What is this Blog About?
This question has become quite pressing, because I believe that I have not invested the proper time and resources into creating meaningful and informative blog posts. The original purpose of this blog was the disseminating of a wide array of knowledge and wisdom through the mediums of philosophy, politics, and sociology. However, this is narrow in its scope, because the boundaries should be placed at their furthest extremity, opening the realm of analysis and critique to an arsenal of tools from which to dissect reality with.
Therefore, it is right to insert physics into a discussion of organisation, if only for the purpose of putting out a perspective that alters the norm to allow for an expansion of ideas. How could anyone attempt at understanding the complexities of the spontaneous organisation of fireflies in a perfectly synchronized light show without applied mathematics set up in a non-linear graph? The explanation would be a grotesque qualitative assessment without the quantitative answers offered through physics in the form of equations and graphs.
Although, the reverse is also true, that the quantitative analysis allows access to a coherent amount of data, but the theory that actually explains the reasons, purpose and effect, is qualitative. So, it becomes a fusion of two dichtomous opposites that allows for an assessment that presents a totality of the situation. Furthermore, this goal of fusion becomes the purpose of this blog, from rationalism vs. empiricism to nature vs. nurture, in order to attempt at giving holistic representations of all situations.
A more thorough example would be a discussion of objective reason and subjective reason. These two are seen as sometimes polemicized opposites, that you can not have an objectively stated goal and also have a relativistic or pragmatic view of reason. The clash comes from the strict parameters that are presented in philosophy, which are unreasonable parameters from the standpoint that people are amorphous, autonomous individuals. Everyone can not have the same objective ideal of morality, and it is especially true that subjectively people interpret situations differently.
Now, even the subjectivity of the individual in each situation is overcast by the finite rules that all humans are bound by, that which dictates our interactive capabilities. This Humboldtian view, allows for the existence of a hazy objectively human ideal system, that can be utilized subjectively in the day to day practices of life. Instead of corrupting it by delineating strict parameters which would suffocate the system, it allows for merely finite amorphous rules to dictate the infinite means of which it can be utilized for.
These dualist relationships sprout up incessantly throughout the world, things seem to always contain their negation and positive assertion. With the stated goal of uniting the polar opposites, the integration of subjective and objective, and the founding of the amorphous, autonomous individual, what is the political stance that represents this fusion and broader perspective? Or would that itself being setting to stringent of standards? It would depend on the interpretation of the political stance, in this instance Libertarian Socialism (Anarchism), as capable or incapable of being amorphous and allowing for the autonomy of the individual to reason without coercive external forces.
That would be seen as a beginning to the fusion of these ideas, the intergration and interaction of oppossing forces, not as contradictions or as mutually exclusive, but as an equalizing opposition to maintain equilibrium of the society and individual. From the dialectical standpoint, it reverses the supposition of how things oppose from exclusion to inclusion. Stealing from physics and complexity theory the idea of cascading barriers, showing that ideas/people/science integrates as it sees cooperation of opposing forces as a more rational form of progress, rather than the competition which continously produces similar results as it cascades towards cooperation.
The blog is then about inclusion, fusion, and cooperation. From the interaction of multiple ideas comes the ability to decipher the underlying codes that hide on the tips of tongues and in the back of minds. That from the extremities one can reach the central point of balance between liberty and justifiable authority, between welfare and personal responsbility. From broadening the perspective, to the inclusion of mutually exclusive ideas into a group, and furthering the goal of cooperation, one can formulate a more amorphous and autonomous view of human nature.
