Deviation Options

[zeitlos]

Let us imagine the following scenario.

There are two people sitting in a coffee shop. The one tells the other about a random trivial problem while the other endures one's inability to recognize the triviality inherent in one's present circumstance, while one's frustration is exacerbated by the fact that one's pain remains incomprehensible to the other.

This is a situation when there is a basic failure of communication where two people simultaneously feel the limits of their language and their communicative condition. The one feels that the problem engulfs existence, while the other thinks that problem is completely disposable. In this kind of scenario gestures are far more significant than any verbal expression. The difficulty that one bears must be revealed through the immediacy of gestures in order to articulate the degree of hardship in one's problem.

Let us take the example even further. It doesn't matter who it is, but imagine if one or the other decides to take their pants off and piss on the coffee table, and laugh derisively at the other person.

Let us suspend any speculation of motivation as to why such a scenario could take place (and perhaps even why such scenario is even raised).

What is decisive here is how the situation is defined to the extent that what is enacted reveals prohibition.

Such a scenario presents a rupture in what is normatively expected in human conduct. Pissing in public is a faux pas, which can be, in the loose sense, condemned as rude behavior, or, in the strict sense, an embarrassment punishable by law. It is reasonable to universally accept that pissing in front of someone during a discussion, however frustrating the discussion may be, is morally repugnant. It would be very hard to redeem such action, regardless of the content of what is discussed. But we must also note that there is no physical harm done to the witnesses or to the subject of derision, save perhaps the honor of that specific person.

What I would like to ask is this: what are the specific institutional or doctrinal methods that have restricted forms of deviant behavior like pissing at someone who disagree with us? And how can we explain these methods or institutions as embodying the prohibitive aspect of morality in evolutionary terms?

The reason I ask this question is that the question has been raised from the perspective of culture alone, without necessary consideration from the level of the hard sciences such as cognitive science, biology, etc.

The epistemic status of this prohibitive and disciplinary aspect of morality must be judged according to the lens of evolutionary psychology, if and if only evolution defines the ontological standing of human existence.

If we are to ask about the source of our moral reasoning, then we must start from the level of what morality denies, and what is denied is a physical expression, not merely of attitude or character. What morality corrects is not intention alone. Indeed the positive nature of morality is significant, but the imperatives mean nothing if they do not negate specific behaviors. The substantive transformation of moral character is the external conduct of an individual, so that the latter is a better participant in the civil order. The moral condemnation of pissing someone in public is a judgment of one's failure as a functioning member. If the person cannot function as a member of society, then the condemnation would mean nothing. For if the other could not understand the validity of the prohibition, that person would be simply labeled as remedial or mentally challenged.

Yet the real quandary, perhaps revealing the essence of human error, is that one may show contempt in other ways than literally pissing at the other person. I don't have to piss at you to tell you that I think you're an idiot, though I'm free to do so. I can just show my disagreement in a different way. There are other gestures as well. And these gestures begin at birth, prior to any cultural indoctrination: think of smiles, squints, or rolling of the eyes.

Don't let interpretation get in the way: we must not forget that the cultural evolution of man is the sublimation of certain gestures from the primitive moments of sticking one's tongue out to the tapping one's fingers, etc.

Any thoughts?

[iblis.raeb]

In my opinion, the resulting mess is the primary basis of the faux pax, just as spitting in disgust across the floor of a person in a restaurant may be inappropriate compared to the same action performed outdoors.

[zunnun]

There are two people sitting at a coffee shop. The one tells the other about a random trivial problem while the other endures the plethora of descriptions of one's inability to recognize the triviality inherent in one's present circumstance, while one's frustration is exacerbated by the fact that his or her problem remains incomprehensible to the other.

Good post and try refer to Carpy, The Author Intent. The underlying problem rest not mainly on communication but more towards how far back can that particular trival problem be seen and put forward. If t is the present, the problem occured at (t-n) while at point (t+p) it was discussed between two persons.

Mathematically, t = (t-n) ~ (t+p) + k where k is the hibernating constant. It's in hibernating period until someone wakes it and rediscussed. The discussion could be in the courtroom, cafe or UN councils. ...........(1)

Fr: (t-n) = (t-n1) ~ (t-p1) +k1 , since at (t-n) the occurance cannot occured without a cause which started much earlier..............(2)

Therefore, what is being discussed at point t, depends on good documenting, (quantitative) and ability to gauge tragic lapsed in conscious ( qualitative). Those involved at point (t-n) now is making new choice contracdicting or deeply obessed or between the two. A lot of new perceptions propped out during period k, that changes our perception at (t-n).

[deblika]

the severity of the gesture's condemnation probably stems from many things. in out culture we have an aversion to sexual activity, and displaying one's genitals is seen as disgusting and sensless. Next, we psychologicaly avoid our own waste, for obvious reasons, and have a schema of urine as filthy. Pissing at somebody, or their ideas, shows a pretty powerful opinion about its worth, mainly that it deserves no consideration and should be held in contempt. Coupled with the insult of such an abrupt breaking of a conversation and the attention grabbing nature of the stunt and you have a morally deplorable act.

[iblis.raeb]

the severity of the gesture's condemnation probably stems from many things. in out culture we have an aversion to sexual activity, and displaying one's genitals is seen as disgusting and sensless. Next, we psychologicaly avoid our own waste, for obvious reasons, and have a schema of urine as filthy. Pissing at somebody, or their ideas, shows a pretty powerful opinion about its worth, mainly that it deserves no consideration and should be held in contempt. Coupled with the insult of such an abrupt breaking of a conversation and the attention grabbing nature of the stunt and you have a morally deplorable act.

Nice post particularly the highlighted point.

[zeitlos]

Next, we psychologicaly avoid our own waste, for obvious reasons, and have a schema of urine as filthy.

But what about people who take pleasure with the sight and texture of their own waste? These people can be considered as exceptions to the rule, yet their insistence on the gratifying aspects of waste reveals that the cultural taboo which separates us from our waste can be the very condition that excites and arouses the possibility of pleasure.

Furthermore, we can adapt to the smell and sight of our waste, but feel repulsed and disgusted with another. Just think of farting for example.

Pissing at somebody, or their ideas, shows a pretty powerful opinion about its worth, mainly that it deserves no consideration and should be held in contempt. Coupled with the insult of such an abrupt breaking of a conversation and the attention grabbing nature of the stunt and you have a morally deplorable act.

Normatively speaking, the act I have described is more than a morally deplorable act. Pissing on someone is indeed an immoral act that invites psychological assessment, but would be judged as sheer sign of insanity, thus the consequence of which is more than mere contempt. It is not just irresponsible, rather the act itself is a random burst of chaos that anyone of us can do.

I'm asking if there is a basic scientific reason which prohibits one from doing so.