Termite Tactical...

Indulge me, allow me take a swing at a needed word that has been all but excommunicated from the English language among those called civilized company, enlightened company, politically correct company... the various forms of the word-symbol perversion.  I'm going to be trying for a functional definition, as all such definitions must be to avoid the perils and pitfalls of circular social reasoning, an empirical definition that may be applied to the full spectrum of the human condition.

I'm going to begin by saying perversion is any empowered*  structure of thought that in objective fact does more to compromise the lives of those within a common sphere of empathy than it compromises the life hosting the structure.  Perversion is that which  ultimately reduces all who come in contact with it in their ability to meet any of the three foundation requirements of all life (sustenance, security, procreation).  When examined exclusively at the individual level perversion commonly seems fairly benign to the life hosting the thought, perhaps even beneficial in some ways, and yet when the field of view is expanded to consider the lives in immediate contact in the same frame of reference it is easily seen as bane and detriment to the lives around that life.

*(empowered: translated from the inner first reality by way of word or deed into the public second reality)

By the definition offered above perversion resolves as an erosive force rather than an explosive one, no sharp impact but rather a slow grinding whose effect is easily overlooked or mistakenly assigned to some other cause.  Entertaining such a definition for even a few moments of thought makes it quite obvious there are more than a few things that are considered perversions in greater or lesser degree that really do not satisfy such a definition, and equally there are an even greater number things that meet such a definition that are not commonly called perverted.  Such a definition actually does a pretty decent job of shuffling the deck of society, very little remains where it was.

There is however one facet of this definition that makes it possible to begin sorting the confusion with even more precision than before, that being the implications involved with the concept of empowerment.   If it is accepted that perversion primarily works its' ill through the lives around the one hosting the perverted form of thought it then follows that the mechanisms transmitting  perversion are available for inspection by those willing to risk exposing themselves to the toxin.  So, for a grab and go guestimate on the amount of perversion actually active in our world set the number of perversions equal to the number of pornographies* in our world: sex porn, pain porn, pistol porn, power porn, political porn... and on and on and on etcetera ad nauseam.  The list is long and heartbreaking.  Just how much perversion is actually impacting on our world?

*(pornography: any offering on any media selling the fantasy some single focus can create the life desired rather than the solid fact that any all consuming single focus simply reflects the limits of the life already in existence)

The simple fact of the matter is that perversion of one sort or another permeates the full spectrum of the human condition.  These days there is a movement defending those who host perversion as being necessary components, some psychological mutagen driving social evolution, a foundation element of the human condition.  Perhaps.  But I'm not prepared to subscribe to such a belief.  I'm more of a mind to believe society has degraded to the point of saying to itself since no one has been able to fix the problems they must indeed be part of the foundations of humanity.

I suppose it's an understandable error.  You have to look with the intent of actually seeing what you're looking at to discern the foundations of a thing, and if there's one thing in our society that has become truly taboo it's got to be looking with the intent of seeing.  The taboo against seeing reality for what it is was quite a coup for those who exiled the word perversion, as a matter of fact it's been a magnificent success for them.  Concealed behind the taboo they've been digging like termites into the foundations of freedom for decades.

By The Numbers...

There's a passage in the Bible came to mind the other day.  It sort of snuck in by a strange route, but still a valid thought.  I'm speaking of any of the several places where it says the sins of the parents will impact on the children for several generations.  As a kid I'd always thought "how unfair is that?" thinking it was God who would be putting the hit on the kids and grandkids.  A childish mistake, I didn't understand several things very well back then.  Like so many things in the good book the point of the thought wasn't what God would be doing, the thought was how mankind would respond in reaction to itself… those passages were given as a warning, not a threat.  The scripture popped to mind while thinking about the nature of my enemy bdsm.  Truth is I was wondering just how far away from perverted thought does a person have to be to be fully safe from the perversions.

Since next up is a reconnaissance to map the boundaries of the thought environment that produces the perversions (with the ultimate goal of totally destroying that line of supply) I was examining the issue in the same frame of mind I used to use dealing with hazardous chemicals... what kind of PPE is needed, what safeguards for self and surrounding environment.  I'm making ready to go into the contagious zones, the hot zones, to mount such a mission without absolute certainty of my own ethical integrity could easily end me a worse place than simply dead.  Of course 'how far away' really doesn't have much to do with physical distance or wind direction, and the safety gear required is in the form of immutable understandings that will penetrate even the most subtle of lies, but still, a valid analogy. 

At first I engaged a mode of thought drawn from the "six degrees of separation" theory.  A useful first thought, but not all that well suited to my needs.  A base assumption of the theory states it only holds true for "an unstructured network."  Well, the macroscopic society is anything but unstructured, when examined in the framework of the collective entities it is heavily structured.    Many of the groups that make up society are all but closed, only a minor percentage of their component individuals known between the factions. 

( For example I'd bet there are very few publicly known as primitive christians who are also publicly known as practitioners of bdsm.  There may be a few, there's always a few, but by and large I'd say the vast majority of those involved with both worlds would not be known as members of both worlds by the other members of either  world.  The base definitions of the respective collective entities are just not compatible enough to support a public dual allegiance.  The number of node individuals willing to publicly access both realms is actually very limited compared to the total population of the respective sets. )

I bounced the thought around for a while, and then realized I was still making the mistake of thinking simple spatial rather than the node and weighted edge system required to represent reality.  In reality the edges must be weighted according to the emotional compatibility of the collective entities hosted between any given pair of individuals.  The complexity becomes daunting in a great big hurry.  Just how far apart are we, one from the other, when society is examined under such a microscope?  And how far is far enough? How does one go about weighting such edges?  An interesting question.  A very, very interesting question when you need to take the answer into the field and put it to work where an error in the mode of thought just might turn out to be a soul killer if translated into reality.

As the saying goes: back to the drawing board.   And what did I find when I got there?  The wisdom from the good book, sitting patiently and waiting for me to understand the clue given.  The sins of the father... hmmm...