The Tao of Spartacus Jones:Give Before You Take

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who think there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don’t.

Just kidding.

OK. HALF kidding.

Very few things are either/or. Most are somewhere along a continuum.
But there ARE a few.
Here’s one...

You can either view the world as hierarchical or as egalitarian. You can’t do both.
If you do the former, you observe the DIFFERENCES between things and you order the world and everything and everyone in it by greater or lesser value, or importance. This seems natural --- and so it seems “right” -- because that’s what our brains do all the time, sort out survival-relevant data from survival-irrelevant data.
But any strength, carried to an extreme, becomes a weakness.
And I don’t know of anyone who’s ever formulated a hierarchical theory, who didn’t put his own particular in-group at the top. For example, you won’t find much research by nazi eugenicists demonstrating that Aryans were an inferior race.
That should suggest something to you.
But I don’t want to pick on the Nazis.
Too easy.

There are plenty of folks who believe that all living things are arranged in a hierarchy, with human beings at the top of the pyramid, and all other living things ranked lower in “intelligence,” for example. The creatures most like humans – apes --are the most intelligent, then mammals in general, then reptiles and so on down.
People who see it this way are often believers in a god that created Man and gave humankind “dominion” over the others. They thus believe that a HUMAN life is more valuable than the lives of other creatures. They talk about the “sanctity of human life” more than they ever talk about the sanctity of canine life, or cockroach life, or tree life.

From there, it’s just a hop, skip and a jump to applying that hierarchy intra- as well as inter- species. So one race is better, more intelligent, more developed or more something-or-other than another, which makes it ok for them to murder off or enslave all the other “inferior” races – and convince themselves that they're doing those inferior races a big, fat favor by it.

Or maybe it’s something else.
If it’s not your race, maybe it’s your money, or your looks, or your profession, or where you went to school or your accent or your diet that puts you higher or lower on the socio-political totem pole.
Gets to the point where you’re talking about the sanctity of brown-eyed- right-handed attractive-wealthy-white-male-heterosexual-vegetarian-Protestant-Democratic life.



Folks with an egalitarian view are a little different.
They view the LIKENESSES between people and things and see them all as fundamentally similar, equally valuable and important, despite their differences.
Like links in a chain.

Some American Indian People’s, for example, might tell you that they consider every living thing to be “family,” no more or less valuable than a human being, and that, even further ALL things – rocks, trees, clouds – are living things.

I think of this today because I’ve seen a bunch of different people inter-acting with horses and these two different views are evident in that, as well. Most all the people I’ve seen seem to have an a priori assumption that because they are humans -- and presumably up there in the luxury penthouse of the evolutionary high-rise ---- they have a RIGHT to make demands on and control a horse. Some will spew some semantic crap about “partnership” but it’s pretty clear who the senior partner is supposed to be, and I don’t think many of them would go into business and consider a similar arrangement with themselves in the horse’s role, to be a satisfactory “partnership.”

Or sometimes they don’t have “dominion over” the horse but are “stewards” of the horse. But that’s another semantic distinction that doesn’t always make much of a real difference.

There are a few people who seem to look at it differently, from a more egalitarian perspective. Instead of just trying to make horses adapt to people, they adapt to horses. They learn to speak the horse’s language. They don’t just “train” horses, they learn from them.
They don’t just take, they give.

And giving is free, no strings attached. Not a quid pro quo or a means to an end.
For example, I don’t give my pony an apple as a “reward” or as a “bribe” so he’ll do what I want him to do. I give him apples because I know he enjoys them and his joy is my delight.

I think what you have to give is more than hay and vet care and hoof trims. More than apples, too. It’s respect, trust and affection.

I don’t think you can ask for, expect or deserve anything you aren’t willing to give.
You want respect? Give your respect.
You want trust? Give your trust.
You want friendship? Give your friendship.

Now if you give those things does it guarantee you’ll get them in return?
Nope.
But if you don’t give them, you certainly WON’T get them.


sj