Transcription
The relationship between order and chaos is as eternal as night and day. And this same archetypal dynamic also applies to the masculine and feminine and even to the political left and right. Each side functions very differently. And the operating logic we can derive from these broad concepts can tell us a lot about the ideological foundations of many of our current systems.
Reviewing all the nuance differences between order and chaos would be far too exhaustive. So instead I want to isolate one of the most critical distinctions between the two and that is the way in which they operate with regard to rules. Broadly throughout our culture we continue to see a failure to enforce otherwise reasonable boundaries. As frustrating as that is, we should all be curious to investigate why this has come to be so prevalent. And ultimately, we should hope to figure out what we can do to prevent this in both our current systems as well as in any new systems we go on to create.
Order is structure, but order is not self-sustaining. A system can only create and sustain true order by having defined actionable rules that wholly disregard anomalies. For instance, if a US university decided it wanted to define itself as being an American college that only teaches American citizens, then its systemic internal ruling system would by definition be required to deny any non-American applicants. If its desired outcome was to truly be an American college which taught only American citizens, then the admittance of even one non-citizen would destroy the possibility of achieving the stated goal. And if we look further at this particular system which holds the national homogeneity of its students as the ideal result of its system, then that exact outcome would definitionally be synonymous with order. Therefore, this established definition of order can only be achieved through a nationally homogeneous student population.
Order does not on its own have an explicit organized definition. Order is relative to whatever the specific system is and its stated goal. To understand order, it requires a clarification of what the objective outcome is intended to be. A system of rules must then be created to facilitate that outcome. A measurable outcome must always first be articulated so that it is always possible to objectively assess whether or not order is being upheld. So if order is determined by an outcome which must be measurable and defined then the internal mechanisms which facilitate that outcome then act as the rules of a system. The rules or sorting mechanisms for determining what is true and rightly in pursuit of the systems definition of order. And so I use true to mean anything aligned with the pursuit of the systems desired outcome. Truth in this context would be something in compliance with the systems rules and thus fundamental to achieving or aiding the desired outcome.
For example, a bathroom system decides that male and female are the only two genders, that they are distinct from each other and intrinsic to DNA. The application of these principles in a functional system would assert that people are to only be permitted in the bathroom of their same gender. That is the truth which this particular system operates under. Men using the men's bathroom and women using the women's bathroom aligns with the truth of the system and proper usage results in the maintenance of order. But if someone were to intentionally use the opposite gendered bathroom, that would violate the defined truth of this system and its rules would be broken. A male and a female restroom would be definitionally untrue according to the systems logic. And so given that order is archetypally right-wing, adhering to the truth and conditions of a system in the pursuit of order is the ideal procedure of a right-wing system. That is because strict uncompromising order is the logical conclusion of a system purely built upon this foundational logic.
Using chaos as the opposite of order here probably seems uncharitable. But chaos is very fundamentally all things which operate outside of any structured order. Chaos generates the raw material which gets processed through an ordered system. Chaos is creation. And so all systems require the integration of chaos, even those which are exceptionally ordered. The greatest road still needs cars to drive on it to be rendered useful. The most efficient farm will always need naturally growing crops before they can be packaged up and sold. That US college isn't able to preemptively select the students which will apply. There must be organic interest to attend. Once again, chaos creates the raw substance for a system to sort. Chaos used properly is absolutely necessary for any system to be useful and ordered. And chaos needs order just the same. A farmer who can't set up a system to properly tend to his crops will have no harvest. A man with a car and no road won't be able to drive anywhere.
But the important distinction here is that the boundaries set by our system must be the rules and they must not be subject to negotiation. For a maximally ordered system, there must be no elements of chaos built within the actual logic of a systems operations. That ambiguity will naturally turn the now loosened rules into mere negotiations. And once this happens, true orders entirely lost. Rules then become general boundaries, not firm barriers. And it is here when we see the breakdown.
Chaos, the feminine, embodies empathy, just as order embodies truth. And when empathy is practically deployed, it will often intentionally disregard the rules of a system to allow for something that otherwise would be prevented. Think about how common it is for a mother to empathetically let her son stay up past the 10 p.m. bedtime her husband set. The rule is masculine and allowing an exception is feminine. That child now no longer sees that 10 p.m. bedtime as a legitimate boundary. Why not 10:30? He will inevitably ask.
If we look at this more practically, consider the scenario where a foreign student did apply to that American-only US college. After they were rightly rejected, they made a desperate plea and insisted that it was their dream school. A system which is open to even hearing that emotional plea is not committed to order. But in a properly ordered system, that context should have no bearing on the system's final sorting decision. If empathy were used for exceptions like this to be made, then the validity of the entire system could be immediately compromised. That is why chaos must be excluded from the logic of the operating system but not the system broadly. We need cars but they must drive on the street not on the sidewalk.
Empathy always requires the willingness to trade away truth. And it does this when it values an incongruous individual above the rules and objectives of a set system. Just as conceding on the trans bathroom issue would entirely destroy the fundamental principle of distinguished and immutable sex. All for one person's delusion to be validated. And it's very easy to see just how fast this can spiral into further chaos after one breach like this.
In addition to the rejection of truth, a chaotic system also has deep fundamental inefficiencies. One of the more relevant real world examples of this is what we've seen with social media companies in recent years. These sites are used by billions of people and they all have some form of a terms of service which allows them to ban users when posts supposedly violate the rules. But while they have this ability to ban users, they also offer an option to appeal the decision. Yet, how many times have we seen these bannings and watched as the affected user desperately tries to get in contact with the company to appeal the case? And the appeal process is shown to be completely faceless and nearly impossible to overturn. Disregard the ideological bias here. Even the actual root of this systemic malfunction comes from companies attempting to include empathy in their massive systems operating logic to violate the terms of services subject to the interpretation of the company. But on a scale of billions of people, these companies do not have the resources to personally hear out all their users grievances and ensure fair outcomes. The far more practical and efficient mechanism here would be to devise explicit rules that are not subject to interpretation. A ban would be made under objective criteria. Anything not breaking the well-defined rules would be acceptable content. But since these companies have all chosen to intentionally insert chaos into their operating logic, it has led to lengthy, ambiguous, and frustrating outcomes for users. And this uncertainty of the boundaries then leaves the remainder of the users walking on eggshells, worried they could be next. All because the disordered system does not have clearly defined rules.
A disordered system can then create deep animosity when people are excluded or banned in a manner that's not well defined. Zubie was even banned for misgendering when he responded with, "Okay, dude." to a trans person who he didn't even know was trans. After much public speculation, it came out later that many users were banned during the coronavirus response purely at the directive of the government. This happened across many sites. Targeted action often leads to many factions feeling demoralized and discriminated against. And if the company can hide behind the government or its sheer size, then users begin to lose all hope in the integral order of the system. We've seen this specifically happen with so many right-wing people on these same social media sites.
If a system does act in accordance with its defined parameters, though, it can effectively exclude personal discrimination outright. For example, if a tech company restricts the age of their users to 18 and up, that is not personal discrimination. Instead, it is rational apathy used to properly guide and define the system. There is no tolerance for those who are 17 years and 364 days old. There is a rule and it is not open to plea negotiation. Regardless of how obviously indistinguishable this person would be on the day prior to his 18th birthday, the rule is the rule. Through strict enforcement, the site can remain ordered and adult only. This rational apathy allows us to be steadfast in our decisions and lets us retain a guide for how we must act to achieve our desired outcome. It removes the personal from the decision. Systemic actions become technical and objective.
This rational apathy is also extremely important when it comes to properly enforcing the law. I saw Asmin Gold talking about implementing an immediate prison sentence for anyone that steals independent of the value of the goods stolen. His argument is not that it matters if you stole something that's worth 50 cents. He explains that he just doesn't want to live in a world where theft is tolerated and strict, exceptionless prosecution of theft will effectively dissuade people from stealing. If we do not prioritize order in the manner we should and instead integrate empathy into how we treat theft, we could maybe allow for some type of review of the borderline cases. Perhaps a young kid stole and we don't want to see an excessive punishment. But once that perspective is instituted into the systems operating logic, we see that the mile is always taken from the given inch. The system begins to crack and unless vigorously reinforced, it will fall further into chaos, just as all liberal cities have.
After years of defanging law enforcement standards in California, San Francisco actually decided to classify all non-violent theft under $950 as a misdemeanor. The insistence was that this would exonerate those underprivileged people from supposedly unnecessary legal persecution. The assertion from those like AOC was that most shoplifters were simply stealing diapers and bread for their family. But unsurprisingly, this was not the case. And in actuality, when the legal system included empathy in its operating system, it instantly degenerated into even more chaos. These types of conversations over laws and leniency are nearly always centered around the perpetrators. But very few talk about what happens to the honest citizens that now live in this danger and filth. All because so much empathy was shown to criminals. Why don't we ask ourselves, what about having empathy for those who rely on the ordered systems to remain functioning? I would much rather have a world where a seven-year-old girl can go outside, play around, and feel safe than a world that proudly puts a man with multiple arrests back on the street after giving him an empathetic fourth chance at rehabilitation.
In business, the same principle applies. Each month, companies working on my projects are all instructed to turn in their billing invoice to me between the 15th and the 20th. Once these are all received, I can unify them for a complete and total bill for all work throughout that time period. I constantly explain to these companies that I have zero tolerance for late billings. Anything submitted after the 20th, I reject and still I nearly always get a call on the 19th and hear a plea for me to extend the deadline. But I always refuse despite their anger and irritation. I feel no sympathy. I have kept my rules consistent and communicated. But more importantly, I would never think to jeopardize the payment of all those other companies who did follow direction just because one company decided that they didn't have the proper organizational skills and time management to comply with the rules.
With our choices, we must always defer to the maintenance of order. And our empathy should be exclusively reserved for all those people who responsibly complied, especially because they so often rely on the system working properly. We owe it to them to uphold the order. Very fundamentally, a system that operates on empathetically laced rules will always be willing to sacrifice the truth, the system, and order itself. When a system disregards order, we see dissent into chaos every time. To properly maintain our systems, we must keep a strict definitional adherence to order. We must refuse the inclusion of empathy as any type of factor in our systems operating logic. Our empathy is for those that rely on the success of the system. Our new systems will no longer have any more discretionary reviews before a decision is made. We will have well articulated, carefully crafted and firm standards which will always serve our highest priorities faithfully and honestly.