<\/p>\n
Here is a short compilation on equality, by Roberto Assagioli:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Higher, Lower and Equality<\/strong><\/p>\n The denomination \u201chigh\u201d and \u201cheights\u201d has been used both in the East and in the West to designate what are called religious or mystical attainments. Mountains were considered to be the abode of gods or higher beings. \u2026and therefore sacred. \u2026 Maslow has extensively used the words \u201clow\u201d and \u201chigh\u201d in his description of human needs. He speaks of\u2026a hierarchical order (\u2026 particularly in Motivation and Personality<\/em>, p. 97ff.).<\/p>\n A general reason for the hostility toward the designation \u201chigh \u201cis a semantic one. There is an unfortunate connection between the words \u201chigh\u201d and \u201clow\u201d used in the psychological sense, and the moral valuations attached to them. \u2026 The word \u201clow\u201d is considered to (denote) something inferior in the moral sense, something to be eliminated or repressed. But this is a false conception. \u201cLow\u201d and \u201chigh\u201d can, and often do, designate simply a stage of development. \u2026 A very simple biological instance shows this clearly. A child is lower in stature than an adult; a child is at a less evolved stage of development than an adult. But that does not mean at all that the adult, as such, is \u201cbetter \u201cor \u201csuperior\u2019 to the child. Both from the psychological and the moral standpoint, a healthy child is better or superior to a neurotic adult.<\/p>\n \u2026 The existence of these different stages of development is an incontrovertible fact.<\/p>\n It has been objected that (the word \u201chigh\u201d) implies moral valuations which are extraneous to objective science. However a purely objective psychology (in this sense) is not valid, because values are psychological facts. \u2026 They have to be taken into account in an inclusive psychology, an inclusive study of human nature\u2026<\/p>\n In general there is resistance (to acknowledge) these higher reaches because they seem to imply an obligation to achieve them. Or there is a fear of that realm, as Maslow has pointed out very well, and there is a fierce hostility to admit that fear. \u2026 Behaviourists of every brand are opposed to it\u2026<\/p>\n