An Introduction to Drama

11/22/2008.

There is no, philosophy, whatsoever, that says when things cannot get resolved on their own, that they will get resolved on their own. They can get worse. For as long as people allow drama to happen, there is no reason whatsoever that the drama can unresolve itself.

If people or anyone in charge or control refuses to do anything about drama, they can expect for things to get worse. Sorry, but there is no philosophy that drama will favor shifting towards equilibrium so that everyone will be happy. Drama, is far too random and determined to not favor equilibrium.

Drama increases in any spontaneous process. Drama needs effort to initiate non-spontaneously. Or in other words, drama is the chemical equivalent of entropy.

The feeling (good or bad) is positive or negative enthalpy..

The philosophy:

-That starting drama is bad.
-That the whole point of drama is to unresolve itself.

An example of how drama can be started: unnecessary drama.

Most people are less informed about the Internet, so a story of Internet drama as brought to a real-life example.

Suppose a tenant rents an apartment with a landlord of that apartment. And the tenant pays rent to the landlord, and the landlord gives him keys to the apartment door (for this example, let's make this more storage-oriented sake).

Then 1 day, the tenant installs a key hole to his closet, and decides to rent that closet (like for storage) to another person. And he gives 1 of the keys to the closet to the person he is renting to. Then that person pays rent to the tenant, just like the tenant pays rent to the landlord.

Suppose 1 day, the tenant violates the lease of the landlord, and let's just say, for Internet-examples reasons, the landlord reserves the right to keep everything the tenant has in his apartment. The tenant is outside 1 day, and the landlord comes in and locks his apartment with another lock in which the tenant does not have the key to (like a door with 2 locks).

The tenant, violating the terms of service (well lease), cannot get anything he had in his apartment again (similar to how a webhosting company will freeze your website when you violate their terms of service (the apartment in this case could be thought of as an ideal stroage, equivalent to web hosting)).

Then 1 day, the person whom is paying closet rent to the tenant, comes and finds the apartment door is locked (so he cannot get into the closet if he cannot get into the apartment). He calls the tenant, and the tenant is as least helpful. Days later, after his patience slowly diminishes more, the person then contacts the landlord, asking if he can get all the stuff from his closet out. The landlord, of course, finds out that the tenant illegally rented the closet to another person.

The landlord now has 2 choices:

1.)He can say, "you're responsible for the tenant's actions," the tenant violated the lease, he got his apartment locked up, and you become with fault with him.

2.)Or he can say, "Okay, I did not know the tenant was renting the closet to someone, you can have all your belongings back from the closet."

The 1st example is unnecessary drama, the 2nd 1 isn't.

This is apparently something that happened to me in my life, as a result of 'unnecessary' drama. Someone I paid money to, to host my website, I did not know he was paying to host his website too. My website account was merely a 'subaccount' for his website. The person I paid money too, he violated the webhost's terms of service, and they freezed his site. Since my website was then a subaccount of him, mine was frozen too. This was over a year ago.

Not just frozen, but downloaded off-line. Could I right-click all my pages and view source? No. They took it down. Can I log in to my file manager and saves as all my pages? No. The file manager went off-line with the website.

Both me and the person I paid money to, asked the top owner if I could have my website back, but of course, people aren't that nice.

This is a typical example of unnecessary drama. Of course, it is still unethical, as I firmly believe, to make things worse than what the situation is (like making bomb threats to the crew). My life isn't about starting drama or making drama worse than what it already is (so making bomb threats after asking nicely won't cut it).

This is also why I don't recommend that company as webhosting (as well as a lot of other stuff) to anyone.

I even made a compromise with them, on my reply e-mail with them, saying if I / I'd like to start my own account and pay them directly for them to host my site, would they give me back my site back? They rejected that too. They lost a potential customer.

This story is another example of why I want to be a lawyer. Sometimes 2 articles I write can have the same story (so if I wrote an article on why I want to be a lawyer so badly, this story would be used).

This is interesting in the sense that someone can use the same premises to reach different conclusions (and the 2 conclusions, aren't opposites of each other, just like "introduction to drama" is not the opposite of wanting to become a lawyer or not).

Another way to write this article is to say the Internet-side story 1st, and then relate to how it is in real-life with the landlord-tenant example). (If the landlord gives the tenant a terms of service, and the tenant gives a closet-renter an additional terms of service, and the 2 terms of service have no mention of each other, how should the closet-renter know about the terms of service that the tenant should abide to from the landlord?)

Note: there is a sister page located at /Neal/Story/DreamHost.html.

12/3/2008.

There is no, philosophy, whatsoever, that says when things cannot get resolved on their own, that they will get resolved on their own. They can get worse. For as long as people allow drama to happen, there is no reason whatsoever that the drama can unresolve itself.

If people or anyone in charge or control refuses to do anything about drama, they can expect for things to get worse.

An introduction to conflict of interest.

Suppose, for example, there was a house that lived a man and a cat. The man is a cat owner. Suppose they got along perfectly. Everyday when the man comes home, his cat comes to greet him. The man and the cat sleep together, on the same bed. The cat has very cute eyes. The cat often follows the man around the house some times. You could not observe any disputes between the man and his cat.

Now suppose the man had the morality of the Golden Rule: the do unto others thing. And he was a strong enforcer of that.

Now suppose, for example, a bird in cage was introduced to the house. And 1 day, the cat sees it and walks up to it and examines it. And then the cat sticks a paw into it. And tries to scratch the bird. Then the man, gets off from the chair reading his newspaper, runs to the cat and says "no!" strongly. And wards the cat off using his own arms. And says "Bad Kitty."

This is a typical example of "conflict of interest."

Okay, so the cat can reason why the man did that - that he was only being that way in regards to the bird. Not for no reason.

Then the man goes back to the chair and continues reading the newspaper. Suppose later, the cat decided to come back. And stick a claw into the bird cage again. And the following scenario happens again.

What's the intent of the man?

It's called, "trying to rationalize with the cat." The man strongly believes in the Golden Rule. And rationalizing with the irrational.

But don't you think that if this story continues on and on, that that could seriously affect the relationship between the cat and the man?

And this story can continue on and on until either the man or the cat stops. Both the man and the cat have their own strong philosophies, that of the man being the Golden Rule. And each time, the man can get louder or more stricter.

If this story continues, this could potentially affect the relationship between the man and the cat.

Now suppose, for example, the bird cage no longer exists in the house. Then things go back to normal, or to what they were before, and the man and the cat live together happily like they did in paragraph 1.

Another version of this story, is that the bird is removed from the cage. And the bird sits on a wooden branch that is hung from the ceiling, next to tall furniture. Suppose 1 day, the cat actually is more successful and actually attacks the bird, wounding it.

Then the man rushes up from his chair and gets a broomstick and tries to swing at the cat, even more angrily, with "No, Kitty no!"

What the man and the cat need in order to get along, before 1 of them gives up (whom will it be), would be if the bird is removed from the house. Then the man and the cat can live together happily. But neither the man nor the cat could get along for as long as that bird cage with the bird remains in the house.

This is precisely what drama is about, in the most simplest terms.

However, the wonderful thing about drama between humans is the ability to communicate.

Suppose, for example, the cats in the world got together and discussed amongst themselves ethics between cats. That is, cat2cat ethics. And so they come up with an official "Golden Rule" saga philosophy, and that that's what they're for.

Then suppose a human counter-argues and asks "Then how does that explain your behavior to birds and mice? If you don't like it when dogs bark at you or try to bite you, how does that explain your behavior to birds and mice?"

What would the cats come up with, to "justify" their acts? What would be a defense the cats can come to counter-argue that?

Neither complexity nor suitability give rise to a purpose in correlating human morality with cat morality.

In reality though, people face trade-offs. There are so many cases where people could get along with things, if the certain elements necessary were the case, and the certain elements necessary weren't the case.

This is where, in order to resolve drama, effort is needed. Drama cannot be unresolved on its own. If drama can be controlled, then the things necessary to be able to control drama need to control.