The Concept of Fairness -

On March 4th, 2005 Equinox was asked,

Could you discuss the concept of fairness?

EQ: It is a wondrous concept, for it’s based on an erroneous assumption, is it not?

Explain.

EQ: To be fair means that thee do what ever it is that the person who is looking for fairness deems to be fair. Is this not so?

Yes.

EQ: It is based on a concept of good and bad. Is that not so?

Yes, it is.

EQ: And have we not said that good and bad is only a perception and is independent – it is personal to the person?

Yes, many times.

EQ: Then how can there be such a thing as fair? For fair for thee may not be fair for her. Dost thou understand?

Yes.

EQ: So how can we discuss a concept that has no reality? We try all the time. We try to explain that there is no time. We try to explain that there is no good or bad. These are erroneous assumptions that all of thee want to cling to, but fairness is not even possible to explain because it is based on a series of erroneous concepts.

I could see that.

Does this extend to the concept of justice?

EQ: Yes, because does that not change as well? Who’s justice? In certain parts of this earth, are there not entities that feel that justice for stealing is removing a body part? But justice in the United States for stealing depends upon how rich thee are and how much thee can afford to retain thy attorney. Is that justice?

Although, I think many of us would agree that that’s not just.

EQ: But then what is just? Tell us.

I don’t know that. Well, the philosopher Plato said justice is truth.

EQ: And what is truth? If all is an illusion, what is truth?

That all is an illusion.

EQ: Good. Then what is justice?

The ability to discern that all is an illusion?

EQ: No, we would say that justice would, again, be dependent upon personal belief. If thee are creating thy own reality at every moment, then thee are creating thy own justice or injustice. Is this not so?

Right. But we have a shared reality, too, though.

EQ: Yes, thee have a shared reality and that shared reality is that all being on Terra care more about themselves than others, no matter what they say. For we will tell thee right now if we were to pick four people who tell us, this moment, that they care about others more than themselves and we were to say to them, “We will give you one million dollars, tax free, or, we will give it to him,” they would say, “No. Me.” Is this not so?

Yes.

EQ: This is reality. So what is justice? Is justice being “fair” and giving this person the million and not giving that person the million?

If we don’t share a reality, then how’s it possible to interact?

EQ: What?

How is it possible to interact in any positive way if we do not share realities, if we’re all with in our own bubbles?

EQ: This is not what we are saying. We are saying thee are all within thy own bubbles.

Right.

EQ: Consequently, how is it possible to share the reality? Thee don’t. Thee do not share the same reality.

So there is no justice? It’s an impossibility?

EQ: No, there is justice for thee if thee believe there be justice. Dost thou understand? If thee go to court and thee win thy case, thee say, “I got justice.” Is this not so? Is this not so?

It would depend. How can you win your case if others are not sharing part of your reality and your concept of justice?

EQ: Because thee are creating thy own reality and that reality changes moment to moment. Dost thou understand? Listen to us closely. Let us say that thee meet an entity, a male entity, and thee have the impression within thyself that thee are in love. And this male also has the impression that he is in love with thee. Thee would say that this is a goodly thing. Is this not so?

Yes.

EQ: But as time goes on, thee begin to doubt whether thee loved and whether thee ever loved. Dost thou understand? What changed?

Perception.

EQ: Exactly. From moment to moment, thee exist in an individual perception that thee project onto others. They act in their own way, too. To him, he may still be in that same place of loving thee and assume that so are thee. Who’s perception is wrong? It is his reality. He’s happy. Thy reality has made thee unhappy. Dost thou understand? Nothing has changed but thy reality of it. Same with justice. One moment thee could absolutely believe in the death penalty and the next moment thee could decide maybe that isn’t so fair. Which is justice? In a past life thee may have thought that anyone that believed and sat in a circle like this deserved to be killed a witches. In this life thee would not see that as justice, would thee?

I guess my question was how do you make use of it to put it into a sociologically useful thing if it’s forever changing and…I’m trying to think of the best way to put this…

EQ: It is changing thy perception to allow for all things to be unique instead of consistently wanting all things to fit a mold. Dost thou understand?

Right. Acknowledge change is a good thing and flowing with that change.

EQ: And acknowledging that others have their individual perception which is perfect as well.

How do we have a civil society within that definition?

EQ: If each entity takes responsibility for their own happiness and their own perceptions, that no one is doing anything negative or positive to them, each person takes that responsibility, then in so doing it will stop the need for the other things to happen. Dost thou understand?

Yes.

EQ: When thee are truly conscious and understand that thee are making thy happiness or sadness, thee do not hurt another because he or she has made thee sad. Thee do not take from someone because they have more than thee. Thee perceive that thee have enough. Dost thou understand?

So basically there’s no need for a justice system.

EQ: Exactly. There is no need once the reality of the linkage and the actuality of life upon Terra is accepted. Once that happens there is no need for everything is shared, all things are perfect, and all things are equal which is the truth of life. It is the truth. Entities are afraid of truth. It means then taking responsibility if their truth is different.

Does this perception or individual truth have anything to do with survival? That I always see things in terms of how everything can work in my favor?

EQ: Originally. Absolutely. Originally it was this way, but originally entities eventually realized banding together kept them safer than individually. Thee forgot. Dost thou understand?

Survival from the perspective of an individual person or a group of persons?

EQ: Originally, thee had to be selfish to survive. Then as time went on thee realized that being selfish in a group worked better. Dost thou understand? This was the first acknowledgement of linkage. And as thee become more mechanized again, and less true survival orientated, thee become more selfish again. Dost thou understand?

When you said, “mechanized again,” what does that mean?

EQ: Well we have said this planet has been destroyed before. Thee think that when this happened that the entities upon Terra were lesser than thee? This is what we mean.

So we need to be more self aware in order to transcend selfishness.

EQ: Absolutely. When thee are aware of the truth that there be more than enough for everyone, more than enough for everyone, more than enough happiness, more than enough love, more than enough money, more than enough property, more than enough everything, then why dost thou need to be bitchy, nasty and hard? Dost thou understand?

Return