Rules are created to provide structure for chaos as it turns its weigh to order. These rules are observations of barriers – places where the signs scream at you as you blow past. Sometimes, we reach the transition state, where the next stop places us beyond the current rules. In my mind, rules are made to be broken.
People tend to make rules for themselves, then apply them to everybody else, without even bothering to inform people that we are ‘ruling’ them. This becomes apparent in the default sheeple mindset, where rules were learned in schools and used to ‘level the playing field’. Sports involves working the rules of the game well, such that they change the rules to create ‘cheaters’, people who break the rules.
Interesting, how most video games are learned through cheat sheets, rather than by playing the game and learning the rules by experience. The rules of a game seem to be the lowest common borders of fair play. Often, what is not written into the rules is as important as the material covered.
I grew up playing Monopoly, the game of Atlantic City property purchase that leads in a strange way to presidential candidate Donald Trump. I usually was the banker, we had four regular players and we kept track of game wins on the back of the white one dollar bills. Standard rules are that when houses are used up, hotels cannot be built unless there are enough houses to make 4 per property before going to a hotel. A shrewd businessman might trade for Baltic and Mediterranean, to suck up the four houses apiece – to be sold off later to cash in on higher property value monopolies.
The standard rules also make no mention of purchase options. If I have two out of three of a color group, I might offer $25 to another player for their option on the third. I get to make the purchase, if they happen to land there. Options started as gentleman’s agreements – pink five dollar bills became the written contracts down the road.
Simplicity breeds complexity. When you narrow the rules of a game to restrict player options, then players become more creative at bending the rules. When a rule becomes blatantly unfair, well there you have government. Sometimes a new rule replaces the old rule and restores balance; more often, it widens the imbalance.
As a child, I played in a spontaneous neighborhood game called fumblitis, which was a great place for morphing rules. The game was a cross between football and rugby, where everybody tried to kick the football or pick it up and run. When the latter happened, everybody tackled the kid with the ball, who fumbled and the game continued. The object was to try to hold the ball without getting tackled, and everybody had to pick up the ball at some time. Rules changed when somebody kept the ball too much, they were prohibited from offense. The game was played by kids of both sexes and all ages, but by middle school there were better things to do.
Nowadays, the rules for social order are total chaos. As an Asberger’s laureate, I have no ‘common’ sense. I have to think about things to get them to work. If the hot water faucet is flowing cold water, I would figure that the water heater is off, not that the plumbing lines had been switched. My preference is to be a hermit, rather than deal with strange people, especially when it comes to rules.
I am not a sheep. I do not stand in line well and wait my turn because waiting is a total waste of my time. Especially, when I have something else to do. I do not shop, because other people tend to get into my personal space and it makes me very uncomfortable. In fact, when I am alone, I have the time to write essays on rules. I rarely obey the social strata rules, because I never learned them in the first place.
By doing and attuning to nature rather than to other people, I am learning to be more comfortable in my own skin. I can make rules for me, but the critters that amble into my outdoor lab don’t respect my rules, not even the other humans. I try to do the best I can with the cards that I’m dealt.
In science, the rules are called protocols. Following the protocols allows direct comparison of the results. It demonstrates that the same items measured the same way give the same results. We use quality control and quality assurance protocols to see that our equipment is maintained, works properly and gives results that are consistent and make sense. Then we attempt to explain results, just to make people laugh.
The protocols help establish limits. To change a protocol is to move beyond comparison with accepted results. A new revised protocol can be issued with method improvements; tried and true methods methods written to establish reproducibility between labs are necessary for proper analytical chemistry. We do the lab work with known standards to produce the desired physical results, before we experiment with real solutions.
That’s all for now. Namaste’ … doc