# Whos Is Left or Right?

We ran into this same discussion about left and right time and time again, because we enjoy labeling the participants of society in such a way where a politically implement can manipulate the classification of persons in order to navigate towards its goals.

This political implement is extended not from a particular group, but from thought itself.

From systems of values and the expressions thereof, through biological means, the populace, the individuals themselves, reflect and radiate these values outward into the culture of society.

We have the old longstanding view that those who vocally ask for there to be more benefits for the many are leftists and open people. And, that those who do not wish to extend any single on of these benefits being proposed, at whatever time they are being proposed, and for any reason at all, are the far-right and closed people.

That somehow we can take for granted that there are benefits, that they are indeed benficial, that they are extended to the many, and that these things are self-evident and not worthy of scrutiny. Furthermore, it is thought that any effort to scrutinize them is, in fact, an effort to avoid extending benefits to the many and is, more specifically, a closing of opportunity, a fear of change, a willingness to adhere to a static system which produces more of the same problems, and never offers a new solution for anything.

The issue here is that we fail to define what the state of the system is, what the problems of the system are, in the sense of their material transformations, as opposed to their declared titles and low resolution descriptions. We fail to make clear whether or not the propositions which make the claim of offering a benefit are, indeed, rectifying the slow changing aspects of the system which prevent benefits from being provisioned to the many, or whether they are, in actuality, preventing change and causing a reinforcement of some aspects of the system which are disproportioantely influential and able to evade criticism and reflection.

In a very general sense, if we want to talk about openness and closedness, and how these express themselves physically and biologically, we talk about an aversion to chaos and the unknown.

It's a very simple concept, which makes all of the other interpretations clear, based on the degree of complexity which is being aded to the discernment.

If you are indeed a left-minded thinker, you are open to chaos and the unknown. You are willing to confront the dark abyss of chaos and risk your complete destruction in order to move forward with the chance of bringing about greater illumination over the things that you cannot yet see. You are admitting that you are blind and that you would risk death in order to see.

On the other side, if you are indeed a right-minded thinker ,you are closed to chaos and the unknown.

You are not willing to confront that dark abyss and are instead wishing to replace any risk with the assurance that such considerations have been either made on your behalf, or that they won't need to be made and that the chaos won't need to be confronted in any respect that will be extended to your perceptual frame, your direct experience. Or that, if it is to be extended to your perceptual frame, it will have its dynamics constrained and tailored through a predictive mechanism which understands exactly how it must be composed for you.

That your experience will somehow remain as is known, or as has been predicted, and that you can maintain this expectation by adhering to the propositions which are given to you by the system.

You would not be willing to dance with chaos and risk your destruction simply for a glimpse into the unknown. For the chance to shed light upon a path that may include catastrophe and change all perception abotu what has been known.

That the degree of acuity and resolution which is currently enjoyed is sufficient, and that all the propositions and prescriptions that are to be considered are based on this specific degree of acuity and its corresponding knowledge.