Spiritual Peace … Is Fairness and Equality The Answer

Town Square
1

Spiritual Peace … Is Fairness and Equality The Answer?

Successful relationships among people requires a 100% committed effort by all toward the success and strength of the relationship. Equal 50% – 50% contributions to mandate equality will never lead to long-term success. Rather a 100% commitment to the success of the relationship by each individual involved is the formula for success. Equality is the formula for failure.

Without some bias or “politically correct” indoctrination, any reasonable evaluation on mankind, by a fair-minded individual, will acknowledge that the evidence is overwhelming that all men are not created equal. Some are born physically strong, others mentally tough and intelligent, some are caring and nurturing, some are tough and rugged, some are male and some are female, some are trans-gendered, some are cross gendered some are dual gendered, some are tall, some are short, some are bald others hairy, some are fair skinned others dark skinned. By any reasonable unbiased observer the facts are overwhelming that nothing is equal about the individuals that make up mankind. Most reflect a combination of the above referenced differences and we could add a thousand more to the list to multiply the diversity.

Nowhere in nature does equality exist. It’s a human concept that is doomed to failure. A seed that lands in a field by the river in rich soil will grow taller and stronger than a seed that lands at the bottom of a dense forest. Is it fair that one seed gets better conditions in which to grow? How difficult a process would it be for us to plant trees and focus on equality for every tree. Would that lead to more growth or less overall? Such an undertaking would be extremely difficult to manage because we would have to cut back every strong tree.

If we still relied on trees to build houses and heat our homes would an equality approach be sensible? It is a certainty that we achieve less overall when equality is the goal. Now what result would such an approach have among mankind, would we thrive if we tried to make equality a goal? Such endeavors are misguided and show a lack of appreciation for nature.

Equality is the source of every division and problem in our world. We cannot fight against nature and expect to succeed. The minute we begin to put energies into fighting against nature, by demanding equality within the system, the whole system suffers. We hurt ourselves and the collective suffers too. Hurt and pain to other individuals within the collective are the direct result of seeking equality, such an endeavor is the wrong approach.

The spiritual approach to peace and harmony is where every individual human being needs to be recognized and be nurtured to grow to their fullest potential. Not tearing down the successful to accommodate the weak but rather supporting the weak to find their place within the overall collective system to contribute back to the whole.

Peace comes through 100% acceptance of others and a 100% commitment to supporting the collective well being of all in the system. This is holistic spiritual unity. This is the spiritual approach that will lead humankind to great heights as we work together as a collective for the good of all, and not by seeking equality taking sides one against the other.

2

The equity of outcome crowd ignores the history of oppression and misery that these Marxist 'ideals" create.

The ability to implement Woke equity on humankind is a rotten fruit from the trees of Liberal Democracy and Free Market Capitalism. Being able to complain is our 1st ammendment right, but complaints are not a foundation for a viable society.

Marxist crap has been 100% successful at bringing misery to humanity.

1 Like
3

I certainly concur with this assessment. Thanks for commenting. :slight_smile:

4

[quote=“excecutive, post:1, topic:20604”]
Nowhere in nature does equality exist. It’s a human concept that is doomed to failure.
[/quote] In nature animals often fight each other to the death.This isn’t something that usually happens amongst civilised people either. We still have war, but far less than we used to, because we’re evolving. Wars only happen in more evolved countries because it is perceived that other countries are treating their own people or their neighbours unfairly.

Humans have brain structures other animals don’t have, which allows us to have greater and greater empathy for others as we evolve. More empathy means more fairness and equality.

In terms of serving the whole, there’s been a lot of research showing greater fairness and equality actually increases happiness and other wellbeing measures for everyone within a society - The Spirit Level is a really good book on this https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/the-spirit-level .

Also, wealth only increases happiness up to a certain amount, and then it plateaus https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/06/earnings-pay-happiness-research.

5

Good morning @Julia248
Absolutely agree that our brain structures enable much more complex organizational structures and the ability to review/test effectiveness of these structures as compared to dolphins or bonobos. While we have “more fairness”, these structures do not change “equality” in any way.
We might want to add in the oh so important modifiers of “opportunity” or “outcome” when we use “equality”.

The conflation of “equality of opportunity” with “equality of outcome” by our “progressives” is an actual tactic to morph the conversation from “that’s a horrible idea” to “why are you so uncompassionate”. It’s an amazing debate and discussion tactic.

Sadly “equality of outcome” systems have been tested many times with 10M’s, 100M’s, and even B’s of people over the last 100+ years, with extremely well documented outcomes.

The best systems the world has ever seen for unlocking human development by definition support studying a massive breadth of ideologies. It’s a beautiful thing that brings richness of thought, life, and vibrancy to our liberal democracies.

Making the leap from “poor idea that’s failed humankind every single time it’s been tried” to “it’s human nature and will work out beautifully this go round” is intellectually bankrupt.

The trees of liberal democracies produce by far the most fruits humankind has ever experienced.

Should we plant the seeds from the sweetest, most resilient, most productive fruits off of the healthiest tree in history?

Or destroy the tree of liberal democracy in order to plant the sour, shriveled up, rotting on the branch fruit seeds?

6

Are you talking about China and Russia? These are not countries with a high degree of equality and fairness… in terms of opportunity or outcome.

If you want to look at countries that have the highest degrees of fairness and equality, look for example at Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark, all liberal democracies (and countries which are also amongst the highest in terms of wellbeing - Finland and Denmark top this list) - equality and fairness are not in opposition to liberal democracies.

I think this is a good video on how extreme capitalism and inequality do not equal freedom - https://www.google.com/search?q=your+slavery+is+their.freedom&oq=your+slavery+is+their.freedom&aqs=chrome..69i57.8748j0j9&client=ms-android-samsung-ga-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#

7

I did review the equalitytrust.org materials. Thanks for the link. Interestingly all nations compared are the very most advanced, highest standard of living, decidedly Western culture nations on the planet (or most Westernized of Asian countries w/ Japan). The equalitytrust.org powerpoint that I found coincidentally uses “metrics” that they define and select with no (that I found) supporting materials, while failing to mention any other possible contributors to their “happiness index”. Let’s compare say the US and Sweden. The US has 4X foreign born (40M) residents/citizens than all of Sweden (10M, think diversity vs homogenous culturally). Or say Norway (massive per capita natural resources - oil, timber, mining) vs Japan that has 20X the population. These are influences that just might be worth at least an asterisk note on equalitytrust’s contrived “happiness index”. So I think I see what equalitytrust.org.uk is trying to accomplish, but I don’t see a sound factual basis for their statements - at least from my perspective and cursory review.

Your last video from DDN self proclaims as a new Progressive media outlet. Again, their argument about liberty all being about Billionaires is a bit contrived - but one that many discuss. At least for myself personally, I don’t care that Zuckerberg or Bezos are worth >$100B. What I don’t like is their ability to use these funds to have an outsized influence on policy, policy implementation, and also massaging of what the voting
population sees/hears in order to further their personal and corporate goals. To me, there is a difference between “taking their money, it’s not fair” and “limiting their influence to accepted norms”.

8

Too Bad. That’s Capitalism.
Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
A handful of corporate publishing empires have ALWAYS controlled speech in the United States.
It’s just that now YOUR particular views have gone from being favored by Corporate Publishing Empires to out of favor and unprofitable in the long term. So you want to force them to publish views that will open them to unlimited lawsuits.
All up until Trump was voted out of office and banned for being a troll, Republicans have strongly supported allowing Corporations to refuse freedom of speech in their environments. No rights to organize or distribute handouts on company premises. No rights of freedom of speech from corporate censorship or on their property. No rights to freedom of speech in corporate media. All these issues were settled in the courts with Republicans falling squarely on the side of corporations’ rights to censorship in their media. Because Capitalism. Remember all those court cases where Republicans supported a company refusing to make a gay wedding cake because it was a constitutional right to refuse service when the company disagreed with the customer? So now in the convoluted conservative mind any business should be able to refuse service for any reason they object to - except social media, but specifically Donald Trump despite several clear violations of the TOS he agreed to when he signed up, not to mention inciting violence and openly committing crimes.

It used to be very obvious to every logical person that freedom of speech does not include the right to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater.
It has also always been clear under Capitalism that freedom of speech applied to the Government’s limitations to not censure speech, not individuals or corporations. If an individual or corporation doesn’t like what you are saying, they can tell you to leave the premises. Even in a restaurant, if a customer is offending other customers, he can be asked to leave because that is unprofitable for the business to have that environment. Every company has the right to refuse service unless it is due to race, creed, religion, etc. (political views are not a protected class of citizen)

Now, if you want to ditch or modify Capitalism equally all the way around and force companies to equally allow freedom of speech in their environments without employees afraid of being fired or censured, well let’s talk about that. I’d like to fly a BLM flag at my desk, lmao. But when you want to have “real” capitalism except for a very specific case and even one individual to use someone else’s property against their wishes - that is a clearly Anti Capitalist idea.

9

Yes, let’s talk Sweden. A socialist democracy. Masses of immigrants from Southern Europe and the Middle East. When the refugees flooded Europe, some countries built literal barriers (like Hungary) and refused to let immigrants settle, while other countries allowed them in. 14% of Sweden’s Population is foreign born, many of them refugees from wars.
We could go through several European Democratic Socialist countries and by and large most of them are happier than US citizens. Again, the USA lags far behind other democratic counties at 19 or so, while the other top 20 countries are mostly Socialist European Countries who also, by the way, led Europe in the number of refugees accepted during crises over the past few decades.

I honestly think that if my current state was not an option to live in, I would return to Europe.

10

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/january/february-2020/swedens-lessons-america

11

US has 40M foreign born. That’s in the low teens.

12

OMG THE OUTRAGE.

13

Boy, glad I’m not a liberal, right?
Better yet - I’m not a woman. They are 40% more likely than men to be loopy.

That’s sarcasm and intended to “double down” on the idiotic theories in the link
The conclusion of the gutter press is that if someone has mental problems, it is because of their choices in life, and by extension I guess if women made different ideological choices they wouldn’t have mental problems?
I suspect you don’t really think your ideas through 100% before posting them - you just post whatever sounds superficially against your chosen enemy, lol. If it’s against liberals it makes sense to you, right? No need to use the rational mind.

I actually followed and read several articles linked by the one you posted. I was hoping to find an actual academic article or legit rational study (Orange Level Analysis). What I found instead was just a tour through the gutter media and opinion pieces linked as a “study”, lmao. Basically every link was the same old tired Red Trump Tribalism, “us vs them”.

The difference, of course is “diagnosed” vs “undiagnosed”.
Liberals are aware enough to know when they need help. At the opposite end of the political spectrum are people who frankly are too stupid to realize how stupid and insane they actually are. They are the boldly ignorant.
Since you place so much weight on “studies”, here is a more polished and academic (Orange Level) analysis that might interest you:


Oh, look - the link at the bottom of that article leads to an even more scientific study, not a tour of the gutter press, lol

14

I actually respect the views in this article.
As with everything Libertarian - it’s a nice theory.

15

Bold ignorance to be less psychotic and oh so much less outraged at the sun rising in the morning, scent of a burger on a wood grill, sunset view over the pacific and a church service that brings a little peace to its voluntary worshipers.

16

In debates over the role and limits of free speech, different sides of the political spectrum often appear to be perceiving alternate realities. While conservatives can’t understand how civil discussion can make someone feel unsafe, progressives can’t comprehend how somebody could tolerate hateful speech. For instance, when Christakis asked the Yale protestors, “If you don’t believe that I can ever understand what you’re saying to me, then why do you stand here demanding to be heard?” one student screamed back, “Because we’re dying. ” This kind of hysteria seems completely detached from reality. But perhaps the student was acting consistently with her map of the world: one that is ordered into rigid categories, sees only power and subjugation and perceives threats separated from their context?

The left-hemispheric tendencies of over-generalising, misinterpreting language and confusing maps of reality for the real world may underlie some people’s adamant refusal to accept other points of view. Taken too far, this over-dependence on left hemisphere categorisation may not only affect a person’s ability to listen and relate to others, but could lead to the development of mindblindness.

17

I think ill just conclude you are a really sad case who just looks to something some silly kid said once as a reason to hate a whole percentage of the population.
Sad and ironic
Wait let me remember what a high schooler said once that scarred me for life and make it my cause to forever hate all high school kids. Lol.

18

What are you talking about and who is it that I hate?

19

Another good article - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/09/inequality-free-market-myth-billionaires. It depends on how fair one thinks it is for a group of people to have so much power over others. This is the orange method of garnering power. It’s similar to the amber divine right of kings or sovereignty of the church, or the red warlord. Money isn’t just about money - it’s the way through which the world currently functions.

If you are aware of it and you agree with it then that’s fine though and that’s your worldview. And it’s quite a convenient world view to have because it’s how the world currently is. As you mention above, conservatives are on average happier than liberals - likely because the way they want the world to be is the way it is. Wanting the world to be different is draining for people, and until one is able to gain a more detached view, it continues to be so. Seeing that there is no one to save is even more freeing.

‘Progressive’ is simply a word. It means one favours social reform. In the integral community, people sometimes use this disparagingly, but progress is a natural part of evolution - it also happened at orange and amber. Transcend and include is progress. If one is not including, that’s where one and society runs into problems. When most people use the word ‘progressive’, they are not using it in the same way the integral community uses it.

1 Like
20

Reading this controversial exchange on ideas and understanding there is a clear distinction in perspectives. Reading between the lines it’s easy to put these concepts into specific boxes.

How do we accommodate everyone and their ideas into one bigger picture of the reality we occupy?

If we completely adopt one side over another the path is extinction. We need the balance we see in nature. That balance is realized at a higher level of consciousness that organizes humanity into a self sustaining organism that is stronger than the individual parts that make up the whole.

1 Like