# Peter's Observations

The left vs right paradigm has transformed into something else entirely. What used to be a clearly delineated progressive movement fowrard vs predisposition to avoid change is now a division between those who accept cognitive freedom vs those who are intolerant of it. In a sense, however, those who prefer not to permit open thought and ennquiry are fulfilling the fundamental role of the spirit which denies change. They might still believe they are champins of change, though. How can this be?

## Nomenclature
The language employed has been carefully coaxed and selected, over the past several decades, to harness every popular concept that has been applied to attacking the status quo. This might make it seem that they are accomplishing just that, but tehre is one fundamental difference between whihc changes all of that.:
- Which mode of being is more conducive to unearthing the nature of reality?
The answer should be no great mystry, and it begs questions of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance from the woke crowd -> they believe that society oppresses and creates systems of classification which expand and protect the power and privilege of those who already enjoy such things the most, yet they demand strict subjugation and adherence to rules and categories, so long as their preferred nomenclature has been respected and utilized in the formulation and dissemination of these rules.

Is it so that we can respect the notion of categories and have faith in their integrity and universal benevolence, regardless of their complexity, just so long as particular language is utilized?

Of course not!

Anyone who has fallen victim to a pyramid scheme, or a socially engineered scam, even just phishing, understands that language can be employed which subverts, misleads and obfuscates the more fundamental aspects and intentions of a particular proposition. Often those who are most readily primed to take any opportunity to raise their social standing and perceived morality will be the first to repeat these findings and rulesets, so long as they are accepted within the mainstream narrative -> so how can this be? Is it because they have made a more thorough inspection of evidence across the greatest range of applicable or relevant levels of abstraction?