# Right and Left Dialecticism
Is it not interesting how we try again and again to prepare for one concern, only having to find that such a concern is being presented by its antithesis?

This might constitute a dialectic, but it also might be a failure of definition, or a failure of rigor. How are we best to evaluate whether something is originating from the right or the left? In seeking to clarify our conception and identification of the philosophy one operates under. As there are options not engaged in battle.

Sublate and transmute, burning away that which we discovered to be presenting friction to - ? Ourselves? Our conception of an ideal? But an ideal cannot be conceived. We are experiencing history, and to see things for how they best realize the state of reality, or the state in reality, is a supreme duty or calling.

The demand to answer that call moves towards the increasingly young. It requires them to identify themselves and their form of allegiance. So much of what goes on requires everyone to indicate their allegiance while attempting to communicate an idea that the idea itself becomes a pledge of allegiance, both to the observer and the speaker. But no idea can be accurately formed except one's personal conception of belief as to why allegiance is necessary. The only saving grace is to pledge allegiance to truth, through truthful being, and not through believing that one's words are true.

Unfortunately, confusion has manifested through this understanding that one's own belief about what is true, especially as one's words, are subject to being delivered for reasons and through influence which makes them untrue or incompatible with truth. Instead, we assume that there are force vectors pulling and contorting the nature and substance of reality, and that these move our world along some dimension.

The dimension along which the world moves can be conceived of in different ways. It might be history, in the sense of Hegelian historicism, or equity, in terms of our approaching or dismissing of its realization. Whatever it might be, it is that most basic aspect of the biological experience in spacetime which deduces an abstract endpoint, and gauges the degree to which it is being or not being made more proximal.

Must this always be conceived of as a linear progression? Since history and time are apparent to the human mind, it seems forever plausible to deny any acknowledgment of logarithmic change along the dimension of time. Time is always experiences in a linear fashion, thus any change in reality is always considered to have occurred sequentially and at a range which the human mind can conceive.

How does the linear expectation for advancement of history affect agency and accountability? Does the wind assume that a more constant rate means that it needn't seek confirmation of one's explicit contribution? Or does it have the opposite effect in the sense that it expects to find a rate of confirmation?

## Subjective Objectivity
Objectivity is criticized by Kant and Hegel, and other champions of the dialectic, for they correctly find contradiction is how a mind can believe itself to possess belief that it assumes is objective -> model realism and objective idealism.

How is the subjective reality separate from the objective, and vice-versa? Our understanding of things we believe to be objective occurred in a mind which must conceive of things subjectively, especially insofar that it discovers or chooses the means by which to communicate it. Even if we are ever to know of something that is objective, it must be unearthed and revealed through means of thought which must be aware of its previous limitations (such as the limitations of its reference and expression).

A process of preserving and purifying as something is concentrated into its most pure form while retaining its primary modality.

Pure Idea ->  Existing in fragmented form as glimpses in thoughts. Converge and brought into matter through the state. Process reiterates and purifies over time, approaching the complete manifestation of the idea in its pure, eternal form.

Thoughts are fundamentally formed from the fragments of a pure idea existing before time. Can we return to it, or is it not even worth being human?

Does the fact of transporting or extending an idea through human experience corrupt the structure of the idea? And is such a corruption just the limitation of its represenation, or part of a process of refinement which can include errors to be corrected? Could the limitation of its representation, or error in its representation, as constituted in the corruption of the idea's structure and understanding thereof, be a necessary requirement in order for the idea to have taken hold in the human mind?

In this way, the Hegelian conception of a human-centered faith, extending to the Marxist conception of a metaphysic which is based on a trajectory leading to a state of everyone doing the work, is valid, at least insofar as the understanding of there being no concept of an idea without the human mind to instantiate and behold it.

Regardless of how one feels about population and the wastefulness of human living, the fact of their even allowing themselves the opportunity to contemplate ideas at all is an implicit validation of the value of the human mind. Thus, it cannot be known if an idea exists without man, nor can it be known if, should it exist to the exclusion of man, an idea could be made relatively corrupt through incorporation into hman thinking, or if it could even be relevant.

## Ideas State Culture
In climate it is the same. There is purity of ideas expressed both in the need to have everyone adopt the activism, which needn't worry about details so much as it understands its gnostic importance, and then also furthermore in the sense that there was a perfection which existed prior, perhaps before man and that it would take purification and then ascension before the new man can be in the garden of Eden, which occurs when thinking and condition are absolute.

The state is also the embodied God on earth, as it is both the demonstrator of truth and moral living, and the entity through which we can receive salvation.

The culture is what needs to be transformed with activism until all will think in this way and be doing the work like the rest of us.

We can do th same thing, but let's break down the right wing conception of climate activism and sustainability.

### Order, Disgust, Borders, Convention
We see the same pattern of behaviour in all these parts of culture, which shrae cynicism and seek, in some way, to have all people agree that everything is as bad as they have been warning about. Whether the millenial theyby is saying that or they are here to provide no effort but to witnes what was to be a good society for them to enjoy, except that the previous generations had exploited it beyond repair.

The climate analog is simple to observe, and easily as darkly cynical in that they will connect every ill and complain through some web of indirection. It is always absurd when when excess indirection is sought, but it never surprises me to see yet looser or longer chaseif causative factors are posited.