I thought about this issue of the term "least" some more. I think the objection comes from an assumption that we must treat everyone the same - but we don't - we don't let children make the same decisions as adults - we seek out the most qualified for any important task . . .

I also think the real issue is not treating everyone the same but rather treating everyone with respect - and that, of course, is the point of this concept that I have named 'honor the gift of the least among us'. As to the continuum, the two are related. In a perfect world those who progress along the infant -> wisdom continuum would be awarded control of more and more resources. Our world is imperfect to the extent progress along the continuum is blocked by prejudice or lack of money and control of resources is awarded by accident of birth.

I liked the way Eisler talked about the continuing need for hierarchy. She says that in a dominator society hierarchy is based on fear whereas in a partnership society hierarchy is based on helping those below you in the hierarchy to progress on the continuum (actualization is the word she used I think).

I am using the word "least" to refer to those with the least knowledge and the least control of resources - and I know it is being interpreted as if I were referring to poor people as a "lower class" of people. I would use a different word if it carried the right meaning - or perhaps this is an issue we need to bring into the spot light. The issue of who has more capability is only a problem when it means the difference between being the dominator or the dominated. Where we are all helping each other progress on the continuum it is about who we can help and who we can get help from.