Meanings Change as Points of View Change

Depending on your point of view, the meanings change. A preferable state for one person can be an undesirable state for another person. This is a cause of never-ending contradiction and confusion for an imaginative perceiver.
For instance, being rich (or being a king) has different meanings from different viewpoints. For the rich, having wealth means security, power, and ability to fulfill their preferences. For the poor, it is hoarding of valuable resources that could have been used to serve many (instead of one). It can be construed as indifference to the suffering of the poor.
An unimaginative, narrow-minded, or selfish observer is blind to the third-party's viewpoint and cannot feel such contradiction and confusion; therefore, he or she remains more focused on selfishly pursuing his or her own preferences (ignoring others' preferences and well-being). That's why psychopaths are very successful in pursuit of their own self-interest.

Extreme Selfishness Leads You to Philanthropy

Selfishness is a virtue; not knowing the self is a vice. Selfishness creates a strong urge to pursue your preferences, but shortsighted and blind selfishness deprive you of achieving more valuable preferences. Blind selfishness fails to reap the fruits of love.
It may seem strange that extreme selfishness leads you to love. Only having the attitude of love (wanting others to reach their ultimate preferences and beautiful experiences) can enable you to reach your highest experiences. If you do not love the world and others, it will be hard for you to imagine that the world and others love you. The feelings between you and the external world (the world and people in it) are mutual. If you regard the world and people in it as hateful and ugly, you live in a nightmare. You should love others and make a better world for everyone in order to reach your highest experiences. Empathy is inevitable for the imaginative. After knowing the self and one’s ultimate preferences, an extremely selfish person realizes his or her preferences cannot be reached without fulfillment of others’ preferences.

We Have Tax Brackets, but We Don’t Have Philanthropy Bracket or Selfishness Brackets

W1 has its own sets of mathematics (certain W1 mathematics describe the physical world). W2 and W3 have their own sets of mathematics, but thoughts, meanings, and feelings are not easily quantifiable. W2 and W3 mathematics are personal, yet people have a lot in common.
Our current socioeconomic system completely ignores W2 and W3 mathematics. Tax system, for instance, has a lot of mathematical formula for calculating tax. Tax is not a loose term, but philanthropy is a loose term. We have tax brackets, but we don’t have philanthropy brackets, selfishness brackets, love brackets, or hate brackets. Why philanthropy shouldn't be well defined mathematically. What percentage of philanthropist’ asset was donated and how it served others’ preferences. Philanthropy is also a mathematical relationship between the value of fulfillment of your own preferences and those of others’ preferences. Why selfishness shouldn't be bracketed. Why hate shouldn’t be bracketed? Why shouldn’t companies, billionaires, and millionaires who are hiding behind trusts (and various means to conceal their wealth) not be evaluated by selfishness brackets?
Our current socioeconomic system encourages winner-takes-it-all attitude. Winner takes it all is also a mathematical relationship. Capitalism is a machine that generates wealth, but by some adjustments, it can spread the wealth more beautifully. Currently, a minority enjoys capitalism’s wealth disproportionately. Different adjustments such as higher tax may spread the generated wealth to majority. Even if such adjustments make the whole system less efficient, still the whole system could be much more beautiful.
There is a mathematics of beauty. The feeler has some inclination toward certain proportions. There are some golden ratios for our species. Historically, the ancient and native tribes used to invade other tribes if they become disproportionately wealthy. Some proportions are ugly or intolerable, and some proportions are preferable. People can reach a consensus about the mathematics of beauty. For instance, no human being under any circumstances should own more than y times of the poorest. The minority of winners (who take it all) justifies inequality by the benefits of the system, but nothing can justify ugliness. Many beautiful systems can be devised. Even if such socioeconomic systems have lower efficiency), they provide much better human experiences for the majority. Nezman accepts inequality, but extreme inequality is ugly by any standard.

Love Prefers Equality and Hate Engenders Huge Inequality

Nez: Regarding someone as equal to the self is an attitude of love. If you consider fulfillment of someone’s preferences as important as fulfillment of your own preferences, you have an attitude of love and respect toward that person. However, wishing inequality or creating inequality is a hateful attitude. Slavery is an example of a hateful attitude (and selfishness).
Nezman prefers equality much more than inequality. Nezman finds golden ratios between self’s fulfillment of preferences and others’ fulfillment of preferences. For Nezman, absolute equality is unnecessary and meaningless, but huge inequality is ugly and cruel.