Conflict emerges not as a necessity but as a probabilistic orientation, seeded by inherited biological reflexes and cultural traditions that tilt cognition toward opposition. The self-determining narratives that grow from this inclination reinforce and entrench opposition until behaviours and thought patterns sustain the narrative above and beyond any substantive rationale for it. Evolutionary pressures honed competitive instincts, embedding defensive reflexes into language and thought. Contemporary politics and commerce amplify this tendency, exploiting “us versus them” distinctions as mechanisms of mobilisation and control. The result is self-determination defined not by intrinsic purpose but by opposition—an identity forged in contrast to an adversary. Ideology functions as a blunt instrument here, a tool for division rather than insight, sustaining antagonism as a profitable cycle.
Yet beneath this linear machinery runs a deeper resonance, a probabilistic waveform in which meaning disperses across relations rather than residing in singular points. Language itself, fluid and recursive, binds us into patterns of collective emergence. When reduced to fighting, those patterns collapse into brittle oscillations, robbing us of coherence. Seen differently, antagonism is not inevitable; it is one possible attractor among many in a field of relational probabilities. The waveforms through which society holds together are adaptive, even allostatic, preparing and orienting themselves by shaping their environments to sustain continuity. As a general dynamical principle, however, this preparatory adaptation often turns against us, amplifying the very divisions it evolved to stabilise.
Daedelus Kite 
One reply on “Insecure Political Identity”
The problem is not only that manipulation occurs, but that it often flows from impulses and structures beneath conscious awareness. Individuals act in ways that appear deliberate, but the incentives, pressures, and systemic conditions that guide those actions usually operate far below the surface. Assigning responsibility remains necessary, yet much of what drives behaviour resists being traced back to personal intent. This dissonance creates a fundamental tension: people cling to an image of themselves as coherent agents, yet the evidence suggests their choices are entangled with processes that predate, shape, and exceed them.
Those who believe they can seize and control these forces—whether through state machinery, technological systems, or ideology—are themselves carried along by the very waves they imagine they are steering. The acceleration of change rewards slogans and surface-level answers, yet the underlying structural currents remain beyond simple mastery. Leaders, engineers, and technocrats become as much consequences as anyone else, amplifying failures through the illusion of command. The tragedy is that complexity demands patience and humility, but the appetite for certainty drives us further into self-deception, leaving societies vulnerable to the entropic churn of systems that no one fully understands.
LikeLike