Comments on Existence is Wonderful: What Equality Isn't

Yeesh that's tough to state clearly. The noti...

2009-11-17T22:58:42.470-08:00

Yeesh that's tough to state clearly.

The notion of equality can lapse into prejudice. A vegetarian doesn't want his fair share of the meat. Rhetorically, saying that everyone is equal seems to be a generic attempt to combat prejudice, but the over-regulation of the rule can ironically lead to ignorance of real differences - particularly in cases where an individual is aware of the stereotype and does not identify with it.

sgb, although "equilibrium" and "ba...

2009-08-22T21:06:18.613-07:00

sgb, although "equilibrium" and "balance" tend to be closely associated along with "purity" on our innate moral spectrum, you may want to explore (google) the considerable literature describing nonequilibrium, or dissipative systems as these open, always out of balance systems are fundamental to all forms of life.

For my friends focusing on "balance", I recommend they upgrade to notions of (meaningful) "growth."

Thanks for asking this, Anne. It is a topic that ...

2009-08-22T20:29:31.751-07:00

Thanks for asking this, Anne. It is a topic that I value as well.

Equality isn't anything - it's what we agree it is. Like any word, concept or symbol constructed in language it takes the meaning we give it. There is no absolute definition of Equality, such as one may find in physical mass (atomic weight, for example).

So, I look at Equality and wonder which definition we are using and for what purpose? Rather than look at people or things and focus on some test or analysis of their inclusion into or exclusion from Equality; I would like to know who is asking and why? Equality is built upon Value(s) which need to be defined as well.

So, what is the desired effect of Equality? I sometimes like to fall back on a Meritocracy, that if we can achieve a society where people have an Equal chance to employ their will, their life and their existence in a way that perpetuates their existence and that of society - this system of Equality is probably something I could be very happy with.

Jef mentions something that I have phrased differently and perhaps less learnedly:

How can we live together as individuals in a society in a manner that benefits both the individual and society?

It seems that mob / peer pressure has tilted the scales in society's favor for well...ever. Much of the language in society speaks of the individual's rights. This seems to me that the framework for defining an individual lay in the permissions granted by society to that individual.

There exists the experience of an internal self-definition, known primarily to one's own self. For society, the definitions of who we are, have been given to us (fat, smart, gay, cool, attractive, worthless....).

I have lately taken to thinking about equilibrium, a state of balanced movement and a dynamic relationship between things. Perhap, I surmise, there is a comparable model between how we live, from one conscious state to the next. We stay alive, so long as we take in and expel the right amounts of energy. Perhaps the Equilibrium between each individual and society operates along the same lines.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

In my previous comment, second paragraph: "by...

2009-08-14T06:11:07.745-07:00

In my previous comment, second paragraph: "by culture" should be "by our nature and our culture".

Anne: The problem (and opportunity), generalizes ...

2009-08-14T05:37:05.298-07:00

Anne: The problem (and opportunity), generalizes from how best to promote the (evolving) values of an individual, to how best to promote the (evolving) values of a group.

Up until recently, this function has been served, often roughly and brutally, by culture, via methods mindlessly selected for their evolutionary efficacy.

Now, with increasing awareness of our hierarchical, fine-grained values in common, we have the opportunity to cooperatively examine and traverse this "tree" and as we move increasingly toward the root, find increasing agreement (in principle) on branches which increasingly support us all.

And with increasing convergence on these "branches" of the probable, we support increasing divergence at the level of the "leaves" exploring the possible.

Apologies once again for the brevity and excessive reliance on metaphor--the textual bandwidth and space is too small.

Jef: I think I agree with you (if I'm i...

2009-08-13T23:16:55.537-07:00

Jef: I think I agree with you (if I'm interpreting your words right). But my question is, what to do about it? I seem to continually fail when I try to explain this sort of thing.

Mariana: I agree that the word "equality" IS confusing -- the thing I'm talking about is not so much the word itself, but the patterns it is supposed to apply to.

And a lot of people (a surprising number at least to me) seem to have this idea that somehow some people should WANT to be either pitied or (if possible) physically modified to be more similar to other people.

And while I have no problem with people CHOOSING any modification they want, I have trouble with the thing that tends to happen when people choose not to be modified (or want to be modified) in particular ways, wherein they are shamed for it or written off.

I would not call it equality the fact that we are ...

2009-08-13T22:35:53.770-07:00

I would not call it equality the fact that we are different, that is too confusing, the problem is the word different has a bad connotation, so instead I will choose another word for what you are trying to describe, like personal, or something better you might think about.

"Equality" is a heuristic, taught to &qu...

2009-08-12T15:29:19.342-07:00

"Equality" is a heuristic, taught to "children" (of any age or scope of agency) lacking wisdom and instrumentality sufficient to promote a complex mix of hierarchical, fine-grained, evolving values over increasing scope.

Like all heuristics, it serves a worthwhile purpose within a particular (relatively computationally impoverished) environment of interaction.