Justice is hard to come by when those who dispense the justice are the same as those who define the justice. Since those who define and dispense justice are also typically those with the power, any individual or group with a differing definition of justice will often receive justice, (if at all), in a diluted and astringent form. The only way I see justice becoming uniform and, well... just, is for justice to be defined and dispensed only within an exclusive group. Yes! We must divide justice. How do we do this? By dividing into groups? Segregation? Hasn't worked so well in the past. The majority group or the group in power somehow still defines and dispenses justice. Genocide? Though there are a few that would (and some that still do) take up this banner, I would like to think that a large majority of us have grown past this. How about political correctness and organizationally-imposed rhetorical platitudes? Not working so well right now. Here's a thought: if justice can become uniform and just within an exclusive group, why don't we all join the same group? We could call it something unique and clever, like... I don't know... maybe, Humanity?!! Of course this isn't working either because simply put, some us are better than others. Right? Some of us are more deserving and better able to define and dispense.

This pretense is why I am coming around to the belief that the only path to justice may be solitude. I would like to more carefully define solitude.

Giving, receiving. Leading, following. Watching, waiting. Quickening, calming. No matter how attuned I believe I am with another (individual or group), there will be times we are out of sync. There will be times when we both want to receive; or lead. There will be times when a quickening is necessary to maintain momentum, but we both shift into a calming approach. And I suppose the same can be said about my own internal strife. But to what degree are these inner personal struggles a result of potential external discord. I believe the fear of feedback or criticism is a hindrance to progress and justice; an unhealthy internal struggle. I believe the skeptical questioning of existing circumstance accompanied by analysis of expert or respected perspectives is a push to progress and justice; a healthy internal struggle. And perhaps this is the beginnings of a definition for solitude: working toward Truth uninfluenced by unhealthy internal struggle.

It is difficult to forgo approval of others. It feels important to belong. I suppose that because it typically requires a consensus for progress, and because interdependence is exponentially more powerful than independence, and because I have egocentric tendencies, I am hesitant to intentionally undertake loneliness; which becomes another component of our definition. So now we have solitude as: a lonely pursuit of Truth, uninfluenced by fear of criticism or rejection.

If I want to define solitude though, as a path to justice, there is more.

I believe the next question may be, am I seeking justice as it applies exclusively to the realm of me? Or am I looking for a friendless path that will lead to a broader perspective of justice potentially applicable to all of Humanity? Ideally I believe I want to do both, but I am going to start with me.

But how do I ensure that any perceived personal justice I may deem as satisfactory is not in actuality an illusion brought about by ignorance or apathy? I suppose that if I perceive satisfaction I am satisfied, but I am not confident in my ability to judge. Perhaps in the preceding paragraph I was wrong to identify an application of justice exclusive to the realm of me. Perhaps there is no such thing as personal justice. Perhaps there is only a personal path to consensus justice. And perhaps I will never be satisfied. This perspective feels more balanced and farsighted than to trust a personal interpretation based on a strong desire.

So if this last thought is correct, I still believe solitude plays an important role in coming nearer to justice, if for no other reason than to discount fear of criticism and rejection as much as is humanly possible. If I recognize my fear, will skeptical questioning help to temper it? Skeptical questioning, by definition, must challenge a status quo. So if I am going to ask questions that are outside the box, I believe I must be standing outside the box; alone. We have furthered our definition of solitude: a lonely pursuit of Truth, uninfluenced by fear of criticism or rejection, and spurred by skeptical questioning from outside the box.

Is the difficulty of loneliness lessened by acknowledging its value? Perhaps. That is a question that can only be answered by the individual.

So I want to look again at those who define and dispense justice; those with the power. I want to look at their reaction when skeptical questioning challenges their status quo. There often appears to be improvement, at times in the form of increased communications and greater inclusion. But how often does this challenge result in a changing of the guard? Or even a meaningful changing of the guard's minds? Yes, I see incremental progress; baby steps. I do not often see meaningful change. The inclusion I see feels like it is meant to disarm, and maintain status quo. The changes I see are superficial and often appear to merely scrape the surface of challenge, collecting a few key skeptics to bring into the fold. This. Is. Not. Justice. Yet on some level, each one of us wants to be scraped into a fold.

So having been scraped into the fold, I find it warm and comfortable. I find that I do not want to challenge my new friends, which makes it more difficult to question existing circumstance. I do not want to be banished from the box again. I do not want to voluntarily leave the box.

Maybe I will stay for just a little while. Like a vacation. Maybe, down the road, me and my new friends can make some new rules that might be a little better than the old ones. But that's down the road. For now, a little C and Q, (complacency and quiescence), sounds like just the ticket.

Or maybe I have been strategically disarmed And maybe I was wrong in that previous paragraph where I said I was wrong in the paragraph before. Maybe there is personal justice, (or at least the illusion thereof), for those who are, and for those who believe they are, inside the box.

And maybe this brings me another component for my definition of solitude: a lonely pursuit of Truth, uninfluenced by fear of criticism or rejection, and spurred by skeptical questioning from a purposeful stance outside the box.

If only we could all stand outside the box.

If only...

It's a choice...