Thought Train (or Ethics 101)

More times than not I use this blog as a means of ranting and raving about my world views, or for passing moral judgement on American apathy, or for keeping my family and friends posted on what I'm up to. It's pretty easy for me to sit here at my computer, in my house, alone, and write whatever I want on this screen; sometimes forgeting that I'm publishing very personal things for whomever should wander into my blog to read. That doesn't bother me so much. My passion is writing, and writers must share parts of themselves that others may choose to keep very private. After awhile, what I have found, is that most people aren't all that different. However, many of us are putting on airs.

What I mean is, some of us (myself included), at times like to try to act like we aren't humans. We like to put ourselves on this higher level than the rest of humanity, whether it's morally or intellectually or physically or spiritually or all of the above. We don't want to be like everyone else. We want to be our own special snowflake. Which is great, except, when push comes to shove, we've all felt depressed, we've all felt elated, most of us have felt what we thought was love (or maybe even the real thing), we all think about sex, we all have been pushed to the thought of violence, we've all felt a sense of accomplishment...we're all living things. It's natural. We can't escape it. What we can do is evolve.

So where is the line? If one is trying to evolve (and by evolving I mean making a conscious effort to grow in some or all of the areas above) and others are not, when is it okay to say, "I am just beyond this as a person"? Is it ever okay? It's a pretty shitty feeling to be on either end. If you're trying to have a conversation with someone who knows more than you, or is more physically fit than you are, or thinks on a deeper level than you, holds themself to a stricter code of morality, etc. you don't want to be talked down to. But then if you are the person who knows more, you don't want to be snubbed off as someone who doesn't know his toe-nails from his earlobes. So where does the responsibility lie to show respect of one's achievements or one's evolution (stay with me here cause I'm working this thought out as we go). Let's say someone with a Ph.D. in Anthropology meets a priest. And let's say this isn't one of your kindly parish priests, in fact, let's make him a bishop; someone who is very serious about his faith and considers his spirituality and morality to be superior to the average person. Now the Ph.D. in Anthropology couldn't care less about this achievement; she's an atheist and strictly an academic person. And the priest couldn't care less about her having a Ph.D. because he is judging her purely on her level of faith. Likewise, if it were say a tri-athelete judging either of them on their physical ability. Do we consider this a miscommunication? Do basic manners take care of this issue?

I only bring this up because in this temp job I'm working there is a wide array of people; everyone from post-doctoral scientists to farmers, and I've been noticing that everyone seems to make judgements on each other based on very different standards. The woman who runs the program dresses very nicely and carries herself with an air of confidence that demands respect. Some of the people take this as she's trying too hard, others think she's a bitch, and others (myself included) respect her position as the leader of a group of educated adults. My question is, if everyone could respect that she has to play the role of the leader, would she still have to dress in a way that commands respect? Or is she really compensating? What if she just wore jeans and a t-shirt, but was obviously smarter than everyone in the room? What if a priest was Joe nobody that sat in the congregation like an average person? Would we still be able to tell he was morally superior? I was offered a promotion at this temp job, and I'm of the belief that the only reason I was singled out was because I put on a collared shirt every morning and tried to look professional. Is that a fair way to choose? Cause if it is then you have to get into the whole issue that not everyone can afford nice clothes, etc.

I'm losing the thought train here, but my point is this. Humans are humans on a basic level. Some of us choose to evolve. Others are fine with where they are. Some of us are opportunistic, others of us think opportunistic people are slimy for trying to get ahead. A farmer may consider some of the three-syllable words learned in graduate school to be snobbish and unnecessary. A lawyer may think raising your own chickens is a waste of time and money. Who should respect whom and why? Or is this all a matter of playing nicely and talking behind each other's backs?

I think this issue has a lot to do with the culture wars going on in this country and why everyone wants to find a niche and pretend they're in some kind of gang. What do you all think? Comments? Elaborations?