On equality
Equality. Of people or even things is a very high and mighty ideal. I am not sure it is a beautiful ideal, it might even be a very ugly idea to have everyone the same to the point of equality. Equality is not synthesis, because things have to be different before they can join. Equality, on the other hand, is identity. A self that is self-same. Synthesis, such as colored lights mixing to become white light, is not about self, it is about acceptance of that which colors the light, or marks the white page. Synthesis is self-effacing, it is a form of love and union. Often when people try to talk about solidarity, a political attack will try to turn that talk into talk of equality. We think equality is a higher ideal than love and synthesis. Equality is certainly quite out of the question as far as anything achievable. The attack is to make someone who is an idealist, maybe a romantic, reach even higher for an even more impossible thing than a perfect love: that of equality, even though this higher ideal is arguably ugly in comparison.
Equality has a requirement of consistency. This is how logic comes into the equation. We leave our hearts behind, and begin a mathematical calculation. Possibly with money, possibly with merit. We believe after an achievement, under the ideal of equality, (trade, pound for pound), that we get ahead of others with our work. Love on the other hand does not have the conceit of any measurable rationality. Equality is a principle that prevents our solidarity, because we require it before our connections are admissible. People will never be equal, we can blame it on our parents or our politicians, corporations or the weather.
A philosophy that serves humanity should not have the requirement of consistency, because consistency is superhuman. Aquinas didn't say it this way, but the logic of his position implies: "Errat Ergo Sum." To have consistency implies a kind of perfection that is unattainable and destructive to ourselves as flawed beings. Error is constitutive of being rather than a deviation from it. Equality as a standard doesn't just fail us — it condemns us for being what we are.
A desire for equality makes us recognize the world of inequalities. We may have a feeling of righteousness because of our high ideal, and a disdain for our world and its inhabitants for not living up to our ideal. Synthesis is quite different, because it means you are ready to be part of this world, to lose yourself in it, take it in, and let it take you in. This requires a lack of judgement and a lack of righteousness.
If we want to rule the straight white male, we must take him into ourselves. We must remember that he is already in us all, as we are in him. And I speak as someone who cannot be more "othered" from the margins, ever since I was categorized as mentally ill. For the straight white male to rule, he must not separate himself either. I consider the use of difference on equality to be just nearly false and wholly abstract as the idea that differences are all the same Difference. Subsuming all specific differences under the abstract noun Difference is just equality wearing different clothes.
Equality. Of people or even things is a very high and mighty ideal. I am not sure it is a beautiful ideal, it might even be a very ugly idea to have everyone the same to the point of equality. Equality is not synthesis, because things have to be different before they can join. Equality, on the other hand, is identity. A self that is self-same. Synthesis, such as colored lights mixing to become white light, is not about self, it is about acceptance of that which colors the light, or marks the white page. Synthesis is self-effacing, it is a form of love and union. Often when people try to talk about solidarity, a political attack will try to turn that talk into talk of equality. We think equality is a higher ideal than love and synthesis. Equality is certainly quite out of the question as far as anything achievable. The attack is to make someone who is an idealist, maybe a romantic, reach even higher for an even more impossible thing that a perfect love: that of equality, even though this higher ideal is arguably ugly in comparison.
Equality has a requirement of consistency. This is how logic comes into the equation. We leave our hearts behind, and begin a mathematical calculation. Possibly with money, possibly with merit. We believe after an achievement, under the ideal of equality, (trade, pound for pound), that we get ahead of others with our work. Love on the other hand does not have the conceit of any measurable rationality. Equality is a principle that prevents our solidarity, because we require it before our connections are admissible. People will never be equal, we can blame it on our parents or our politicians, corporations or the weather.
A philosophy that serves humanity should not have the requirement of consistency, because consistency is superhuman. Aquinas didn't say it this way, but the logic of his position implies: "Errat Ergo Sum." To have consistency implies a kind of perfection that is unattainable and destructive to ourselves as flawed beings. Error is constitutive of being rather than a deviation from it. Equality as a standard doesn't just fail us — it condemns us for being what we are.
A desire for equality makes us recognize the world of inequalities. We may have a feeling of righteousness because of our high ideal, and a disdain for our world and its inhabitants for not living up to our ideal. Synthesis is quite different, because it means you are ready to be part of this world, to lose yourself in it, take it in, and let it take you in. This requires a lack of judgement and a lack of righteousness.
If we want to rule the straight white male, we must take him into ourselves. We must remember that he is already in us all, as we are in him. and I speak as someone who cannot be more "othered" from the margins every since I was categorized as mentally ill. For the straight white male to rule, he must not separate himself either. I consider the use of difference on equality to be just nearly false and wholly abstract as the idea that differences are all the same Difference. Subsuming all specific differences under the abstract noun Difference is just equality wearing different clothes.
Source: On equality
