Why the middle political ground has a harder time than the extremes

Understandably, one could claim that the practical result of the above false dichotomy is the same, no matter the theory behind it (meaning, whether one accepts the dichotomy of the self or not). That is, in view of humans’ need to augment their information processing, and because information in the analogue world is finite, those asking for more liberties for themselves in order to be able to process (to act) more will always come up against those who would prefer not to give these to them (because they wish to keep these opportunities for themselves, so as to increase their own information processing). Conflict, regardless of whether innate or the result of comparison, is inherent in an environment (system) of scarcity. Whatever the case may be, within an individualism context (and resulting political systems) it is clear that the middle political ground (those accepting the theory of the two spheres and therefore supporting some balance between them) has a harder time than the extremes, which, each for its own purposes, want the system of the two spheres gone. This explains why historically, democracy (the epitome of individualistic political systems and itself a perpetual balancing exercise) has had (and still has) a harder time defending its case, and why the two extremes (far right and far left) meet (in their wish to abolish the dichotomy and individualism itself).

Navigate: ← §26.00.06.00 · Corpus · §26.00.08.00 →