This is the spirit of balance where one is dissuaded to be overturned through the reactionary approach in that one modifies positions as and when based on events about us which causes us to take certain and or adopt perspectives as we move along. It reflects a mind not in tune or that which may waver about as one goes along.
More to the point, it is about being proactive and that the subject has a well ordained that is say organised way of doing things where one is not, nay never is entangled in the world haphazardly. It is not a superficial way of doing things. To be sure, it may never be simply confined to the mundane, where ego, lust and hatred operate.
It is of that thoughtful realm which is not inhibited by ghastly desires to impose or seek appraisal for one’s efforts where there is a perpetual aberrant to suit one’s saliencies as may be easily witnessed by parties which seek to put themselves in an exclusive state as if to them are given the virtue of knowledge whilst everyone else is wrong. They would vehemently adopt and ascribe to their way of being after having identified a common so-called enemy which they proclaim as being the cause of all malaise. In common terms one refers to this as ‘throwing mud’ constantly at the other often for no real reason whilst indeed in many respects showing at the same time the qualities of the former who simply exist in the realm of the material where everything goes in that living is all about outdoing or a perpetual struggle to subjugate the other.
To be sure, in this vein there is no comradeship or living warmth which is extended to one’s fellow compatriots let alone other living entities which are always viewed as a level below as these are mostly seen as objects to be used and abused. Carry such a saliency about and no doubt the spirit of togetherness may never be apparent as there is a hidden agenda of being seen to be above and beyond others whilst the rest in servitude due to one’s built in superiority or as Sartre may refer to it as ‘chef’ attitude where they are placed through their own ego self on a pedestal to the exclusion of others as if their ways needs necessarily be adopted by others in spite of apparent contradictions, unless of course the proponents try justifying these as they go along. It is of course a demagogy route where others are always seen as lesser and theirs are the only approach based on a non-transparent reactionary approach.
Whereas to have that equanimity is to be calm and be peaceful where one resides not in the realm of the merely mundane where one gets heated up over the trivial but is always a question of replacing hatred with its opposite where one is never entangled in the arena of the malaise which is so common like an infectious disease where the way to counteract this is to seek a deterrent in the form of mindfulness which keeps one focus and alert towards being and keeping a spirit of always being at peace and maintaining ahimsa state at all times towards one and all.
There may always be a way out of the conundrum of the insane way of being with its contradictions mostly characterised by anger, developed into wrath and converted into violence translated in doing other verbosities or other emulations which causes disturbance due to actions which creates divisions and bring about separatism due to one’s false ego at work. And with ample of divisions one fails to perceive others. Just like the demagogue their followers also feel duty bound to keep placing themselves on a pedestal where they are better, and above others. The question of being equal is a myth as they develop their own ways of justifying their status as being the norm in society based on either on divisions through cultural, religious, wealth or similar barriers. Once so identified, the subjects feel that is the way and so reactionaries and or followers maintain their upbeat malaise effort at perpetual non unity in society.
It is mostly seen that life has given them the licence to be how they want and verily seek to do as they wish to do in a world where they are deemed as those born to look down on others or the subservient class. From a material perspective Marx refers towards adoption of a classless society where the bourgeoisie falls in line in that exploitation is kept at bay due to the working class rising up rather than being in collaboration to perpetuate an unjust system. From another perspective of the non-material one may observe that it is always a question of stopping, pausing and reflecting before moving onwards. How may one seek to bring about unity in a world which is already divided, a world characterised by undue negatives characteristics where no one any longer trust any other even at the basic level of an interpersonal relationship where togetherness is apparently never there but all are based on superficialities. It is all about a question of what is it in it for me. If there is no benefit for the subject then of course one happily moves away from the arena of rationality. The lack of trust which is at the heart of world with its aspect of non-reaching out are other forms which keeps one and another apart and so maintaining divisions.
So how does one create a synergy of being in a world so characterised by plain negativities? Each and every work place seeks a moral certificate and or one always safeguard against each other. Why? May there ever be a movement towards a positivism which finally destroys all aspects of divisions. If so how to find a cure for this malaise into which we have been thrown in. One is not referring to get back to the good old days as the fear is that even then there all had elements of non-trust and hatred at the base except in the ‘modern’ era one is informed and hence the problems are laid bare and that perversions are resisted.
The question remains why and how may one put and end if at all. Adopt this or that way! Or create further division! Who knows?