Where everyone is named Sue Anne - name means nothing -
- likewise - where everyone is named Mohammed - name means nothing -
Yet - where Sue Anne is the exception - where Mohammed is the exception -
- these names become vehicles for - and justifications for - actuations of isms - on the basis of assumptions about who possesses such names and what they who possess such names are - vis a vis labels, lens, isms -
- such that, where Sue Anne is the exception, Sue Anne is subject to ostensibly 'harmless' misunderstanding and bewilderingly rampant injustice, vis a vis labels, lens, isms - as the norm - likewise - where Mohammed is the exception, Mohammed is subject to the same -
While -
- where Sue Anne is the norm, Sue Anne experiences extraordinary leniency, compassion, mercy - as the norm - even when Sue Anne breaks her covenant with society and patently breaches the trust of society - likewise - where Mohammed is the norm, Mohammed experiences the same -
II.
II.
Which begs the question -
- why name oneself 'Sue Anne' - in a society where Mohammed is the norm - ?
- why name oneself 'Mohammed' - in a society where Sue Anne is the norm - ?
- if not - at least - in some measure - to deliberately set oneself in a position of opposition - to the norms of the society in which one lives and works and loves - ?
Regardless of every society's noble aspiration of mutuus -
- societies have failed to achieve, much less, honor such aspirations, across time immemorial -
Therefore -
- to act in willful disregard of actual societal naming norms, for example - even if - ostensibly - in concordance with society's noble aspirations of mutuus - certainly begs the question -
- and -
- certainly places some measure of responsibility on those who willfully disregard actual societal naming norms - for choices that result in consequences - detrimental to those whose names expose a deliberate position of opposition to societal norms -
III.
Therefore -
- to act in willful disregard of actual societal naming norms, for example - even if - ostensibly - in concordance with society's noble aspirations of mutuus - certainly begs the question -
- and -
- certainly places some measure of responsibility on those who willfully disregard actual societal naming norms - for choices that result in consequences - detrimental to those whose names expose a deliberate position of opposition to societal norms -
III.
While the case of Sue Anne and Mohammed - conflate multiple labels, lens, isms -
- the harm of labels, lens, isms - vis a vis names, genders, races - nations, religions, melanin - is most potent - with respect to access and justice - across actualities -
- such that - names - because they are potent carriers of labels - intersect with lens and isms - such that - names - as vehicles for labels - mediate - access and justice - across actualities -
- such that when Sue Anne and L'Kesha report allegations of sexual assaults and domestic abuses committed upon them, for example - they are treated differently than when Mohammed and Jesús report the same - on the basis of nothing more - than gender and gender alone -
- likewise - when Sue Anne and L'Kesha contest allegations of perpetrating sexual assaults and perpetrating domestic abuses, for example - they are treated differently than when Mohammed and Jesús contest the same - on the basis of nothing more - than gender and gender alone -
Yet -
- we fail to acknowledge that this difference across actualities of access and justice - is nothing more - than blatant sexism - institutionalized and codified - in our 'fair' and 'impartial' judicial processes -
- notwithstanding - the role of media (social, news, entertainment, advertising) as a vehicle to deliberately, maliciously, and irresponsibly circumvent any process that is ostensibly 'fair' and 'impartial' - in order to perpetuate, for example, rampant sexism, via overt and explicit bias on behalf of one gender over another - on the basis of nothing more - than gender and gender alone -
However -
- when laws around the world, treat citizens differently, in coherence with systems of belief that differ from our own - we decry the inherent injustice of laws that treat citizens differently, when such differences are mediated by nothing more, than gender and gender alone -
- notwithstanding - nation and nation alone - religion and religion alone - etc. -
- only - when such 'injustice' differs from the 'injustice' - we condone - in our own societies -
IV.
As for access -
- there is no difference across actualities of access between - Sue Anne, L'Kesha, Mohammed, Jesús - in societies of mutuus -
- because -
- there are no inherent differences between - Sue Anne, L'Kesha, Mohammed, Jesús -
But -
- Sue Anne, L'Kesha, Mohammed, Jesús - do experience differences across actualities of access - on the basis of our rationalizations - our justifications - our labels, lens, isms - which differ -
- such that - within societies where L'Kesha and Jesús are the norm - L'Kesha and Jesús are unlikely to be subject to different access on the basis of name and name alone -
- likewise - within societies where L'Kesha and Jesús are the exception - L'Kesha and Jesús are likely to be subject to different access on the basis of nothing more - than name and name alone -
V.
However -
- when L'Kesha and Jesús are the exception - and L'Kesha and Jesús are subsequently subject to different access and different justice -
- it can be tempting to generalize this difference across actualities of access and justice - as a permanent condition of existence - that exists as a direct result of isms - everywhere -
But -
- this condition only exists - as the norm - when and where - L'Kesha and Jesús are the exception -
- because -
- when and where - L'Kesha and Jesús are the norm - L'Kesha and Jesús are not subject to different access and different justice - as the norm -
Hence -
- any agenda -
- that remedies differences across actualities of access and justice - to which, for example, L'Kesha and Jesús are subject - when and where they are the exception - vis a vis labels, lens, isms - by validating, uplifting, advancing - L'Kesha and Jesús, for example - vis a vis labels, lens, isms -
- is an agenda that is inherently unjust -
Verily -
- any agenda - including and especially agendas ostensibly for access and justice -
- that legitimizes and promotes - labels, lens, isms - pursuant to advocacy for equality and impartiality - is an agenda that actuates inequality and preferential access, not to mention, injustice -
VI.
Of course -
- names themselves are powerless -
Verily -
- we imbue names with power -
- when we perceive names, through lens we assume are valid - when we blindly believe assumptions, vis a vis labels names impart - when we treat each other differently, on the basis of isms evoked by names -
Such that -
- we rationalize and justify our assumptions - on the basis of labels, lens, isms -
- whether - vis a vis - names, genders races - nations, religions, melanin - etc. -
- across actualities - including access and justice -
- without interaction (i.e. applications, questionnaires, etc.) and with interaction (i.e. actualities of access and justice, etc.) -
- regardless - of the truth -
- that - names, genders, races - nations, religions, melanin - etc. -
- are utterly meaningless -
VII.
Insofar -
- as every society expresses the noble aspiration of mutuus -
- we can do our part -
- we can stop - accepting labels, lens, isms - among our selves and each other - one and all -
- we can stop - endorsing labels, lens, isms - across social media, entertainment, news media, advertising - all media -
- we can stop - advocating labels, lens isms - across public discourse, public policy, private discourse, private policy - codified in the judicial process, the legislative process, the executive process - sanctified by international discourse, international policy, international advocacy -
- we can stop - advancing injustice -
- we can stop - actuating inequality -
But -
- they - cannot alter societal norms that rationalize, justify, sanctify, nobilify, legitimize labels, lens, isms - without us -
- there is no justice - there is no equality - without us - doing our part -
Because -
- every we and every us - who are not doing our part -
- tacitly - advance injustice and actuate inequality -
- by the willful and deliberate refusal to advance justice for all and actuate equality for all -
VIII.
Verily -
- one's own status - as an exception - within a society whose norms differ - vis a vis one's own - name, gender, race - nation, religion, melanin - etc. -
- does not - in any way whatsoever - confer an exemption -
- from access and justice, on the basis of fairness and impartiality, sans name, gender, race, nation, religion, melanin, etc. -
- much less -
- an exemption from any and every society's aspiration of mutuus -
For -
- despite society's failure to achieve mutuus -
- aspirations of mutuus - supercede institutionalizations of bias - semper et perpetuum -
- on the basis of the most simple aphorism -
- two wrongs never make a right -
Indeed -
- no solution to society's failure to achieve or honor - mutuus -
- can ever be the legalization, codification, institutionalization of - bias - vis a vis labels, lens, isms -
- for such legalization, codification, institutionalization of - isms - engages ceaseless cycles of remediations of - bias - via endless pendulum sways from inequality and injustice to inequality and injustice -
- ad infinitum -
- the harm of labels, lens, isms - vis a vis names, genders, races - nations, religions, melanin - is most potent - with respect to access and justice - across actualities -
- such that - names - because they are potent carriers of labels - intersect with lens and isms - such that - names - as vehicles for labels - mediate - access and justice - across actualities -
- such that when Sue Anne and L'Kesha report allegations of sexual assaults and domestic abuses committed upon them, for example - they are treated differently than when Mohammed and Jesús report the same - on the basis of nothing more - than gender and gender alone -
- likewise - when Sue Anne and L'Kesha contest allegations of perpetrating sexual assaults and perpetrating domestic abuses, for example - they are treated differently than when Mohammed and Jesús contest the same - on the basis of nothing more - than gender and gender alone -
Yet -
- we fail to acknowledge that this difference across actualities of access and justice - is nothing more - than blatant sexism - institutionalized and codified - in our 'fair' and 'impartial' judicial processes -
- notwithstanding - the role of media (social, news, entertainment, advertising) as a vehicle to deliberately, maliciously, and irresponsibly circumvent any process that is ostensibly 'fair' and 'impartial' - in order to perpetuate, for example, rampant sexism, via overt and explicit bias on behalf of one gender over another - on the basis of nothing more - than gender and gender alone -
However -
- when laws around the world, treat citizens differently, in coherence with systems of belief that differ from our own - we decry the inherent injustice of laws that treat citizens differently, when such differences are mediated by nothing more, than gender and gender alone -
- notwithstanding - nation and nation alone - religion and religion alone - etc. -
- only - when such 'injustice' differs from the 'injustice' - we condone - in our own societies -
IV.
As for access -
- there is no difference across actualities of access between - Sue Anne, L'Kesha, Mohammed, Jesús - in societies of mutuus -
- because -
- there are no inherent differences between - Sue Anne, L'Kesha, Mohammed, Jesús -
But -
- Sue Anne, L'Kesha, Mohammed, Jesús - do experience differences across actualities of access - on the basis of our rationalizations - our justifications - our labels, lens, isms - which differ -
- such that - within societies where L'Kesha and Jesús are the norm - L'Kesha and Jesús are unlikely to be subject to different access on the basis of name and name alone -
- likewise - within societies where L'Kesha and Jesús are the exception - L'Kesha and Jesús are likely to be subject to different access on the basis of nothing more - than name and name alone -
V.
However -
- when L'Kesha and Jesús are the exception - and L'Kesha and Jesús are subsequently subject to different access and different justice -
- it can be tempting to generalize this difference across actualities of access and justice - as a permanent condition of existence - that exists as a direct result of isms - everywhere -
But -
- this condition only exists - as the norm - when and where - L'Kesha and Jesús are the exception -
- because -
- when and where - L'Kesha and Jesús are the norm - L'Kesha and Jesús are not subject to different access and different justice - as the norm -
Hence -
- any agenda -
- that remedies differences across actualities of access and justice - to which, for example, L'Kesha and Jesús are subject - when and where they are the exception - vis a vis labels, lens, isms - by validating, uplifting, advancing - L'Kesha and Jesús, for example - vis a vis labels, lens, isms -
- is an agenda that is inherently unjust -
Verily -
- any agenda - including and especially agendas ostensibly for access and justice -
- that legitimizes and promotes - labels, lens, isms - pursuant to advocacy for equality and impartiality - is an agenda that actuates inequality and preferential access, not to mention, injustice -
VI.
Of course -
- names themselves are powerless -
Verily -
- we imbue names with power -
- when we perceive names, through lens we assume are valid - when we blindly believe assumptions, vis a vis labels names impart - when we treat each other differently, on the basis of isms evoked by names -
Such that -
- we rationalize and justify our assumptions - on the basis of labels, lens, isms -
- whether - vis a vis - names, genders races - nations, religions, melanin - etc. -
- across actualities - including access and justice -
- without interaction (i.e. applications, questionnaires, etc.) and with interaction (i.e. actualities of access and justice, etc.) -
- regardless - of the truth -
- that - names, genders, races - nations, religions, melanin - etc. -
- are utterly meaningless -
VII.
Insofar -
- as every society expresses the noble aspiration of mutuus -
- we can do our part -
- we can stop - accepting labels, lens, isms - among our selves and each other - one and all -
- we can stop - endorsing labels, lens, isms - across social media, entertainment, news media, advertising - all media -
- we can stop - advocating labels, lens isms - across public discourse, public policy, private discourse, private policy - codified in the judicial process, the legislative process, the executive process - sanctified by international discourse, international policy, international advocacy -
- we can stop - advancing injustice -
- we can stop - actuating inequality -
But -
- they - cannot alter societal norms that rationalize, justify, sanctify, nobilify, legitimize labels, lens, isms - without us -
- there is no justice - there is no equality - without us - doing our part -
Because -
- every we and every us - who are not doing our part -
- tacitly - advance injustice and actuate inequality -
- by the willful and deliberate refusal to advance justice for all and actuate equality for all -
VIII.
Verily -
- one's own status - as an exception - within a society whose norms differ - vis a vis one's own - name, gender, race - nation, religion, melanin - etc. -
- does not - in any way whatsoever - confer an exemption -
- from access and justice, on the basis of fairness and impartiality, sans name, gender, race, nation, religion, melanin, etc. -
- much less -
- an exemption from any and every society's aspiration of mutuus -
For -
- despite society's failure to achieve mutuus -
- aspirations of mutuus - supercede institutionalizations of bias - semper et perpetuum -
- on the basis of the most simple aphorism -
- two wrongs never make a right -
Indeed -
- no solution to society's failure to achieve or honor - mutuus -
- can ever be the legalization, codification, institutionalization of - bias - vis a vis labels, lens, isms -
- for such legalization, codification, institutionalization of - isms - engages ceaseless cycles of remediations of - bias - via endless pendulum sways from inequality and injustice to inequality and injustice -
- ad infinitum -
Note
sui qua alius is -
- simply - a latin variant of the phrase I oft employ - one and all -
- specifically and literally - sui is self - alius is other -
- qua is the qua of 'human qua human' - which is oft translated as 'human as human' - but means far more - i.e. human beyond ego, human as all humans, human of other interest beyond individual and specific human interest, human as that human that has achieved actualization or enlightenment, human behind the veil of ignorance (so to speak), human metaphorically (as in ideal, as opposed to literal or actual), human beyond label, etc. -
- thus - altogether - the title of this post is -
- my name is self beyond self, self as other, self of all, self who is one and all -
- I Am One, I Am All -
More
Insofar -
- as labels, lens, isms - pervade our society -
- what can we do - ?
If two wrongs don't make a right - how do we right - the wrong - of labels, lens, isms - ?
For one -
- we do not - validate, uplift, advance - labels, lens, isms - !
Nor do we -
- legalize, codify, institutionalize - bias - vis a vis labels, lens, isms - !
Instead -
- we legalize, codify, institutionalize - impartiality -
- we legalize, codify, institutionalize - sans - (sans labels, sans lens, sans isms) -
- we legalize, codify, institutionalize - what we have forgotten is essential to judicial processes that are fair and just -
- leniency, compassion, mercy -
- aequum et mutuus -
For we are all - sui qua alius - and judicial processes that are fair and just - are judicial processes that treat one and all as - sui qua alius -
Likewise -
- we advance, actuate, advocate - impartiality -
- we advance, actuate, advocate - sans - (sans labels, sans lens, sans isms) -
- we advance, actuate, advocate - what we have forgotten is essential to actualities of access that are fair and just -
- benevolence, charity, generosity -
- aequum et mutuus -
For we are all - sui qua alius - and actualities of access that are fair and just - are actualities of access that treat one and all as - sui qua alius -
Indeed -
- my name is sui qua alius -
- what is yours - ?
- M
No comments:
Post a Comment