Unequal

Unequal

Samuel Bird

It is a perfectly good weekday evening. It is that nice tender nexus between the after-hours of the town's professions and the early hours of the bars and stars. Young people throughout the town are meeting together to enjoy eachother’s company. Some are in the dawning moments of falling in love, others are about to make an important connection that could benefit their business. As for myself, I am writing to you. In all the possibilities that my mind barrates me with, I have elected this one. I do so for many reasons, but it is sufficient to say that I value this option enough, that it is the only option I chose to actualize. I am aware of the call of my bed, the alluring beckoning of the next book, or the emotionally entranching throes of some song. However and again, I abandoned all other potential for this actual. Why? Again, the reasons are not as vital, but they vary from my love for you to the deep need to bring this mind outside, that presses against the walls of my skull until a rupture throws shards of my bone. In sufficient totality, all my complex faculties of analysis and evaluation have willed, in ne,t that I write when I know what it entails. I know not just the cost in opportunity, but how weak and ill I feel after the vomiting of soul to page. And yet, I do so. You can at minimum gather that I found so worth it. What is that makes it so? In other words, I would rather myself write than not write. Let’s use a concept to pull this idea out. Let’s say there were two possible timelines that proceeded from the moment that I am in now. This timeline has me writing these words, knowing the cost as well as the limitations. The other timeline has me not writing. By the act of valuing and willing, I say that the sequencing that has me writing is valuable enough that I do write. Now, let us ask if value instantiated can then bleed onto a person. Does doing good, make one good? How else do we know a being but by it’s doing? Let us say you do or do not value that I brought about this writing. It would then bring about the inevitable evaluation that you had of me. This is not to say that you have exacted my essence, but via my actions have approximated it. To be fair, all you have ever had access to me by, was my actions or energies and never my essence or nature. This is my case for only knowing nouns via verbs. Now, we have these two timelines, each with their own Samuel in them. We have evulated via our will, what that action brings about in the world and have associated, first the action, secondly the character with that value. If you have not done the first, you are not a conscious mind that values what it perceives. If you have not done the second, you have denied the law of honor which states that the values of an action are then mounted upon the actor. To deny either has its follies. Now, we have these two versions of me in time. We have then valued the iteration of myself that writes to be of more value than that iteration that chose to not. This is why we do things. In part, it is because we do or do not wish for a certain fact to be in the world. Additionally, it is because as we seek to grapple with our enigmatic nature, we have made a case to exact our ungraspable essence. Now, let us say that there was another personed entity. Let us assume for the sake of simplicity that this person did not write. Instead, they sat on the couch in quite and did nothing. While this could be more meditative and relaxing, one could value that it brought about less into the world than someone seeking to make sense of it. This evaluation is still within your subject, but you have noticed a variance between the two subjects at hand. Now, let us compare in contrast to another party. While I write this, they are going about murdering people. Let us use the tools we have accumulated. How do we value the actions of each of these parties? You may likely evulate the writing of a messy chapter to be superior to the killing of innocent people, even if you attempted to be contrarion. You can socially lie about your values, but you know which of these you would that they transpire. Now, let us apply the law of honor. I am, effectively, those things I do. If the murderer and I had similarly valuable lives up until now, we would diverge here. I would at this point posses a greater deal of value. Where would this value be? Value is only in minds, so which minds? Myself, of course, though that means little. You might coincide with this evualtion, and perhaps the mind of God. This murderer might evaluate the killing as more valuable, and they might not. Which mind do we privilege? That is a question for another day. However, what we have found, is that by assuming a given value, and assuming that people vary in their ability to possess qualities and actions that are available for valuing, it is inevitable that people will vary in the amount of value they thusly possess, at least in terms of a given subject. This has been the law of the wild since its inception. Two organisms varied in their abilities such that one could exact resources and refuse dangers while the other could not. That organism than perpetuated while the other did not. These values get messy and we can find all sorts of categories of such, but it is clear that whether it is willed or fated, our distictness neccesistaes varying degrees of facts available for valuing. Now, what if one did not like this. Let’s say they wanted to assume all parties had the same degree of value, or at least at a certain point. They could be aware that value existed in the mind and oppress such thoughts, but they would be denying the soul. They could say there is no variance between parties, but they would be epistemically at odds with the world. They could tear down their own values, breeding a malignant nihlism that stole away their access to the needs of the soul. Finally, they could destroy the law of honor and say that one’s actions does not approximate that being. However, they would cease to know any fact given the verbs that it gives them. What have we arrived at? A series of beings are not equal in value, assuming there is any value to be had. Upon hearing this, proponents of equality can tear down value one last tear, but they have done all they can. They are at odds with what we are and what the world is. Still, in their attempt to morally raise themselves, they say there is no raising. The great are nothing and the terrible are nothing. They use equality as a good of its own that is unquestionable, but in doing so questionably destroy any access to the good. The strong are abased and the weak are supported in perpetating their organism and idealogy. In terms of thoughts and relations, one idea seems to be left behind. We forget that we are animal and need to make social ecosystems that can be sustainable. No world where the builders are torn down and the tearors are built up, can stand. What I am propossing has its cost. The desire to never do upfront evil to others will need to be traded for the desire to not breed more net evil into the world. Permissive kindness as the yes to every ill needs to be seen as a cowardice that harms the permitted. I have sacrificed my whole life for what mattered to me. Every thought of the flesh was ran past a system of evulation and then propmtly denied if it was at odds with what I honestly valued most. I have lost sleep, friends, and even happiness for that depth of being and valuable meaning only possible by Esse Maxim. I am disgusted by the fact that one could say myself or another could have not gone through all this mounting misery, and it would have been just as valuable. We suffer for the greatest of things because we think the greatest of things are worthy. We make kingdoms, families, and books because we find it better than not. If I can be unequal to my alternative self, I can then externalize and find myself unequal to another. I have now attacked the three great faiths of modernity. Firstly, that we must progress, that scientism is the means, and now, that equality is the goal. One can not spit in God’s face withit it blowing back into one’s own. My challenge to you would then be, revel in our inequality. Your life is the means for constructing systems and facts ripe for your and others’ evaluation. Do not dilute or ignore such out of guilt. Perhaps in your success you find some to share, but even then be careful on what parties you allow to do so. 

If you think I am an idiot for suggesting inequality, do you find me lesser? Do you find yourself Superior? You are my proof. The only way to say no man is better is to say there is no good. The only way to say my deepest of beliefs are at parity to yours, is to devalue my own. I have seen many navigating the world of belief by assuming all choices are equal. If you are the metric, not everything can match. In our desire to not be at odds with others, we will either act or believe as if we are all tied for most reflection of human nature and need. Will you starve the soul to impress your neighbor? To those with demographic ears, they will hear that I am speaking out against a certain sort based on something they didn’t choose. If I critique actions and your mind fills in the character, it is you that instantied the critique in persons. It is you that finds the necessary inequality in a series of persons that you can’t assume to know. Each being is gifted aspects of their ontology from previous bodies and contexts, but their use of those resources is what we we can find unequal. This is where our evaluation of a person must be precise. A poor boy who works with all he has to become a blacksmith and revels in such has expended more energy than a king who inherited the position. I am sure some of what you heard when I explained the great, will need adjusted. Think of activities and not outcomes. This modern marvelous mess makes magnanimous and moral men shy and malicious and malligned men successful. Morality is used by the weak who hold resources as the elite to hold down the great. Their valuing, labor, and cognition are superior, but it is misdirected and turned back on ourselves. If you pay attention to the nuances I am pointing to, it makes room for that which is most needed from equality. The magnanimous need the chance to come from humble circumstances. However, when they do so, they need to be able to revel and share that greatness. In a verse that makes no sense to the modern minded man, we find that to them that has shall be given and to those that have not shall be taken away. At first hearing, this seems vile and unjust. However, what is more justified logically than that a cause creates an effect? Things breed after their own kind. Bitter people who can’t make friends become more bitter and make more friends. Men that can build an enterprise learn things that compound and build more relationships. Measures of achievement are dramatically skewed to the side. Man can engineer system after system, but he can’t outthink God. What wisdom lied in the system where those that could survive a land lived to populate it? What sort breed now, and will their efforts make a world they can live in? May God care for us all, but let him find the hearers of this message with reason to trust as well. Let us each fall into a hierarchy and not wish to stay where we started. What about an application of equality of law? If we say all people must do so, we don’t mean in all circumstances, only in those circumstances that are requisite. Surgery is only good for the injured or ill and can’t be universaled to all people of all healths. Therefore, in what sense can we say the law is applied to all people as not all people will be in all circstamces. It is not just to say they aren’t so now, but many will never be in a given circumstance. There is a degree to which we write ourselves, but fate have it’s say. Our ontology is unique enough as to require us to do different things. Can the paralyzed ever be accountable for failing to help someone open the door? If we are to open up a catgory to reason, we must allow reason to reign fully. If the weak are to be benefitted by their nature and abilities changing what they ought to do, perhaps the powerful must benefit too. 

We have up until now looked at a phenomenom as being valuable or not. However, it is less of a dichotomous contingency, and more of scale or gradient we find ourselves placing things. I have commited every godless sin that modernity can accuese me of. Now, let me explore the last two. The first is that I look for the second in tradition. That timeless selector of these values and thoughts that were most consistent with ourselves and the world. The second is the idea that I find in time. In the pinnacle of value and belonging, the mind fathomed the great chain of being. This gradient of value that spanned from the fawna, to ourselves, to the angels, and finally to God. That world made sense of via value, was a world filled with its manifestion. Of that category of humans, we found ourselvs on a further scale that we could find ourselves on. Following the law of honor and privileging the valuing subject of God, they find each character varied in where they lie based on what they did. Perhaps some were placed based on more arbitrary means such as lineage, but it was manifest the obviation that we vary for qualities to be valued. I am tired of lying. I am tired of wearing the face for modernity that forces me to betray what I see and am. I do certain things because I value certian things. If it fails to be valuable, then all is lost. If that exacted value failed to make sense of myself, then existence is failed. If you and I spend our days in laborious engagement with our existence and the other does not, well, then given our assumptions, we have been victorious. We can be merciful victors, but we are victors all the same. This idea I posit is the sort that could get one killed. It goes directly against the grain of the frame that holds up the world we live in. However, I choose to do so because I value the world in which this equality has been undone. Let your magnamity be manifest, and the detractors waste their time on critique rather than catching up. This is the sort of idea that would get me killed. The idea of going against the need to be equal that permeates the rotting corpse of our dead society will seek me to join it as it is. Some will realize the failure that their existence represents and seek to end my life rather than this failed portion of theirs. To such a moment, I accept. If I die to express that the human can be great, than let it be so. In the attempt to end me for showing the non-equality of the world, they will make me into more than I was, and hence more unequal. Yes, let us be careful what means we use to evaluate qualities and what criteria we use. Let us be curious about the behavior of others to see their inequality manifest. If we are a state or institution, let us be skeptical of the skewed access we have to people’s actions and qualities as well as the values we hold against them. However, to you and I, let us always know that we strive, and that striving is to the end of a world and a personage that is more than it could have other wise been. Rise from the greying medicority of modernity to find your possible place as the greatest amalgamation your faculties could exact. Then in your greatness, allow the deep knowledge of others to build concern for them. What are arms can hold up a world?