The word equality itself, in the current sense, creates a social conflict, since it contradicts any aspect of the natural universe that surrounds us, in which no two things are the same. We can observe that, in all the inequality of the universe, each of its components exists and has its life cycle with the same rights as others; But we, men, wanted to be more intelligent than nature and to the fact that “a wolf eats a sheep” (to feed and survive) we have added laws by which “a sheep can eat a wolf” and “a mouse he can taunt and kill a lion”. We have created those laws like Frankenstein’s father, thinking of equating our powers (and rights) to those of nature; but we have failed and our own creation is looking to us for revenge.
But what is the point of equality in its true (even so rational) state? Let’s go back to Rome, to the Empire that has taught us so much about good and bad, and review one of its Gladiator Arena customs. On the tennis court there is a concept of equality that is identified with that time and place:
Once in the arena, both an emperor and a slave have the same right to win.
What is equality on a tennis court
- I do not have the right to beat someone from the upper strata in the tennis hierarchy (better ranking, with better “abilities”).
- He has no right to win me with a lower ranking or lower “abilities”.
In both cases, the same player who thinks this way is harmed by the simple fact of facing a logical absurdity in which he will find himself playing tennis. In this sport there are no draws; at the end of the match there is always a winner. Speaking with the language of the Roman Arena: two enter and one leaves. Then there will always be someone better than another (thinking with the wrong equality). For this reason, the player will surrender to the other “superior” and will entrust himself to another “inferior”, without thus being able to develop his optimal performance, since he will be facing an existential cabal.
He will think: “Just as I must win to the one who is worse than me, I must lose to the one who is better than me”. Where, in this formula, can there be a possibility of evolution, achievement, hope or improvement?
Could we imagine a society in which human beings do not lower their heads under the yoke of hierarchies and look up with hope and determination to conquer what they want? Could we imagine that person who gave the same right to the weakest and whose pulse did not tremble facing the strongest? We could define such a human being as a free person: free in his consciousness. This is one of the many aspects covered (or that should be covered) in the training of a player on court. And yes, here the paths of equality and freedom would cross.
For this reason, equality does not mean equalizing everyone, it is not cutting the grass at the same height. Equality is in accepting our differences and granting the right to yearn, fight and be in order to achieve a dream. As the court teaches us: there are no greater and lesser rights to win a match; the players, once on the court, in all their inequality, have the same right to perform (win in other words).
You may also be interested in seeing the definition of TALENT in the article: “The Myth of Talent“.
