fallacy of all is age. The dichotomous relationship of having either one or the other is an untruth of the highest degree.

The common conception is that the young is of a certain quality and the old is of another opposite set is simply myopic and fallacious.

The argument is such that the personality will change with time resulting external social context is a manner of sociological determinism which no one will ever endorsed. The argument that the social context provides the definite building blocks is trying to say that everyone reacts to a social situation in a similar way. And as such, everyone that is 55 acts in a way and those at 21 will act almost the complete opposite.

Following then such argument, everyone older will smarter, richer and better in every aspect- but we know that there are many in jail or bankrupt are really of the older set.

It is like using the same ruler to measure everyone as one grows older. The best form of comparison is form those of the similar social background and not of a variable that does not correspond to the expectations of an independent variable.

Therefore anyone who to do otherwise is simply trying to compare a banana and a wine. A wine intoxicates and requires an acquired taste while the banana is simply a catch all- why the hell, would anyone to compare these two together.

Simply the most frustrating thing that anyone attempts to make comparison is one of which simply have no bearing on actual outcome of any relationship. No one would bother with a variable which simply have no form of correlation or causation to the objective of the comparison in the first place.

The point of a race is to find one who is fastest. And if you introduce a wheel chair bound person and everyone is obligated to run slower in order not to appear rude is simply not making a comparison in the first place. A race is a race and not a race to the moral high ground. A priest or theologian will do a better job than you.

Let us then approach the slippery subject of ethnicity. The economics of dye in certain countries in history presupposes a preference for particular 'colours'. Some have even made money simply by inventing new colours.

The simple argument is 2 fold- 1) passing fads 2) an ideological hung up caused only the historical and social context.

In the first, this simply skillful management of mass media- and in the second, it is simply an extension of the first. Just much much longer that's all.

The power is simply as such that it is the associative powers. It is such that if we do not have the 'natural' attributes for it- we simply find a multitude of ways to be associated to it insofar that it is towards a certain interest.

The imperial color of China is yellow and no one was allowed to wear it insofar that only the emperor has monopoly over it. It is simply to identify itself as the heaven's son and also it closest to it's subject. The only reason that I suspect is that it is the one thing that we cannot change without going through a radical physical transformation. It has nothing to do with a peasant in a far flung corner of it's empire or that of the heaven. Either way, has no direct bearing to it's superiority. Hence then, this obsession with colours has a ruler towards measurement is trying to say that rulers made from different materials have different lengths. Therefore 1 cm in one is really 3 cm in another. I am not sure how does that fit into say a proper comparison.

It is saying that a person wearing red for example runs 90 meters because it is measure in this manner and another wearing green has to run 120 meters because it is measure in this way and then an announcement is made to everyone that it is really a 100 meters race and the time taken remains the same.

This is not even a comparison or a competition. This is a show- that's all- of posterity. And anyone who attempts to obtain a definitive result from this- is better off watching American Idol or Avatar. It is simply more entertaining.

And indeed if this was a straight race- it would be easy. The argument pertaining to the above is to the superiority of one over another on a common measure. The problem is that we cannot even agree on what is common and how then can we say that we are competing in the same race.

Yesterday, I went for a run- an endurance run, to work towards building my stamina and not my speed. For some strange reason, someone ran really fast beside me and had the bragging rights with everyone watching, I simply ignored him and he took it personally and rested every lap just to show he is faster.

Hence perhaps for him, speed was important, who am I to judge but really I am training for a longer distance- there isn't really a need for me to build up so much explosive power. Otherwise, I wouldn't even last the full distance .

The only variable I have mentioned is already place and the other is time. These are simply contextual elements of which to measure performance. Take for example a race: the race is scheduled for say 3pm and it is only known to 7 of the 8 runners and the last runner turned up later and is measured from 3pm onwards- what type of race is this without even proper information dissemination. How do you measure a performance when the racer did not even know the timing of the race in the first place.

Some have used time with connotative elements: The connotative elements is not equal and of similar intensity to everyone- hence how can change one's performance in a 24 hrs clock.

For example you want to use the ruler at 3pm and you didn't tell everyone that you want to use it and only you turn up- and of course you will be the best right- simply because you are the only one in the competition and you invited everyone to watch this farce of a show right.

And then you look beside you- the only ones are the one that you have a pact with. The best part is that, this show was so large that one even believed in one's superiority.

The only variable in this form of determinism is such that of time and place and if it is used to determine the true quality- the most straightforward thing would be to have equal information and measurement so as to have a common measure. Any other deviation from this is simply ideological and an absolute waste of time and a shifting of musical chairs and when the music stop playing- everyone will realize that the chair everyone is sitting, is the same- and other's have walked out to buy their own chair. Or at least earn their way to buy one and not wait for the music to stop playing to realize that one chair is missing and everyone is fighting for that finite number.