Categories
Philosophy politics

Democracy Oscillates

Context: Math explains polarization, and it’s not just about politics

The mathematics indicates aspects of causal necessity, perhaps, in dynamical systems but we might turn to a complementary psychological ontology of polarisation, Othering and system differentiation.

A partisan point of view (or mind and associated political, ideological subjectivity) is always and already inversely anchored and dependent upon that which it is not. Any one partisan extremity, direction and asserted political identity is defined and refined as much (and inversely) by and of Other as it is of Self; this is what inflates the constructive dissonance of progressive, dissociative differentiation.

Here, two primary systems that both “contain” each other as a productive discontinuity and friction by and through which the gestalt self-propagates. The dissonance and inflammatory adversarialism is actually (an) optimal autonomous heuristic for political system self-propagation.

As for independent voices, here as elsewhere they are swept away in a tide of normative polarity and expectation that pendular oscillation between emergent poles is the nature of Democracy. Independent voices might indicate the communication medium and convergent mean of harmonic oscillation in unexpected ways, as saliences of information entropy.

2 replies on “Democracy Oscillates”

Thanks, Amber.

The world is a mess. However, it regenerates and renews itself as just such a dissonant, belligerent and logically-fuzzy ball of insecurity and aggression because this is the way that it optimally self-propagates, evolves and invokes endless metamorphosis.

So, if we were to look at the totality of information and energy-processing systems that exist on, in and as our world (that is, to “count backwards” from infinity, as it were) we would soon realise that the mess that exists is perhaps necessary and while not entirely irremediable, it suggests that there exists an irreducible background layer or presence of discontinuity and chaos.

Of course, being that psychological and cultural orientations towards closure and teleologically-reflexive control of self-definition is somewhat immutable, normative and difficult to challenge – our shared problem reveals itself not as an ultimate inability to repair or remediate our world so much as it is an endemic problem of psychology and ego-trips of control or reductionist, purely deterministic science and economic or political theory that holds us back from a better world.

Freedom is not “of” self, it is “from” self and if I could get a publishing deal for it, I would write a philosophical analysis as a book explaining, demonstrating and proving why this is the case. (There are profound ecological consequences here, also.)

Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.