I ended Part 1 with a template, a “perfect version” of how belief in equality corrupts a person. But that only happens for as long as the belief in it persists, or rather, as long as the desire to believe in it persists. In real life, these usually don’t persist, at least not in the cartoonish way that one believes in equality - and desires to believe in it - when one is a teenager. Speaking for myself, once in my twenties I naturally - and rapidly - grew out of the notion. I think this is true for many people. Reality intervenes on our ideals and we become more realistic. Our own drives intervene and we become more pragmatic. Maturity, the simple process of witnessing people, intervenes, and we become less blindly optimistic.
Equality is inherently good; its the promise that we can always become better or stronger, or more powerful, & though this promise is often abused by secret tyrants, we just need to attain it reasonably, vs unreasonably.; right equality: follow your leaders and you'll be made equal to them (as equal as is practicable given concrete conditions) vs left equality: just complain and destroy things and then everything will be restored to a "pure state of nature" -where all is rubble (except for the those overlords who caused this ruination).
To the left inequality is an obstruction created by the few living off the work of the many, by profit, whereas to the right, inequality -the profit realized by the differential between different things and natures -is the motive force of of the equalization which is nature., which is the equalization of all things in proportion to their natures.
But the left has this pessimistic view, that says that one has to destroy nature first, to ensure equality, and that's definitely not correct, it's actually natural operation which guarantees equality.
When talking about how equality is feminine, you forgot of one thing. That is, that defending “equality” in a social setting is the best way to “save face” and keep social relations stable thus, this is the strategy most women take as a matter of course.
The feminine use of equality is manifested equality in a social setting. The masculine interpretation of equality is serious law and force as in the equality of soldiers as a rank. Maybe what we men always miss when trying to understand how women think is that women are geared towards the social so we think they are liars and manipulators and they think we are autistic and uncaring.
Maybe the problem is not equality itself but the feminine version of equality is. After all, the masculine version of equality can produce a working group as it does in monasteries, armies and fascists and communist states. Of course, hierarchy lords over equality in all of these systems but that is the essence of “equality”, it is inherent and necessary but only when it is subordinated to hierarchy.
Equality is inherently good; its the promise that we can always become better or stronger, or more powerful, & though this promise is often abused by secret tyrants, we just need to attain it reasonably, vs unreasonably.; right equality: follow your leaders and you'll be made equal to them (as equal as is practicable given concrete conditions) vs left equality: just complain and destroy things and then everything will be restored to a "pure state of nature" -where all is rubble (except for the those overlords who caused this ruination).
To the left inequality is an obstruction created by the few living off the work of the many, by profit, whereas to the right, inequality -the profit realized by the differential between different things and natures -is the motive force of of the equalization which is nature., which is the equalization of all things in proportion to their natures.
But the left has this pessimistic view, that says that one has to destroy nature first, to ensure equality, and that's definitely not correct, it's actually natural operation which guarantees equality.
Spot on, Woes
I think that belief in “equality” and a lot of other stupid ideas is why we’re seeing so many social issues today.
Equality is only true in pure mathematics. Otherwise, it is a myth.
When talking about how equality is feminine, you forgot of one thing. That is, that defending “equality” in a social setting is the best way to “save face” and keep social relations stable thus, this is the strategy most women take as a matter of course.
The feminine use of equality is manifested equality in a social setting. The masculine interpretation of equality is serious law and force as in the equality of soldiers as a rank. Maybe what we men always miss when trying to understand how women think is that women are geared towards the social so we think they are liars and manipulators and they think we are autistic and uncaring.
Maybe the problem is not equality itself but the feminine version of equality is. After all, the masculine version of equality can produce a working group as it does in monasteries, armies and fascists and communist states. Of course, hierarchy lords over equality in all of these systems but that is the essence of “equality”, it is inherent and necessary but only when it is subordinated to hierarchy.