logicp_writings/collectivist_theology/Left-Right_paradigm.md

Left / Right Paradigm

Information

Flow

Change of Scope

The ultimate right wing representation of change of scope or stipulating of scope might be something like

• never changing the scope
• believing that the scope encompasses all
• ensuring that the scope is the entirety of everything or at least making it that whatever scope is available is equivalent to the entirety of everything by virtue of how anyone else is permitted to speak of it This whole tendency to need to control the scope and ensure that it encompasses enough of everything upt o any including everything itself is something that we would normally consider as being Right Wing for left wing:
• the scope can change and that's okay
• the scope is always changing and we can always adapt to that
• the scope that is available to be seen by others is to their discretion so long as it doesn't infringe on one's own privacy - one has some degree of flexibility, or perhaps ultimate flexibility in establishing one's own scope or allowing others to make use of scopes and implements which refine or change scope

Change of Rate

• not having a strong reaction towards rate of change
• being ok with dramatic rises in rate of change
• feeling ok about activities which threaten to increase rate of change (right) sorry that's left here's right
• demanding no change in rate fo change
• demanding a null rate of change
• (less likely) demanding the maximum rate of change and being intolerant to perspectives which do not agree about one's rate of change
• not recognizing that there is a rate of change, or that change is possible

Transformation

static

• treating constructs as though they are static and unchanging
• treating things as static if they appear to empower you? # nah
• having a view that the final means of organizing reality is already known
• having the view that the meaning of reality can be derived through the organized structure for life which provides the basis from which to give sense to being

changing

quantity

a change in quantity is not necessarily easy to assess here.. we could say that the change in quantity in terms of consolidating something would be the most right-biased reading of a change in quantity at the generic level

in contrast to this, a change of quantity by which what is known or consolidated in a particular form discoverable by the perception of the entity in question (and the perspective which finds this most acceptable or has the least feeling of aversion to it) would be the left-biased one

the problem with this is that we're not examining the qualitative change which is both intrinsic and always occurring with every change of quantity if even it cannot be understood specifically what the qualitative change happens to be, the mere observation of a change of quantity yields an implicit change of quality even just by virtue of the classification of that which is undergoing a change in quantity (classification/description/interpretation)

Personality

Structure

norms

for the right, norms are something which have as long of a lasting traditional head start as possible while still interfacing with the here and now they are to be maintained, they express aspects of reality and human life that are static the degree to which things are able to be expressed with the norms is the degree to which it remains intelligible and able to assure one of their way of living and manner of being

for the left, the norms are things which are continuously being modulated, aberrated and reformulated they are in a continuous process of being established and are things which can completely change such as to seem aesthetically unrelated to a previous iteration an interation being a frame of observation

to be truly left, one is not so concerned with being perceived as a particular norm whether that happens to be of a form or degree of similarity towards a particular norm, or whether one is setting a norm if anything, it's expressed as the absence of desire for one's expression to be reproducing or being perceived as a norm existant or not that is, whether that norm is extant, or whether it is to be realized by one having a sufficient degree of structural alignment or social empowerment in order to establish a norm through one's affects and state of being

one's effects

for the right, one is concerned with being perceived as a norm, is trying to reproduce a norm and is trying to ensure that the norms are continuously extant

convention

The left and right differ also on convention, the concept of it, what they consider to be convention, and how to go about establishing and perpetuating a convention

The right believes that convention is extant, has a tendency to always return to an ever-lasting, proper form which best represents a concept, organization or practice. Convention is something to be upheld because it maintains the integrity and true form of something in particular, and any deviation from that convention is move into a chaotic form which no longer expesses thta which it purports to

For teh left, convention is something contrived which has manifested for a variety of reasons, but which enjoys particularly elevated recognition as the established representation of something because of the social factors which effect the dissemination of information about that for which the convention applies. Conventions are meant to be broken, and must be broken as part of an evolution in all aspects of human life. The longer convention maintains itself the greater the degree to which it is place illegitimtaely and the greater the degree to which it can be difficult to interpret it for what it truly is, as well as it being the greater the degree to which the ability to discern a more appropriate convention or process of replacing convention

Hierarchy

For the right, hierarchy is something established based on eternal principles and might even have an eternal and unchanging form. The hierarchy as it establishes in front of our eyes and in our lives is just a coalescing of objects into their already pre-destined positions and so the natural order, as it arises, is always something that can be seen as something thaedn't be challenged. It must just be adored and recognized for its divine rite of manifestation as was always in the plan of being.

Now, sometimes aspects of life and the environment can get in the way of this, and the order and aesthetic of the hierarchy might come to be looking like something unnatural. That is, there are ways of interrupting the historical reality of the divine and eternal hierarchy, and so the right-biased mind might come to make a criticism of the order of hierarchy on the basis of this. If, for example, there is a historical order of destiny, and something artificial and unbecoming of humanity has tampered with the hierarchy and come to make it look obscene and like an insult to our good sentiments, then and it might the case that the hierarchy needs to be corrected to be brought back to its historical form as per eternal doctrine.

For the left, however, there isn't necessarily a respect for hierarchy. And this becomes tricky as though the right can come to disrespect a hierarchy on the basis that it no longer expresses the true just form of hierarchy which was always intended to be in a particular form, but now needs to be brought back into that form. For teh left, however, this can always be the case. There is nothing holding the hierarchy in a destined or unchanging order. The order itself is subject to change every time the insightful leftist is empowered to make that happen

This can happen in a variety of forms:

1. TRUE meritocratic influence causes the traditional hierarchy to be arrived and
2. The abolition of the hierarchy or disrespect for established hierarchy
3. the overcoming and overriding of hierarchy in order to transform the system to something which is less restrictive. Something which happens naturally and without necessary tension and friction/conflict in order to manifest. It should be the natural way of things to have this hierarchy come apart, int his case, though there can always be the particular exceptional cause

in summary, hierarchy must be respected by the right.. has a natural transcendental order and though it can be made fuzzy and disorganized, it can be restored by respecting traditional authority, so to speak

conversely, hierarchy can be overcome at any time by the left.. the order is always suspect and may very well be holding us back from a better way of doing things which actually brings us within reach of expressing true nature and optimizing our abilities

Central Power

Oh this is going to be a fun one