Forum Post: Clarifying the 1%

I have noticed, on this forum and in other discussions, that many professionals and specialists articulate clear views about why they do not support OWS as a movement because it threatens some of their core values. For example, the engineer or doctor who has, in their opinion, worked their way up to a professional position that they find useful to society and feel threatened by the idea that they would not be allowed a private income - and also feel looked down upon because of their lifestyle and aesthetic choices. I do not feel that such people necessarily comprise the 1% - and I feel that respectful discussion and debate with such people is very valuable to any movement that wishes to initiate a gestalt shift in society rather than ostracize. A black-and-white definition such as 1% and 99% not only falls into trouble with subjective valuation, but perhaps seems to edge the individual out of existence. I feel that an effective movement should provide ideological discussion and sharing of views which can help affirm the self-actualization of the individual in community with others - and I believe that only from such a place of selfhood is empathy possible. I am interested in discussing this viewpoint with others, as well as bringing out a clear understanding of what is intended by the 1%. Is this conceived of as a literal financial bracket (and at what point it the line drawn - for example, if i make a high income but act as a conscious consumer and support social and environmental initiatives, i would be likely to disagree with a financial cutoff that pushes me into the "enemy camp" - likewise if i make a very low income yet support values and ideals which are contrary to socially progressive values, would i automatically qualify for the 99%)? or is the definition a matter of weltenschauung? in that case, how do we conceive of this wetenschauung as either absolute or arbitrary? to clarify - i do understand the import of making clear distinctions, but the statistical phrasing of such distinctions is, in my opinion, too sweeping and impoersonal to critically assess our economic and social situation from a sound basis, as well as potentially injurious to the idea that true community is derived from the voluntary and spontaneous interaction of individuals striving together toward actualization in the self and other.