I came across this on Gab the other day. I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but it's certainly food for thought.
The rules of sewage:
Imagine you have two cups. One contains the purest, clearest, most wonderful water possible. The other, raw sewage. When you mix the two, you get sewage. The same for a cup of sewage and a pitcher of water, or a barrel of water. Regardless of the size of the pure water container, the sewage contaminates it.
This became the root of what I refer to as “The Rules of Sewage” in regards to a person’s character. This one is the First Rule of Sewage, The Non-Proportional Rule of Sewage. It means, as the saying above goes, that you can sometimes learn a thing about a person that taints the entirety of their personality – e.g., a person beats their spouse. It doesn’t matter what else they are, what acts they do, they are polluted by that one thing.
This simmered in my mind over a couple of years, and I started to formulate other Rules of Sewage. Each was based on the same base concept – mixing water and sewage. Thus far I’ve come up with six.
The Second Rule of Sewage is the Non-Compartmentalized Rule of Sewage. You cannot pour a cup of sewage into a container of water, and have it only remain in the place you poured it. Bad character leaks into other elements of character. E.g., a person who cheats on their spouse – thus breaking a sacred oath – cannot be counted on to keep an oath in any other part of their life.
The Third Rule of Sewage is the Immersive Rule of Sewage. Imagine an edible fish taken from that pure water, placed in sewage, and somehow surviving – no matter the fish’s immune system and other defenses, it will become contaminated. No matter how pure you are to begin with, if you are surrounded by bad people or bad content, it will start to affect you. E.g., a good, honest person who goes to work in a place with bad ethics and stays there – for whatever reason – will sooner or later find they are making compromises to their own character and standards, and rationalizing their doing so. (And this is, of course, the root of the proverb “Birds of a feather, flock together.”)
The Fourth Rule of Sewage is Irreversible Rule of Sewage. Simply put, it’s a lot easier to mix the sewage in and ruin the water than reversing the process. While people are certainly capable of change, it takes deliberate effort to do so, and usually also an ongoing awareness and maintenance of that change to avoid slipping back to whatever factor is being avoided.
The Fifth Rule of Sewage is the Odiferous Rule of Sewage. Sewage, to put it bluntly, stinks like sh*t. Bad odors like that can be covered up or contained, but not forever. Sooner or later the malodorous item in a person’s character will out, and be readily apparent. This actually ties in with…
The Sixth Rule of Sewage, the Reactive Rule of Sewage – when faced with a tank of sewage, normal people react negatively. And while a person learning something about another (ref: Rule One) won’t physically turn their head away and scrunch up their face in disgust, I believe the plain truth is that upon learning of such a think will cause a decent person to dissociate – to whatever degree possible – from the other. Failing to do so, or worse expressing approval, could be considered an example application of Rule One about them too.
I can certainly get on board with the Sixth Rule, often expressed as "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas". What do you think of the rest?
Peter
23 comments:
Liars lie, thieves steal, bullies bully, and evil is evil.
The rules apply.
Psalm 1:1
Originally appearing here:
https://davidhuntpe.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/the-rules-of-sewage/
I remember reading this a year or so after it came out.
He's actually got some interesting stuff, like a series on climate change, and one about offshoring.
That's the logical extension of Galatians 5:9. "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."
It would behoove us to remember that the opposite can also be true: when the leaven is Light, the "whole lump" is eventually purified, if Christian (and other) teaching is true.
Goatroper
Police departments often say a couple of bad apples does'nt ruin the whol bunch. Wrong metaphore. The law of sewage applies. Cops all know who the bad actors are in their midst. Stink by association. Sorry kids but too true.
Although I certainly agree with all the rules, the problem with reality is that the context where those rules may apply are not that clearly delineated. To lie is certainly not a positive character trait, but what about the people hiding the Frank family during WWII, who lied to the Nazi authorities about knowing the Frank's whereabouts, or how guilty was Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's starving children? The examples are countless so the boundary beyond which a specific action ceased to be a "sin" is always depending on the context of its occurrence. Should we try to judge actions in that specific context, less we apply the "justice is blind" principle? I've started to doubt the concept of "Justice" in our oh so modern and enlightened society, because not only is it blind, but is seems to be also deaf and mute!
Agree with Carteach. Regardless of how you word it, some things never change.
Rule 3 calls to mind the quote about political correctness & communist propaganda.
“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small.
In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity.
To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself.
One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed.
A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.
I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect
and is intended to.”
-- Theodore Dalrymple
The sad part is when you have known someone for years, and "suddenly" Rule Five breaks forth. Then you begin to wonder what else is contaminated? How far back has this been there.
Have they always harbored heretical tendencies?
@CGR710
To my mind, both of your examples share the same root and are not so much relegated to a case by case basis. In both cases, the subjects took on sin that others might be saved. Perhaps that is the litmus test for such behavior.
The only, repeat only moderation I would suggest is in defending innocents from blatant evil (i.e. Ann Franks senario).
Creating is difficult, destroying is easy. Which is why we have few creative people and plenty of destructive people.
I've seen this analogy pertaining to sin too. The pure water is your life and sin is sewage. One drop of sin\sewage makes the water impure and only Christ can make the water pure again.
That is interesting. Disobedience to bad law is not wrong. Because the law is bad. (Frank family)
Stealing is stealing. Taking from one to serve your own needs is not morally or ethically justifiable. (Valjean)
Conflating the two as to make a point about what is just, or unjust, is the interesting part.
I had formed a similar hypothesis some years ago that mixing politics with science or engineering is akin to a sh*t sandwich. The addition of politics invariably corrupts the results.
I've heard a version that goes, "If you add an ounce of wine to a barrel of sewage, you have a barrel of sewage. If you add an ounce of sewage to a barrel of wine, you also have a barrel of sewage."
I suppose my previous comment was basically arguing for moral relativism, even though I know part of my arguments were more of a ethical subjectivist nature (Jean Valjean). I can only argue that I've become thoroughly frustrated with the way the Law has evolved into a huge behemoth full of contradictions and positions contrary to constitutional principles, having more to do with control than with justice. We as a society have become controlled by a bureaucratic hierarchy which inevitably leads us to the all-sewage status we are all dreading...
Feels like this could easily be incorporated into a Calvinist lecture on the total depravity of man. Sin stains the whole man. A wedding dress with wine spilled on it is still ruined for the occasion no matter how small the stained area. Replace sewage with the taint of evil and it still works fine as a lesson in personality.
Rule 4 is true. Got laid off from fortune 500 company. Decided to retire, we're savers. Once clear of the toxic environment began to understand the damage financialization is doing to our country.
When you swim in sewage it is often difficult to know about clean water.
While I find no serious fault in the rules, I do question the implied premise that anyone is pure as clear/clean water. None are righteous, all have sinned and fall short. There's a level of grace/mercy that's missing if these rules were used on their own.
Rick: "That is interesting. Disobedience to bad law is not wrong. Because the law is bad. (Frank family)"
Not just the Frank family, but the UCMJ (for those of us subject to it at some point). The law or the order my be the sewage.
As someone else made the case, context matters, at least to the person faced with judging pure from sewage in the moment. And what if one has not chosen to be in the sewage. Yet it is there and must be dealt with. Interesting, but not as simple in life as it is with words.
I have lived my life on a basis of honesty and looking at myself in the mirror day by day.
However.... It feels as if in certain circumstances honesty is the path to self destruction. Maybe you will die with your soul clean but death and destruction physically and to all those around you.
Is it ok to lie in a war? Do you tell your enemy the truth? Or even your own side in keeping the truth from the enemy?
Now what if in your personal life you have actual enemies? Will them knowing the truth harm your friends and family?
It makes me feel weary of spirit trying to navigate some of the complexities of real life. I have raised my children to no matter what tell the truth even if it gets them in trouble with me. That though there will be a consequence that in the long term it will serve them better to be honest.
However, in the environment we live in trying to figure out how to tell them that the truth might not be the best policy under certain circumstances. It hurts me even thinking about it. When you can no longer trust the environment you live in to treat you fairly or justly based on a life or character of honesty what do you do? It brings to mind the story of Job in the bible. What an upright man, would have hated to be related to him though as that wasn't safe at all.
Can you separate yourself to be honest where honesty is needed yet tell untruths where needed and still be intact?
The examples given by others, of the Jewish people under Nazi rule come very much to mind.
I wrote a bit more but it was more honesty than should be used on the internet :)
Post a Comment