Friday, April 13, 2007

the theory of (in)equality

If we were equal, where would we be? Imagine billions jostling for the same space, elbowing each other along the way. And a street kid getting equal opportunities as you did. Wouldn’t, couldn’t, he have done better?

Our dreams aren’t in perfect harmony; they are realized only by outdoing those of many others. If one rises from the dust, a score others rot like cadavers. Thrown to the hyenas. When a million palms unfold before you, which ones do you deem as worth redemption? Your peace can only be paid for by someone’s solace.

As you pay for your education, you begin to notice things they never taught. If the law sees everyone as equal, can justice be ever dispensed? While the more equal from amongst us snake out unscathed from trials that set dangerous precedents, the lesser majority have to painfully learn to moult.

If we weren’t equal, where would we stand? The upsurges accompanying our rites of passage are the same. And the insidious insecurity in mundane interactions sweeping across an arid expanse of timid hearts too. We, the living, bob our heads in perennial search of pigeon pleasure; we fly away at the slightest tremor that threatens; we poop out when no one is looking at us. We all bear the hours while awaiting the moments.

We, the rational beings? Individual existence is based on actions that hold meaning for oneself and are not necessarily rational. To label us as rational is to define us woefully out of context. There’s more convenience in method than is palatable. At some point, we do realize, and maybe acknowledge, that our lives are carefully nurtured lies. We wish we had lit a bonfire of our vanities. Now, vanity is all that remains of us.

Our lives, across conveniently constructed dominions, constitute the free history of a nation that has forever been encompassed by revolutions violent—within and without. Yet, as the gates of sovereignty were flung open, the door to the free mind stayed locked deep. With its key, corrupted by a plethora of dogmas and opinionated inheritances, dropped into a swirling mass that flowed into a common nothingness. This key has been, by virtue of being searched for, lost.

Love conquers all. Every cloud has a silver lining. Faith can move mountains. Everything happens for a reason. Where there is life, there is hope.

For a semblance of sanity, you need to be fed something at least.

Perspective mostly strolls in, in retrospect.

5 comments:

SUCHARITA ROY said...

were it not for hope, all would be lost.there is something as magic..sometimes people from deathbed come back to life. sometimes people hit a bus going to meet their sweet heart..and drop dead.

to think about equality and inequality is like asking if the ice is any different from water.perspective lies in uprooting doubts and taking decisions. it remains for whatever you call it ( fate/destiny/higher force/will power) to give it the ultimate shape it acquires...branded success or failure..in every aspect of life..be it a war or choosing to tying your shoe laces while talking to a friend on phone.

our place has a situation hat caters to a select few...but is the situation much different in countries where its possible to afford equal or near equal opportunities to everyone..also...what parameters you set for putting an agenda for being fulfilled are vastly different..could be wealth..could be performance..power...love...corruption.

nothing and everything stays the same for everyone and no one.

SUCHARITA ROY said...

powerful blog..and unanswerable. i can only hope i get the opportunity to deliver the goods i was chosen to bear.dont know about others.my knowledge and aspiration is tunneled by the need to live my life best hurting the least number of people in the process.

satyajit said...

sucharita: i'm glad you put so much thought into this.. because i sure did

Ergo said...

Satyajit,

To label us as "rational animals," as Aristotle first did, is to define according to essentials. A definition does not dictate the entire spectrum of behavior of an entity. That is the function of identity.
Thus, to define man as rational is not to define him as "woefully out of context" but according to an essential differentia.

satyajit said...

Ergo: I agree that "woefully out of context" is an exaggeration. What I was referring to was a basic tenet of existentialism that does not see humans as rational beings. For example, if we assume choosing a partner to be the result of a decision-making process, then there's is not much rationality involved in the process.

I agree that that "rational beings" is just one definition. and instead of merely seeing it as a limiting notion, other equally essential concepts of man must be taken in context.