Self-satisfaction is a terrible trap if you want to achieve anything important. In times of stress, psychological pressure compels us to deny or dismiss inconsistent evidence, pushing us to perceive certainty and clarity where there is neither. The proposition A and B are equal may be descriptive or normative, but in either case it is incomplete without a statement of the respects in which the objects or a person compared are deemed to be equal. In instances where this appears not to be so, either the context supplies the complement or the comparison is of pure quantities, as in pure mathematics. Two objects equal in weight, or height, or value may be unequal in other respects; apart from the abstractions of mathematics and logic, no two objects could ever be said to be equal in all respects, only in all relevant respects. Correspondingly, to say that two candidates are equal in merit would usually mean that with respect to their performances in some understood competition or examination, they deserve to be treated alike; it does not rule out treating them differently if they are unequal in other respects.  

When we feel that something is off balance, we seen that we can try to uncover the origin of the imbalance in conflicting or unresolved ideas or events. No distinction ought to be made between men who are equal in all respects relevant to the kind of treatment in question, even though in other (irrelevant) respects they may be unequal. On the other hand, in any matter in which they are in relevant respects unequal, they ought to be treated in proportion to their relevant inequalities. These analytical distinctions are of considerable importance in dealing with equality as a moral and social ideal. President Thomas Jefferson’s claim that “all men are created equal” cannot be rebutted by pointing to the obvious fact that some are taller, stronger, or more clever than others. The claim is intelligible only as a prescription, as saying that there is some respect, at least, in which no difference ought to be made in the treatment or consideration given to all men, whatever differences there might be in their qualities and circumstances. We have explored how the urge to resolve ambiguity is deeply rooted, multifaceted, and often dangerous.   

As we make decisions, we need to recognize both the consequence of a decision and our current need for closure. In doing so, we can avoid grasping for new solutions in panic or sticking too rigidly to old ones.  Some people believe that others are slaves by nature because some souls are not merely capable of higher development than others, but more valuable on that account. The natural equality of all men as rational beings with an equal capacity for virtue: Virtue closes the door to no man; it is open to all…the freeborn, the freedman, the slave and the king…neither family nor fortune determines it choice—it is satisfied with the naked human being. Men are equal only in the sense that by sin all were totally, and therefore equally, unworthy; God in his mercy extended grace to some but not to others. The equality of all men in the sight of God by the doctrine that slavery is consequence of sin.  This view of equality came to be associated with the theory of church government—and indirectly of secular government—that derived legitimate authority (i.e., the right of superiors to command inferiors) from the voluntary agreement of natural equals to submit to such of their number as they choose.  

We have seen how easily we can misinterpret genuine ambivalence as calculating duplicity. When we are trying to pin down someone’s intentions, we need to realize that ambivalence is a more natural state of mind than we ordinarily assume. These doctrines were given their first completely secular expression—associated with theories of natural right and social contract—by some of the Parliamentarians in the English civil war, particularly the Levelers. Colonel Rainborough’s declarations in the General Council of the Army in 1647, that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he and that no one can have a duty to obey a government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under and that is a classic expression of democratic political egalitarianism. Some people think that men are only equal in strength and cunning. By nature, men are equally free, are subject only to natural law, and enjoy the same natural rights. This turns the problem of political authority and obligation into a search for reasons why free and equal men should accept the limitations of civil society. 

Political inequality, of rulers and ruled, must by justified as a conventional device for the better safeguarding of the rights and advantage that all men already possess but cannot securely enjoy, in a state of nature. Difference of character, talent, and intelligence are due to difference in environment and experience. By nature men are equal in that sense that at birth they have a limitless potentiality with potentiality without natural characteristics to differentiate one from another. Consequently, their diverse natures are, in fact, contingent; in principle all men are equally perfectible, given the appropriate social arrangements. In the state of nature men’s needs are simple, none need rely on anyone but himself, so none can exploit another or make him subject. The key problem for social philosophy, to which the sovereignty of the general will could provide a solution, is to reconcile the natural equality and autonomy of men with the social condition and political authority potentiality as morally self-governing persons. More broadly, organizations that are consistently forces to deal with ambiguity under pressure can ensure that people with a low need for closure play a central role in decision making. 

All human beings must be treated as ends, not merely as means; all men are equally capable of realizing the good will, the only thing in the World good in itself. Our need for closure is a powerful force. It is so deeply ingrained in everyday living that cultivating an awareness of how it works is not enough. Combating its dangers means designing intuitions and processes that makes us less likely to succumb to our natural tendencies towards resolution when it matters most. The right negotiators will stay calm in the face of fluid, incomplete, and seemingly contradictory information. The right reminders at decision points will lower our need for closure. We can build an awareness of what we do not know about the future into our approach to the World by crafting methods to react quickly to change rather than trying to predict it. Ambiguity does not have to be paralyzing or distasteful. Under the right conditions, as we will see, embracing uncertainty can in fact provide opportunities to innovate. It can inspire creative solutions, and might even help make us better people.   

 And they all have plenty of money, money enough to walk away from this place and be comfortable wherever they go. That gives them a feeling of security, and in air of independence. However, they want to be right here. It is reported that most people spend their lives regretting the past and fearing the future; therefore, they are unable to experience joy in the present. Many of us have assumed that this is our human fate, our lot, and the best that we can do is accept life for what it is. One of the most effective tools for handling the past is the creation of a different context. What this means is that we can give it a different meaning. We take on a different attitude about the past difficulty or trauma, and we acknowledge the hidden gift in it. Everyday life experiences, no matter how tragic, contains a hidden lesson. When we discover and acknowledge the hidden gift that is there, a healing takes place. Your riches taught me poverty. Myself a millionaire in little wealth.  

The Winchester Mystery House

Whether you are an expert, an architect, a student or just a lover of Victorians you will enjoy The Winchester Mystery House. https://winchestermysteryhouse.com/