The Magic Book

The following is a story...

and a lesson...

about freedom... and secrets...

The Magic Book

I

Upon investigating a crime of some significance, the investigator found himself on the trail of a man intent on evasion.

The man himself, finding himself the unenviable target of piercing scrutiny, chanced upon a Book that revealed to him the keys to his freedom. Whereupon, he followed the script that leapt from the Book and danced so appealing within his mind to the last letter and braced for an extraordinary transformation with unrestrained trepidation and glee.

The investigator, after pounding at length, finally threw his shoulder into the door of the home owned by the object of his investigation. To find no one and nothing.

It was a meager hut at best with cobwebs draped in corners and naught but the gloomy stare of spiders to pierce the glum dusk. He coughed and watched in dreary dismay as his breath sent a dust storm aloft. Gasping, he stepped back through the door and took a deep breath of fresh air before returning to examine further, the scene within...

For there wasn't nothing. There was a table. And upon the table, there was a book. With ginger care, he opened what was surely a tome. But it was at turns blank or filled with indecipherable scrawls. Whereupon, he shut the weighty oddity and upon the cover in gold leaf was written in lovely script: The Freedom Book.

When he stepped outside to consider where to proceed with his investigation, he encountered a young woman, who blithely walked past him and through the door before running past him again in surprise and confusion.

'Excuse me ma'am. Do you know who lived here?'

'Yes! My husband!'

'If you don't mind my asking... were you expecting him to be here?'

'Yes! I left to pick up a few things at the market just a bit ago! He was right here! You don't understand! This... this...'

She broke off. Gasping and gesturing wildly. Clearly struggling for breath.

'You don't understand! This... I... this... it wasn't like this when I left! It... it... I...'

'If you don't mind my asking...'

'What... what... who... why are you here? Are you here because its like this? Did my husband call you?'

'Well. Ma'am. I'm an investigator. We believe that your husband has some information that we need for a case. In fact, I just arrived, right before you, because I needed to ask him some questions. And I saw the same thing that you did, just now.'

'But... but... I don't understand...'

Whereupon, she slumped to the ground in bewildered weariness.

'I don't understand...'

'What don't you understand, ma'am?'

Still gesturing weakly about, she uttered empathically: 'This!'

'I'm afraid that I don't understand. I don't mean to be an utter simpleton. But, what is 'this'?'

'I left but a bit ago and everything was exactly as it was. Now, everything is like this.'

'Where's my husband? Do you know?'

'No, I'm afraid not. I was hoping you would know.'

'Oh God.'

She held her face in her hands and sobbed uncontrollably.

After some time, when dusk melted into night, she finally achieved a state whereby she could explain to the investigator that the scene within their home was unlike anything that she had ever seen. She had never seen the book. She had no idea why it would be in their home. And she feared that her husband had disappeared without a trace. New to the area, she explained that they had no family nor friends nearby and were relying on a small savings until they could find work.

To which, the investigator listened with increasing sympathy, as it became more and more evident, that she was wholly unaware of her husband's real comings and goings. To which, as the investigator, he had unfettered privy. He considered what if anything he should reveal to her of his investigation and ultimately decided that his professional obligations and his moral reservations restricted any disclosures on his part. Thus, he thanked her for her forthcoming discussion with him and instructed her to acquire the assistance of a programme that provided aide to young women such as herself.

But, as he walked away, he couldn't help but wonder what would happen to her. For her husband had surely left her as sure as he was walking back to write his report for the evening. As for how, that was still a mystery. For though the target of his investigation had been observed going into his home, he had not been observed leaving it.

II

She could barely restrain herself, abrim with restless anticipation. Before her was a package wrapped in brown paper and tied with twine that looped in a sweet and simple bow. She drummed her fingers across the package in nervous excitement and it echoed with deep staccato thrums.

Whereupon the door opened and she flung herself aloft: 'Happy Birthday!'

The investigator laughed and hugged his wife whose cheerful exuberance was infectious.

'It isn't my birthday!'

'But it will be!'

'Open it! Open it! Please!'

The investigator hung up his coat and set down his stack of folders and looked upon his birthday present so wrapped with care.

'I can't. It's too pretty!'

'Yes you can! Come on! I've been waiting forever! You have to open it!'

'Okay... here we go...'

As the paper fell away, the investigator felt his soul plummet into a well of ice. Stunned, his face stilled into an inexplicable expression.

'Do you like it? Isn't it special? I saw it and I immediately knew it was for you!'

'You don't like it, do you? I'm sorry...'

'Oh no no no. I love it! It just took me by surprise. I love it, I really do!'

He leaned over and kissed his wife and thanked her profusely for her thoughtfulness. To which he suggested, surely no ending could be more perfect to their wonderful evening than a stroll together under the stars.

As he closed the door firmly behind them, he looked back at the tome still nestled in its crisp brown paper packaging. Upon the cover in gold leaf was written in lovely script: The Secret Book. Identical in every way to that tome from memory, it shook him to his core to see its twin perched so innocently and so comfortably in his warm and cozy home.

III

He gasped as he felt his throat constrict uncontrollably. He heaved and gulped for air to no avail. As he slumped from his chair he knew what had transpired through that epiphany of absolute truth that arises from certain mortality, while the indubitable source of his demise gazed upon him with enigmatic dispassion.

That evening, as the investigator hung up his coat and set down his stack of folders, his wife held the Book, slowly tracing the letters curved with embossed intricacy glittering with uncanny smolder in the dim dusk.

When his wife finally broke the silence, her voice was the harsh exhalation of a voice exhausted by wretched screams.

'I've been dreaming.'

The investigator sat down, concerned by the bewildering transformation of his wife. He unhesitatingly spoke with tender attentiveness:

'I'm listening.'

'A lot.'

'About secrets.'

'About my first husband.'

She stared ahead with eyes that burned with riotous flames of fury and hatred.

'About you.'

'About what's in your heart.'

A solitary bowl of soup, chilled and congealed from having sat uneaten for hours on end, waited expectantly. At turns a shell of herself, vacant and dispirited, at turns a broken sparrow, bereft and confused, at turns a wronged lover, bitter and vengeful, his wife's emotional state fluttered like the bizarre performance of the pretense of the deranged.

Thus, the last words to fall upon the investigator's ears, as love and happiness and contentment and joy, dissolved into despair and heartbreak, was:

'If you love me, you'll drink it.'

As his breath faded and unconsciousness threatened to envelop him in unwaking darkness, he affirmed the truth from his heart that had never been untrue:

'I loved you from the first moment I saw you. Even now, I love you still and I always will.'

~ fin ~

Epilogue

As the last words of her husband lingered upon the air, silent and still, the stupor that had refused to release her from a suffocating compulsion dissipated like a whisper.

Whereupon the truth of the investigator's devotion to her was revealed with resolutely sharp focus and piercingly crystalline rebuke.

Devastated by the realization that she had wrought an inexpiable malice, she lunged before she could reconsider and scraped the vestige of soup into her mouth.

But she never attained that blissful ease of unconsciousness...

... thus she spent the remainder of her days in an asylum for the insane, wandering dark labyrinths of what ifs and whys tormented by indecipherable scrawls curved with delicate intricacy glittering with the smoldering gleam of gold leaf dancing with effortless vigor within the inscrutable freedom of a soul undone.

~ fin ~

Note

Of course, the story above is about more than freedom and secrets...

... however, like magic and good books... declaring what is as clear as starlight... is conspicuously assumptive... is it not?

- M

Accountability and Privilege in an Era of The Blameless

It's not my fault - 

- is the rallying cry of The Blameless -

But -

- is it true - ?

Era of The Blameless

We are in an era of The Blameless.

An era of individuals - who - on the basis of - names, genders, races - nations, religions, melanin - labels, lens, isms - etc. - eschew all responsibility and all accountability - solely on the basis of - names and names alone, genders and genders alone, races and races alone - nations and nations alone, religions and religions alone, melanin and melanin alone - labels and labels alone, lens and lens alone, isms and isms alone - etc.

Period.

However -

- such disavowal of responsibility and of accountability is impossible - without overt and tacit, explicit and implicit, permission. From us. From society. From the judicial process, the legislative process, the executive process.

Hence -

- we - have granted every individual the unassailable right - on the basis of nothing more than labels, lens, isms, etc. - to wholeheartedly renounce every responsibility and every accountability for their actions, for their choices. Especially - if and when - such actions, such choices, precede actions of others, choices of others, that result in actual and perceived, material and immaterial - harm. Such that, others - on the basis of nothing more than labels, lens, isms, etc. - shoulder the entire burden of responsibility and the entire burden of accountability, whether such burden is just or not.

But -

- this isn't new.

In fact -

- such excusals and exemptions from responsibilities and accountabilities, are as old as time immemorial. Such that, there is no label, no lens, no ism, etc., that hasn't appropriated such excusals and such exemptions from responsibilities and accountabilities, in order to excuse and exempt a specific individual or a class of individuals of responsibility and accountability, on the basis of labels and labels alone, lens and lens alone, isms and isms alone, etc.

However -

- to the extent that our covenant with society expects impartiality and sans (sans labels, sans lens, sans isms), with respect to the judicial process, the legislative process, the executive process - it behooves us to examine these excusals and these exemptions, for patterns of systemic bias, that rob all citizens of society, of impartiality and sans. Especially, if and when, such systemic bias, actuates rampant inequality, preferential access, flagrant injustice, in the name of labels, lens, isms, etc.

The Blameless

Who are The Blameless?

You. Me. Us. Them. One. All.

Via ceaseless campaigns to right the wrong of labels, lens, isms, etc. - we validate, uplift, advance - our selves and each other - on the basis of nothing more than labels, lens, isms, etc. Such that exceptions - to names, genders, races - nations, religions, melanin - labels, lens, isms - etc. - confer exemptions - to impartiality and sans - vis a vis the judicial process, the legislative process, the executive process.

As if. Names. Genders. Races. Nations. Religions. Melanin. Labels. Lens. Isms. Etc. - constitutionally bestow specific individuals - preferential status - of inviolable authenticity - sacrosanct innocence - legitimate blamelessness - with respect to intersections with other human beings -

- who - by hapless virtue of - unexceptional - Names. Genders. Races. Nations. Religions. Melanin. Labels. Lens. Isms. Etc. - are thereupon viciously and zealously divested of their right to impartiality and sans. To be subsequently held wholly responsible and wholly accountable for intersections with other human beings - as if - specific human beings - on the basis of nothing more than - Names. Genders. Races. Nations. Religions. Melanin. Labels. Lens. Isms. Etc. - possess no responsibility, no accountability - for actions, for choices - whatsoever.

Is this - just - ?

Via self-superior agendas to right the wrong of victim blaming, victim shaming, victim invalidating, etc. - we blindly and passionately lavish specific individuals - with preferential status - of inviolable authenticity - sacrosanct innocence - legitimate blamelessness - on the basis of - nothing more than labels, lens isms, etc.

- which - we fanatically defend with self-righteous vigor and vehement sanctimony.

As if. This. Is. Just.

Notwithstanding -

- that it's not rocket science to recognize that such absence of impartiality and sans - in the judicial process, the legislative process, the executive process - tacitly invites - specific individuals - to misuse, abuse, manipulate, exploit - preferential status for ulterior motive and gain -

(- which is evident across every judicial process, every legislative process, every executive process - that is blatantly biased - vis a vis label, lens, ism, etc. - the world over - not to mention - across time immemorial -)

- which certainly belies - the irresponsibly indulgent accordance of inviolable authenticity - sacrosanct innocence - legitimate blamelessness - on the basis of labels and labels alone, lens and lens alone, isms and isms alone, etc.

Verily -

- once - such preferential status was employed for the exclusive benefit of one - label, lens, ism, etc. -

- now - such status is employed for the privileged benefit of an other, different - label, lens ism, etc. -

Begging the question -

- if this exclusivity, this privilege - was unjust and unfair - then -

- how is this exclusivity, this privilege - just and fair - now - ?

For no rationalization, no justification - validates - the inherent injustice - of judicial processes, legislative processes, executive processes - that deprive impartiality and sans, from one individual vis a vis one label, lens, ism, etc. -

- in order to excuse and exempt an other, specific individual vis a vis an other, specific label, lens ism, etc. - from judicial processes, legislative processes, executive processes - that we expect to be impartial and sans, fair and just, for all citizens of society, regardless of label, lens, ism, etc.

Accountability and Privilege

By our elevation of The Blameless -

- The Blamed are not privileged -

- The Blameless are.

For The Blameless possess that unequivocal privilege of blind conferral of preferential status -

- of zealous accordance of inviolable authenticity, sacrosanct innocence, legitimate blamelessness -

- of fanatical excusals and exemptions from responsibilities and accountabilities -

- in the name of righting the wrong of labels, lens, isms, etc. - in the name of righting the wrong of victim blaming, victim shaming, victim invalidating, etc. -

- by virtue of - nothing more than - names and names alone, genders and genders alone, races and races alone - nations and nations alone, religions and religions alone, melanin and melanin alone - labels and labels alone, lens and lens alone, isms and isms alone - etc.

Is this not - the very definition of privilege - ?

The right - not - to be held responsible -

The right - not - to be held accountable -

- by any court of law, by any legislative chamber, by any executive office -

- by virtue of - labels, lens, isms, etc. - ?

The right to be exempt - from impartiality -

The right to be excused - from sans -

The right to demand justice and fairness - by suppressing the inalienable rights of others to impartiality and sans -

- by virtue of - names, genders, races - nations, religions, melanin - labels, lens, isms - etc. - ?

Does this not - ensure - the very rampant inequality, the very preferential access, the very flagrant injustice - that the rightings of wrongs - ostensibly remedies and resolves - ?

Yet -

- The Blameless blamelessly continue to -

- vilify The Blamed - as the privileged - on the basis of - names, genders, races - nations, religions, melanin - labels, lens, isms, etc. - verily - sexism, racism, nationism, religionism, classism, socioeconomic statusism, sexual orientationism, political affiliationism, etc. -

- whether such vilification is just or not -

- demand The Blamed - be held wholly responsible and wholly accountable for the entire burden of responsibility and the entire burden of accountability - of intersections with others - whose labels, lens, isms, etc. gift irrefutable blamelessness -

- whether such demand is just or not -

-  far be it - for The Blameless - who possess agency - act - choose - intersect - without puppet strings attached to their minds, their hearts, their souls, their bodies - to be responsible for and accountable for - their agency - their acts - their choices - their intersections - sans privilege - sans excusals and exemptions - sans labels, lens, isms, etc.

Alas -

- far be it - for The Blameless and The Blamed - to be aequum et mutuus - when the indomitable power of privilege - is -

- so potent - so irresistible - so self serving - so rewarding -

- so validated - so lauded - among the virtuous - among the noble - by advocates, champions, crusaders, demagogues -

- not to mention, professional liars across media (social, news, entertainment, advertising) - as well as, experts and pundits and shills - for the advocacy and the championship and the crusade for the validation and the elevation and the advancement of labels, lens, isms, etc.

Verily -

- who can blame The Blameless - for relentlessly and mercilessly appropriating the invisible and the unearned advantages and entitlements of - privilege - ?

See also Cradling Victims and Hanging Villains (tvfs)

More

The notion of privilege - is one that has been appropriated by specific labels, lens, isms, etc. - in order to confer upon specific labels, lens, isms, etc. - invisible and unearned advantages and entitlements - by way of ostensibly eliminating privileges purportedly enjoyed by others - by virtue of other, specific labels, lens, isms, etc.

Regardless of the inherent injustice and inequality - of appropriating privilege on the basis of labels and labels alone, lens and lens alone, isms and isms alone, etc.

Regardless of the inherent injustice and inequality - of assuming - that a specific individual or a class of individuals - on the basis of nothing more than labels, lens, isms, etc. - experience invisible and unearned advantages and entitlements.

Regardless. Of. This. Very. Exercise. Of the very definition. Of. Ism.

Sexism. Racism. Nationism. Religionism. Classism. (Socioeconomic statusism.) Sexual orientationism. Political affiliationism. Etc.

The assumption - that a specific individual or a class of individuals - by virtue of nothing more - than possession of specific names, genders, races - specific nations, religions, melanin - specific labels, lens, isms, etc. - do or do not - experience invisible and unearned advantages and entitlements - or - do or do not - experience invisible and unearned disadvantages and disentitlements -

- is an assumption that relies wholly on our willingness to arbitrarily and meaninglessly reduce our selves and each other, to nothing more than our labels, lens, isms, etc.

How. Is. This. Just?

Moreover - if - such ideology, such dogma - permeates and pervades - informs and influences - our judicial system, our legislative system, our executive system -

- how exactly - are our systems - impartial and sans - ?

By definition - such ideology, such dogma - is the very opposite - of impartial and sans.

Needless to say - intersections of harm - actual and perceived, material and immaterial - are serious matters indeed.

Begging the question -

Do not such serious matters - that concern all citizens of society - demand - a judicial process, a legislative process, an executive process - that is - above all else - impartial and sans - ?

Do not our aequum and our mutuus - supercede - any and all - invisible and unearned advantages and entitlements - on the basis of labels, lens, isms, etc. - ?

Do we not expect - justice - to be blind - to all names, genders, races - all nations, religions, melanin - all labels, lens, isms, etc. - ?

For justice - without impartiality and without sans - is an injustice and a tyranny -

- that sanctions and that condones - the reckless and heinous conferral of preferential status - of inviolable authenticity - of sacrosanct innocence - of legitimate blamelessness - on individuals and classes of individuals - on the basis of nothing more than - labels and labels alone, lens and lens alone, isms and isms alone, etc. -

- such that - the honor and the right - of a judicial process, a legislative process, an executive process - that is sans privilege - sans excusals and exemptions - sans labels, lens, isms, etc. - is denied all citizens of society.

How. Is. Inequality. And. Injustice. And. Tyranny. And. Absolutism. - In the name of labels, lens, isms, etc. - Ever. Just?

- M

My Name Is Sui Qua Alius

Continued from Angle Is Everything (tvfs)

Addendum

I.

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.

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.

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 -

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