Equality and Its Fathoms of Depth

Posted: November 18, 2012 in Uncategorized

Peace,

 

“The defect of equality is that we only desire it with our superiors” [Henry Becque Querelles littéraires]

 

When I received Supreme Mathematics from my enlightener, there were no definitions included.  This was by design, because in order to apply each principle to the swift and changeable currents of life in real-time, one must be able to define them in a multiplicity of ways and draw applicable wisdom and understanding from them, depending upon the situation at hand.  As of late, equality has been weighing heavily on my mind.  This is due, in large part, to the fact that I think its depth is grossly understated making it a rather nebulous concept when it is not given thorough consideration.  The most common error people make in building on equality is viewing it strictly through the lens of quantity.  Further complicating said error, is the fact that the expression of said approach is usually manifested in the form of statements using the quotient of a given number after it’s divided by two.  For example, it is commonplace within relationship discussions for people to reference the amount of effort put forth by each party in terms of the 50/50 ratio.  The idea being that if each party is contributing an equal 50% then the relationship is highly likely to work based on the fact that the two equal contributions cumulate to yield 100%.  This logic infers that the more variance there is in the quantity of each person’s contribution, the less likely the relationship is to work.  This method of relationship analysis is very incomplete and leaves so many questions dying to be answered.  What happens if an unknown arises which impedes the ability of one party to maintain that 50% contribution?  Are they immediately deemed to be incompetent and consequently dismissed, or does the other party pick up the slack until his or her counterpart is able to regain their old form?  And exactly what elements of the cipher does this “50/50” ratio strictly apply to?  Let’s say hypothetically, that I bring 65% of the income into my household and my queen makes up the other 35%, but she does 97% of the cooking and cleaning while I only cover that remaining lowly 3%.  In this scenario is there any equality to be found?  Certainly there is, and it lies in the qualitative value of each contribution, which is set by the individuals managing the cipher in question.  In my example, the queen may be naturally predisposed to dominate the maintenance of the kingdom, even to the point of preference, and if that’s the case, she’s not at all bothered by my lackluster contribution.  On the other side of the spectrum, I may be perfectly fine carrying more financial weight based on an understanding that what the queen brings to the table in other areas easily makes up the difference.  So if both parties are peace with said equation then it effectively borns equality in the form of a functional social arrangement.

 

The quote that I opened with leads us to another dimension of equality.  It essentially exposes a paradoxical quality of the principle in stating that we only seek to be equal with our superiors.  The unspoken element is that as we reach more equal footing with those who are superior in areas such as social status or financial wealth, we are becoming less equal with those who are not so fortunate.  In a capitalist society fortune and misfortune are mutually exclusive.  You can’t have 10% without 85% providing blood for them to suck.  We now encounter some rather serious ethical  questions to ponder.  How do we deal in equality with those who are either inferior or superior relative to different areas of life?  What exactly does it mean to do so?  How do we strike a balance between dealing in equality vs. stooping too low or aiming too high?  The answers to these questions are fluid to say the least, and each individual is the best knower relative to his or her own cipher.  That being said, here’s my take on it.  For me, the simple answer to the first question is to make sure you don’t make those who may have less feel as if they are less than you.  Strive to be empathetic when warranted, and understanding of a person’s condition if it’s brought them wounds which are self-inflicted.  Conversely, in dealing with those who are so-called “superiors” its important to make sure that you let them know they aren’t any better than you regardless of their lot in life.  Additionally, tact is a critical tool of the trade when dealing with such people on a day to day basis.  You have to pick your spots and know when to assert yourself vs. when to remain in a fine mist and just keep quiet.  It’s a foregone conclusion that you will ultimately have to deal with some B.S. from such people because it rolls downhill and they rarely are as adept at taking it as they are at dishing it out.  Social grace is the key to success in said undertaking.  As far as what it means to deal in equality with others, I think its about treating them “right”.  By right I don’t mean blindly kissing their asses or blowing smoke.  I mean projecting toward them the energy that fits the situation, with the default projection being a warm current.  The reality is that sometimes you will be compelled to freeze an individual in order to cool them off and advise them that they’re out of line.  That’s nothing to feel guilty about because they can survive the cold current and get past it based on average human resilience.  Although we tend to be melodramatic, human beings are capable of enduring quite a bit.  Long and short, if a person’s feelings get hurt because they were corrected, they’ll get over it.  Lastly, we strike the balance by looking at each interaction as a knowledge based endeavor.  Deal with people based on what you know about them, and are striving to learn about them.  Usually their wisdom will tell you the best way to go about establishing equality with them.  At the end of the day you’re simply striving to engage them in a way that yields the same level of potential benefit for all parties involved.

 

Peace.

Preme

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s