We don’t have to be identical to be equal:

I believe in the equality of the ultimate value of all human beings, and in fact, all things.  That is, in the essence of our being, all things are one and are thus of equal value.  However, it is self-evident that there are tremendous differences in the outward expression of different people, and different things in general.

There are many things that are quite obvious and common sense when considered, but are easily overlooked. Sometimes, the more obvious something is, the more easily it is overlooked.  That is, human beings often reach irrational conclusions on many topics, though the reality can be clearly seen when examined without bias.  In light of this, I state the following:

Recognising the equality of inherent worth of different people does not demand that they be seen as identical.

I doubt anyone reading this would disagree with this statement, and I could excuse some for questioning whether it even needs to be said.  However, there are so many examples whereby the above seems to be missed.

Equality of ultimate value and differences in individual expression:

There are clearly distinctly different levels of equality between different people.  If we were to look at four people in a community, one baker, one school teacher, one police officer and a doctor, you can easily understand how each of these people are equally contributing towards their society, but in different ways.  You could certainly frame a question about the level of specialist knowledge and skills required for the different jobs, but essentially they are all necessary and important^[i].

However, if we compare a brain surgeon to an unemployed drug addict, they are clearly not equal in their individual expressions.  A brain surgeon is contributing enormously to the wellbeing of others in their community, vastly improving the quality of life of many, and actually saving the life of others.  An unemployed drug addict is generally a danger and burden to themselves, their family and friends, and to the wider community.

This should not however mean that we dehumanise those that suffer from substance abuse.  I have been there personally, and whilst I didn’t fall as far as some, I certainly was a shadow of the man I wanted to be.  We can recognise the inherent worth of each human being, whilst simultaneously recognising that some are expressing that inherent worth, whilst others are not.

Someone who struggles with substance abuse and cannot hold down a job (and thus lives on welfare and charity) is not living outwardly in according with their potential, and is not expressing their ultimate value.  Someone who serves the community and saves peoples lives on the other hand is living outwardly according to their potential, and is expressing their inner value in the world at large.

Demonstrating this principle to understand comparative religion:

I first started writing because I wanted to encourage tolerance and understanding between different religions.  However, I soon discovered that many – or even most – of the people arguing for pluralism were also arguing that the worlds religions were all equal and identical, and that it was only human misunderstanding that was making it seem otherwise.

The reality is that this view is untenable, as the facts simply do not support it^[ii].  The truth is that whilst there are indeed largely universal overlapping features of spirituality and religion, the world’s faiths are almost always heavily colored by the culture of their time and place.

This doesn’t just mean that they express the same truths in the vocabulary of their culture.  Rather, it also means that they have many unique features, and different strengths and weaknesses.  Also, it means that they are different mixtures of divine truths and human, egoic projections.

So, we can encourage harmony between people of different faiths without having to ignore all the differences between them.  We can reject the exclusive and hyper-conservative perspectives that see different religions as being on opposite sides of a cosmic battle of good against evil (with eternal consequences), without having to ignore the reality that some faiths are better than others in different ways.  They are not all equal and identical in their expression, and yet each human being is equal in the eyes of God, regardless of what faith (if any) they express.

We can (and should) be able to express criticisms of the beliefs and practices of different faiths without diminishing or dehumanising followers of such faiths.  We have to be able to have constructive debates and give critical examinations of religious groups without resorting to (or being wrongly accused of) religious bigotry or racism (as particular religions are commonly associated with specific racial and cultural groups, criticisms of some religions often get dismissed as racist).

We can do this whilst still seeing the differences between us as ultimately superficial, and seeing the common ground between faiths and people as a whole as being of true importance.

Gender and polarity:

There has been a massive push in Western culture recently to try to realise the ideal of equality between the sexes.  I for one have never been tied to strict traditional gender roles, so in principle I generally applaud this.  However, agreeing with the general value of something isn’t always the same as agreeing with the way something is implemented.

Whilst cultural conditioning can explain some of the differences between men and women, it is quite clear that some of our differences have a biological basis.  That is, whilst men and women are equal in ultimate value as human beings, we are not identical in our expression.  These biological differences are generally more pronounced in a traditional or primitive (this is a heavily loaded word, to be used carefully) way of life.  However, in our modern world they are becoming somewhat less important, and men and women are now able to share many of the same tasks and roles largely equally.

However, the reality is that many, if not most people prefer polarity in their romantic relationships.  That is, heterosexual men generally prefer feminine women, and heterosexual women generally prefer masculine men.  There are certainly many exceptions to this rule, but as a general rule it is almost universally true.  We also see this polarity in many (but not all) homosexual relationships, as it is common for one partner in a same-sex relationship to have more pronounced masculine traits, whilst the other has more pronounced feminine traits.

There is however also a push coming from the far-left (and into the mainstream left) to remove or even reverse natural human gender polarity.  I wish to walk carefully through this ground, as I am not interested in pushing back against any group or persons.  There needs to be freedom for everyone to express themselves naturally without being pressured into cultural norms that aren’t personally always a fit for their individual tendencies.  However, we can allow this without abandoning the natural polarity that many (if not most) people naturally express and enjoy.  We can evolve our understandings of gender without throwing out all features of traditional values that are rooted in biology and natural law.

Men and women are equal in value (as are intersex and transgender people), but we are not identical in our expressions.  Men and women do have distinct differences that should be understood and appreciated as complementary.  This leads me to the following statement, which I feel is worth emphasising:

Seeing unity within diversity should be our aim, rather than artificially enforcing uniformity.

A small percentage (approx. 0.02%^[iii]) of people are born intersex, in which genetic abnormalities can blur the traditional distinctions between males and females.  Again, intersex people have equal value, but they have distinct challenges to experience as human beings.  Likewise, transgender people (those that suffer from gender dysphoria and choose to undergo surgery and hormone treatments to change their appearance to that of the opposite of their biological sex) have equal value to other people.  However, their experience is distinctly different to that of the rest of us.

I have been collecting sources on this subject for the past 9 months or so, in preparation for a series of articles where I will cover specifics relating to transgender issues.  I will state here that we can (and should) treat transgender and intersex people with the respect and dignity that they deserve, but that this doesn’t mean we should bend to all the requests made by far-left activists.  We can see the equality of trans and intersex people^[iv]without rejecting the traditional gender binary.  We can respect the diversity of human personality without throwing out all distinctions of human biology (which is what many radical gender activists are actually trying to do).

Race, skin color, culture and civilisation:

As a final example, I want to also say that we can accept the equality of people of different races, skin colours and cultures as equal in their humanity, whilst recognising the differences in their expression.  I wish to be clear that I reject all ideas of the inherent superiority of anyone based on the colour of their skin or their genetics.  However, this does not mean that we cannot recognise some cultures as being more advanced than others, in different ways.

We need to be able to differentiate between the degree of civilisation in a culture, without resorting to racist ideas about some races and cultures being ultimately smarter or better than others.  I would prefer to say that certain cultures have developed forward momentum at particular times which has brought about rapid evolution, whilst others have stayed largely the same over very long periods of time.

At different points in recorded history this momentum has taken place in different cultures, with people of different skin colours.  Egypt, Sumer, India, Persia, China, Greece, Rome, Britain, the US, etc. have all had momentum in their favour at different times.  Only extreme bias can lead to the conclusion that some races or skin colours are objectively superior to others.  I personally believe in the ideal of a cosmopolitan, multicultural society.  However, such an ideal can only work when we come together under common values and leave traditional tribalism behind.

We need to be able to discuss the reality that some cultures are closer to the animal level and some further along the evolutionary chain, without resorting to a gross and oversimplistic dichotomy about inferior and superior races, or the equally problematic and oversimplistic dichotomy of oppressor and victim.  As I’ve said repeatedly, we need to be able to have important conversations without sacrificing either our intelligence or our decency.

Speak the truth with love, fearlessly.

Peace

---

^[i] Though I recognise that some people might have a particular gripe with one or more of these professions.

^[ii] See the following lengthy article I wrote on religious scriptures: https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/on-interpretations-of-scripture-why-many-religious-conservatives-and-progressives-misread-ancient-texts-and-misunderstand-religion-in-general/

^[iii] A much higher figure is often quoted of 1.7%, but this figure includes people who are very clearly biologically female in every respect, but have genetic abnormalities that make it difficult for them to conceive and/or carry a child to term.  The much lower figure of 0.02% is apparently accurate in referring to intersex people as diverging from otherwise clear human gender distinctions.

^[iv] You may have noticed I didn’t mention “non-binary” people here.  That is because the identification of someone as non-binary does not refer at all to anything biological (or an inverse of their biology, as in the case of transgender people), but rather refers only to personality.  Hence, non-binary is of a different category to issues of gender, as “gender identity” is not synonymous with biological sex as common uses of the term gender are.

It should go without saying that we should treat people that consider themselves non-binary with respect and dignity.  However, this doesn’t mean that we have to concede to all demands made by gender activists, or accept all accusations of bigotry that are often levelled against those that disagree.

Real goodness is a balance of strength and kindness:

For a long time I have been going on about the importance of balance in all areas of life.  Not only are there very few human beings that have achieved real balance in their lives, there are perhaps not enough of us that are even truly aspiring towards it (I don’t personally claim to have achieved balance in my life).

Of course, holding an ideal is all good and well, but realising it amidst the challenges of earthly life is a completely different thing.  If we are to say to ourselves “I wish to be a stronger person”, we don’t suddenly automatically find that our life becomes easier.  Rather, we find that we are constantly challenged by life, and we have to find the bravery to face it in a new way.

It has occurred to me that it is very easy to idealise kindness, at the expense of strength.  I think there are many examples of individuals and groups of people doing just this, and becoming quite unbalanced in the process.  Hence, I would suggest that rather than aspiring towards kindness alone, we should aspire towards goodness (for a lack of a better word^[i]), which can perhaps be defined as a balance of strength and kindness.

Kindness without strength is weakness, and weakness can allow injustice and evil to proliferate.  Alternatively however, strength without kindness is harshness or brutality, which is itself evil.

It should be obvious to most people that human beings are different in many ways to the animals of this planet, and yet we share much in common with them.  I often say that human beings are somewhere between the animals and the angels.  Certainly much of our behaviour comes from biological instincts and egoic^[ii] defense mechanisms, and yet there is another side to us as well.

Life as a whole demonstrates to us a vast plethora of ways in which it can express, and I suspect we are currently only aware of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of this.  We human beings as well have a very wide range at which we can operate, depending upon individual biological factors, the way we are conditioned by our families and society at large, and our personal choices along the way.

Every single one of us is capable of stooping to great lows, and soaring to great highs, and we see this collectively as well.  Groups of people behaving in similar ways sometimes stoop to great depths of cruelty, depravity and degeneracy^[iii].  Likewise however, large groups of people sometimes aspire and encourage each other to great heights of physical, intellectual and spiritual evolution.

Therefore life on earth consists of a duality between the harsh realities and various challenges of a material experience, and the great joys and treasures that can be found here.  Human beings are complex creatures, and often the same person can simultaneously carry great darkness and light within themselves.  Depending on our personal sensitivities and biases we may be more aware of one side of someone than another.

My point in the above is that we cannot simply treat human beings as animals or angels alone.  If we see humanity only in terms of their lower aspect we idealise strength alone, and think only in terms of animal instincts and selfish personal gains.  If we do this we make a great mistake in being closed off to the great beauty in life, and the true treasures of the Soul.

Alternatively, if we only see humanity in terms of their higher aspect, we idealise kindness alone, and think only in terms of unconditional love, peace and creative expressions.  Whilst this can be a wonderful way to live if you are able to live in a bubble, it can lead to a dangerous naivety that isn’t fully suitable to the needs of earthly life.

There is certainly a degree to which it is helpful to direct attention towards higher things, in order to feed that side of ourselves and others.  This however should be different to actually ignoring our earthly responsibilities to be realistic about the challenges we face, and to meet them in appropriate ways.

Earthly life naturally demands of us that we be both strong and kind.  Certainly some situations demand more of one than the other, and different people have different personality traits that make them more suitable for different roles than others. However, as a whole, this is a universal truth that we all must recognise.  We all must seek to balance the realities of what is and what has been, with what can be.  We all must seek to balance the need to stand for justice and a stable and strong society, with the ideals of peace and respect for all.

It seems to me that many of us go way too far in one direction, at the expense of the other.  Sometimes this is an individual leaning, whilst at other times we see it as part of the biases of different cultural, political and religious groups.

There are some that idealises kindness and tolerance alone, and in a strangely ironic way this leads many people to the opposite of these ideals, or it simply allows darkness to proliferate unchecked.  I think we can say that if your only value is tolerance you end up with no values, as it becomes impossible to have reasonable disagreements or constructive debate on anything.

Until recently I wasn’t aware of how bad things had become in this regard.  Those that read news from a variety of sources (i.e. not just mainstream sources on the one side of politics) might have some inkling as to what I refer to here.  I will give direct examples in some upcoming articles on political and social issues.

On the other side, there are some that idealise strength alone, and completely ignore empathy, tolerance and kindness.  Some of these people may achieve a significant degree of outward success, but they live with a gaping hole on the inside as they live in denial of the everlasting part of themselves.  There is something really quite ugly about the absence of empathy for others, and something truly beautiful about real compassion.

Political realism – Politics of the Strong and Weak:

I recently was made aware of a field of political thought known as Political realism.  This isn’t really a field I am personally drawn to investigate, but there was something I came across that I think is relevant.  From a quick glance it appears that Political realism argues that the interaction of world affairs can be explained solely by the self-interest of competing nation-states.

The Greek historian Thucydides tells a tale of the siege of Melos, from the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta.  There is a section known as “The Melian Dialogue” just prior to the siege of Melos, in which the Athenians offer the locals of Melos terms for their surrender, which the Melians debate with them back and forth.  The Athenians make it clear that they are not interested in conversations on the morality of their actions.  They simply state: 

“The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”^[iv]

Another relevant passage is here quoted from the synopsis on Wikipedia:

“The Melians argue that they will have the assistance of the gods because their position is morally just (they are simply defending themselves against invasion).  The Athenians counter that the gods will not intervene because it is the natural order of things for the strong to dominate the weak.”

There is certainly a great deal of truth in the bleak realism of Thucydides (who has voiced the perspective of the Athenians).  This is indeed how the lower, animal side of life works.  However, there is much more to us than this, and to live solely with such an outlook is to deny one’s own Soul.

The above example demonstrates the “politics of the strong” and the “politics of the weak”.  A person or group in a position of strength will often do what they want because they can.  Likewise, a person or group in a weak position will often cry for mercy on moral grounds.

I have raised this example here because I have seen many examples whereby a person or group of people ask for tolerance whilst on the back foot (in a weak position), and then go on the attack once they are on the front foot (in a strong position).

This is something I will refer back to in many upcoming articles, so I wanted to establish it here as a common human trait that we should be aware of.  It is often oversimplistic to define some people as victims and others as oppressors, as circumstances can change quickly and the roles can reverse (and I intend on citing some clear examples of this in upcoming articles).

Here is one of my main points:

True kindness will express equally regardless of whether one is in a strong or weak position relative to others.

If one is only kind when in a weak position, then it isn’t real kindness, but simply a defense mechanism of the ego.  A person or group of people that are truly good will do what is right according to the needs of the circumstances, and will always uphold their ethical principles rather than merely their egoic self-interests.

A truly great ruler cares about the needs of all.  Real strength is used to defend those that are vulnerable and maintain a prosperous and stable society, where citizens enjoy personal freedoms and are free from the great horrors of war. 

In closing:

One simply cannot live properly on this planet without true strength.  Under philosophical ideals some people have attempted to live a life of absolute pacifism.  Such things are simply not possible for everyone on this planet at this point in time.  For all that aspire to the ideals of peace and freedom for all, we are often compelled to stand up and fight, for such is the nature of this reality.  However, to use this fact as a justification to deny the higher qualities of oneself and others is to miss the true purpose of life itself.

So, I believe we should aspire to be good, to be both realistic about human nature, but also aspire to the loftiest ideals of spirituality and/or philosophy.  May we show kindness and empathy to others, but also not hesitate to stand up, speak up and act when necessary to defend the good of all.  May we accept the reality that some conflict is unavoidable in our world, and may we face up to this reality with strength and confidence.

Speak the truth with love, fearlessly.

Peace

---

^[i] Perhaps the word righteousness could be used.  I think many of us now have an aversion to that word (as it is now seen as a loaded word), for better or for worse.

^[ii] Please note again that I use the word “ego” in the way it is used in Eastern spirituality, and well explained by Eckhart Tolle.  I have written on this before: https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2016/02/18/the-ego-and-its-role-in-ideology/ , https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/ego-identity-and-football/ and https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2020/12/01/trauma-suffering-conditioning-and-the-ego/ .

^[iii] Another loaded word that many have an aversion to.  I think personally there are appropriate contexts for this word in our vocabulary.

^[iv] Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 5.89

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Melos

I am not my brother’s keeper:

With a heavy heart I write these words:

I publically disavow the political beliefs and actions of my brother.

I don’t wish to write too much here, for several reasons.  However, I will say what I feel needs to be said.

For anyone unaware, my brother David has been actively involved in far-right politics for many years.  If you know David personally he can be kind and very intelligent, and can attempt defences of his views (whether or not they are true).  There are many things of which I agree with him about, whether in full or part (more commonly the latter).  I understand however that those who only know him from his political activity may not be aware of this side of him.

I certainly believe in the general principles of free speech and reasonable disagreement, and I feel that these are being abandoned currently in world culture.  However, I most certainly also believe in the principles of respect and basic decency in public discourse.  In this respect I think I diverge from my brother.

It is no secret that David has been publishing deeply offensive views for many years online, and often uses the title of his works to attempt to shock his readers.  I have found that most people I speak to share my sense of horror at the way he goes about this.

I have wrestled for many years with the question of what my moral responsibility is in regards to distancing myself from his political activity.  I have made a few comments here and there in a number of articles to say that I have close family that are involved in the alt-right, and that I am generally horrified by their views.  However, it has come to my attention that my brother has now taken things much further, and has now gone as far to the right as it is possible to go.  I’d like to avoid having to publically announce the explicit details of this, but I think my readers can infer what is implied here.

I hope that those who read my writings can see that I genuinely love everyone.  In finding the Divine within myself, I naturally feel love for all, seeing the great diversity of creation as all the expression of the One.

I certainly will concede that I am deeply flawed as a human being, as are most (if not all) of us.  I have made countless mistakes throughout my life, but am sincerely attempting to live in the best way that I have the capacity to.

My brother does not speak for me, and I feel empathy for any and all that experience any form of suffering from his words and actions.  I have attempted to engage with him over the years in whatever way I can.  However, I am not my brother’s keeper, and I don’t have the capacity to make choices for him.  I will continue to love him, despite there now being distance between us.

May all beings live in peace.  May we treat all beings with the kindness, dignity and freedom that we all deserve.

Final note: If anyone wishes to comment I would ask they approach me via a private message.