Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutha  Polarization is about getting benefits from clarity. |
Genuine polarization is
ONLY POSSIBLE where two absolutes are
diametrically opposing one-another.
It is possible to be polarized between "Atheism" and "Theism", or between "Neopotism" and "Meritocracy", but where the definitions are less-concrete, it is not possible.
It must represent a difference in KIND, rather than a difference in DEGREE.
For example, there is no definite/discrete separation between "Warm" and "Cold", since both are relative terms, like "Fast" and "Slow", and "East" and "West".
Where many people err in this is when they mistakenly overlook the multidimensional nature of inabsolute terms, such as attempting to polarize between "Reason" and "Emotion" (since they cannot be quantified verbally, emotions are not "logical", but they are certainly reasonable!), or between "Arrogance" and "Humility".
I possess the arrogant humility which comes from my absolute confidence that I can not know everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutha You make an argument that because the political ideas in your head are cloudy and aren't clear that there's no such thing a clear and polarized political idea. |
Not at all! You have somehow mistaken my message for one with a political slant, where none was offered?
To be sure, my own politics are completely clear and solid in my mind, despite that to a jejune person, they might seem internally inconsistent:
I am a 'Top-Right' quadrant positioned "Pragmatic Anarchist" ("Recovering Objectivist") where it comes to my ACTIVE politics (ie, my interest in affecting the lives of strangers) and have a strong affinity for the wisdom of John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, and R. Buckminster Fuller, with regards to self-governance, self-respect, and personal responsibility.
I have a libertarian attitude towards non-intervention into the affairs of individuals or nations, where they do not inhibit or impede others' ability to accommodate themselves.
Where I abandon Libertarian ideals is where the questions of 'state-controlled police & military' enter in. I have no confidence in ANY 'government' which demands exclusivity for the use of force, or threat of retaliatory force. To my reckoning, this invariably leads to gross corruptions.
I prefer a form of non-coercive 'invitational communism' [a form of anarcho-syndicalistic tribalism, only possible on a limited scale, without any 'Fabian' expectations or desire for eventual domination of others] in which members are welcomed and accepted, and thereby free to do precisely as they will, until/unless they violate the principals of the tribe - at which point they are invited to cease such violations, or leave.
Can you see how it would be irrational to attempt to codify my political philosophy into 'Left Wing' or 'Right Wing' stigmatization?
Johnny Soporno
Lifestyle Guru