“In a real sense, all life is inter-related. All persons are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny:
Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly, I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be, you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the inter-related structure of reality.”
–Martin Luther King, Jr.
There is an undoubted interrelationship amongst us all. This connection is held together by our commonality: the human condition. Whether or not you agree with King’s statement above, the human condition itself is an undeniable fact of our shared reality. This is our existence. This is our mortality.
If you have already made your decision about the statement (whether to affirm or to deny), let me ask you to reconsider through the following analysis.
If we examine King’s statement above and assume he is accurate, it would follow that:
- All ‘persons’ exist in an ‘inter-related’ network with a shared ‘single’ destiny. (This is from the statements: “In a real sense, all life is inter-related. All persons are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.”)
- The effects of actions, behaviors, and decisions on one person indirectly affects all others in the network. (This is from the clause: “Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly…”)
- Likewise, one person’s limitations also limits all others in the network. (This is from the clause: “…I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be, you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be.”)
- ‘Reality’ is intrinsically inter-related, necessarily causing the human network – and all persons in that network – to be itself inter-related. (This is from the statement: “This is the inter-related structure of reality.”)
If you choose to agree with King’s statement, then you could also leverage it in favorable validation of Infinite Potentiality Theory (IPT) through the following argument:
- Because all persons exist in an inter-related network with the effects and limitations of one affecting and limiting all others, it is all the more imperative to attain ultimate freedom (UF) of and from the self.
- By so doing, s/he attains liberation from all related fetters of the self (namely, membership in the inter-related network).
Unfortunately, the favorable IPT argument is flawed within the confines of King’s statement. Again, assuming King’s statement is valid:
- The inherent nature of inter-relatedness as King illustrates is a ‘closed circuit’ as long as there is one person who does not attain what s/he ‘ought to be’ (i.e., UF).
- As long as one person is bounded, all others are bounded.
- Being so limited, all persons in that network are unable to ‘break free’.
- The network must begin with all persons unbounded. As soon as one person becomes bound, s/he causes everyone in that network to be and to remain so limited.
Although IPT accepts the possibility of all persons being inter-related, the reasons and consequences differ from King’s. It is because of our common human condition that IPT considers the inter-relationship. However, IPT rejects the network.
Instead, IPT proposes the qualitative ontological paradigm shift (from dyads and networks) to a collaborative and dynamic relationship. More importantly, that relationship is not interrelated. It is mutually exclusive. Accordingly, the realization of UF through creative potentiality becomes uncontested as a very real possibility – on a singular basis – and inherently within all individuals as such.
In other words, from King’s inter-related network of persons to IPT’s collaborative and dynamic relationship, there is a difference of realizable possibilities:
King’s inter-related network must be and remain pristine in order to be intact. Any interruption to one person interrupts the entirety, thereby breaking down the network itself.
IPT ennobles the individual’s effective agency as an individual. As a mutually exclusive ‘free agent’, the individual is empowered to realize and to leverage his creative potentiality. By so doing, s/he will attain ultimate freedom of and from the self and transcend accordingly to the realm of other while remaining wholly with self and other. (Remember: it is an ultimate freedom, not a separation, of and from the self.) The key here is that potentiality remains unaffected by others because it is an inherent quality within a mutually-exclusive individual and thus, s/he is empowered to actualize a limitless realization.
Of course, there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ opinion on King’s statement. The above illustrates a difference of approach. The bottom line IPT delineates is for no other purpose than to empower the individual’s agency to effect a meaningfully positive impact not just within his current locus for the present generation, but also for the concentric loci around him in the global arena and for future generations to come. Within IPT, this is a very real possibility that is happening each day by such individuals.
Cheers to your realization, whichever you choose.