Although I have been working on this for 50 years or so, this is a new approach to handling it.
Starting over again, So everthing appears incomplete and nonsensical? The fate of all new and
controversial knowledge. For now I will say no more than what is right. Can not be wrong. As it is
consistent with the laws of nature and history. That we have a very serious societal problem that
needs solving, Else we will continue inexorably on our way to non-viability as a specie. That you
should therefore bear with, read and learn. And not practice intellectual dishonestyIntellectual Dishonesty
The failure to accept new knowledge that is right on an absolute basis, when it conflicts with currently held incorrect beliefs on the subject.
This is a “touchy” subject. One involving much mysticism and opportunities for what some would
view as heresey, blasphemy, etc. So many fallacies…
What we should really think of when we think of the concept of “equalness” in a societal sense is “equal access to the universe”. Access to those things you want and truly need, such as a job, housing, an education. That these are not arbitrarily controlled by someone else. That people and the societal system are fairFair
Any act that does not involve coercion or fraud.
But the concept of “human need”—things that thinking beings believe the really must have&madsh;is another concept filled with fallacies. Something I must discuss by itself at another place and time.
So now we come down to "equality in a societal sense" itself which, as I intimated above, maybe should really be thought of as “equalness”. Somehow being “equal to each other”? Aye, there's the rub.
Because we are not created equal under the laws of nature. Rather, we are created equally under the laws of nature, which say that we will not be equal to each other. Sorry, but I feel the need to emphasize many things, and to put many other things in quotes. The latter because my definition is different than that of others, and definitions are extraordinarily important. New and useful information can not created and disseminated without using absolute, mutually agreed definitions and semantic precision. Which of course I will discuss elsewhere and provide the definitions I prefer and use for many important words and concepts.
As I was saying… we are born equally under the laws of nature which say that we will not be equal to each other. You have hard this before, but you must listen again and really think about it. We are unique and different in our hopes and dreams for life. In our abilities to implement and realize these hopes and dreams. Further, this is a dynamic concept, constantly changing throughout life, ending only with death.
As I believe others have pointed out, if we were not different--if we were all the same--this would an absolute horror, yes? What would be the purpose of such a life? The usual stuff. There would only be one car we liked, one color. What would be the purpose of chosing a mate? They are all the same. This of course is ridiculous. To think of, to even discuss. So it is equal, "fair" access to the things we think we want in life, yes? And it is the differences in life that we seek and cherish.
We need to get over this constant harping and complaining of lack of equality. And another thing, a cherished objective of non-thinkers the world over. To get rid of "bias". And bias is against the law, yes? What does it mean? Bias merely means a preference for something. And if it is ingrained in us, it becomes "prejudice". Which I think is also against political, unnatural law? If you aren't biased, you are not thinking. Of course these terms are often used in job employment. Where you certainly want to be biased and have thoughts on things. And you should be prejudiced for and against many things. While still having an open mind and practicing intellectual dishonestyIntellectual Dishonesty
The failure to accept new knowledge that is right on an absolute basis, when it conflicts with currently held incorrect beliefs on the subject..
What can restrict our “access to the universe”? The most common is a “gatekeeper” or controller. Such as a politician. Who says “rules is rules&rduo; and you must do what I say and can only have what I say. Although there is another, somewhat equal bad thing. It is “they” who control things. Someone other than ourselves. Bad business people and concepts. Our own lack of money, financial resources. Our lack of education…? Now we are coming to something important. Through bad decisions in our life we limit our access to things we want in life. By not “finishing” our education. Although as GalambosGalambos
Andrew J. Galambos (1924-1997). Astrophysicist, creator of the Science of Volition and elucidator of the Universal Laws of Volitional Behavior. pointed out, and I indicated above we must never think that we have “finished” our education. We must continue to learn throughout life. When we stop learning we are dead. Mentally, physically.
But why should anyone want to be equal to someone else or to others? I want to be better, to be different. Only by being better and different can I get a good job. Find the best possible mate. As a young man on my first job I encountered the concept of “unionism”. Of people belonging to a union. When, thinking to repair something I was working on, I wandered out on the factory floor. Found some tools and started working on the device. A very agitated supervisor appeared, looking terrified. “No, stop, don’t touch those tools! You will cause a strike, a work stoppage!”
And he explained the concept of the union. That I was not a member of it, and was therefore not allowed to use the associated tools and do "manual" labor. That if someone who was not a member of the union did something only a union member should do, the entire plant might come to a halt as people stopped working in protest. Then I thought more about those who wanted to earn the same amount of money as their mates. No more, no less. To all take their vacations and holidays at the same time. And I thought "why would anyone want to be the same as all others and do the same thing?" I wanted to be better, to do better than others. So I would get raises and promotions and not be the same and do the same as all others.
I remembered when I was in university and working odd jobs at odd times to earn money. This job making wooden pallets. And I was paid based on the number satisfactorily completed. Which I thought was a great idea. Then the boss appeared and said the process would be “unionized”. And I must work certain hours and I would be paid a regular amount each week, etc. With the implication that this was a great and wonderful thing. Although I sensed he wasn't really sure about it. But, as much as I wanted and needed to make money, I immediately quit. Looked for and found another job, repairing radios and other electrical things. Better it was, as I was learning something of the future, not of the past.
What does this all have to do with a subject that tends to rip society apart? A lot, actually. What I am saying is that we—Homo sapiens—are a product of nature, and part of nature. That we are subject to the same laws as rocks, lizards, whales and all other things in our world. We are a product of the process under which we were created and we developed as a thinking being. I was trying to avoid using the word "evolution", as it tends to set off alarm bells in some people. Or shuts down their thinking process. But it shouldn't, it is a wonderful thing.
This of the marvelous diversity of our world. Some of the seemingly outrageous life forms. Some of which seemt ohave no function other than to amaze us or perplex us. Yet without evolution we would have remained a few disparate atoms, particles, compounds, etc. The differences would be very limited, the sameness very great. Not much fun, yes? Not much of interest. If we had not evolved from this, we would not be here and having this discussion. In evolving we followed certain rules, going along with out environment. Not against it. And this is what we must do to continue this process. We must observe the rules under which we evolved as a thinking specie. To, as they sometimes say in politics, “to faithfully discharge the duties and obligations…” of individual thinking life.
We must live within the laws of nature under which we eolved as a thinking specie. If we do not, we will perish, yes? This is a law of nature. Think of the thousands of species that have recently disappeared, and are now disappearing. What characteristic do they have in common? They were deemed by nature to be "unfit for survival". None of the relevant species thought about this. They are, by nature, incapable of doing so. We—Homo sapiens—are the only specie who can think about the need to abide by the laws of nature. And can change our behavior to do so or not do so. And within the limits of the laws of nature, change our environment to do so.
Think of the now–probable reason why Neanderthal disappeared. Or the pygmy specie on the island of Borneo. Or non-thinking species, such as the mammoth, dodo bird, etc. Whatever. If we perish as a specie, and we now on the way to non–viability as specie, it will because we did not do that which defines our specie: we did not think. Think using the epistemological tool we have available to determine rightness in knowledge. And thus in behavior. What I will now refer to as Newton's Method. What we normally refer to as the “Scientific Method”. Now that I have raised some hackles with that term, I must discuss it, yes?