The Circle in Politics
Ilexa Yardley 17 December 2009
If you are a thinking person, you must read this very carefully.
Arguments abound. Any time. Any place. Every time. Every place.
There are always two ways (at least) to do (view) anything (everything). This causes continual and certain conflict. It would be nice if we could eliminate one point of view or another, if we could agree on one point of view or another. 10,000 years of history proves this is (probably, possibly, undoubtedly, certainly, decidedly) not possible.
For example, are we (we are) capitalistic-socialistic, developed-developing, conservative-liberal, democratic-autocratic, right-wing-left-wing, progressive-regressive, expansionist-restraintist, rebel-loyalist, do-it-now-do-it-later, pay-for-it-borrow-for-it, debtor-creditor, tangible-intangible, religious-scientific, political-economic, truthful-fallacious, free-restricted, lawful-lawless, forceful-engaging, cooperative-resistant, encouraging-insisting, expecting-ignoring, mean-nice, good-evil, lovers-haters, killers-protectors, and-or any other intelligent pair you-we-they-anyone can construct?
Obviously you cannot have one of these without its partner. All of us are all of these sometimes. The operative word: sometimes.
Man does not get along with himself. Man does not get along with others. However, man does get along with himself, and man does get along with others. Again, the operative word: sometimes.
The operative idea here is two ideas make one, or one is always comprised of two. And, any two is one or the other, sometimes.
We find this in mathematics. Within a circle that can be visualized as one, we always have a diameter which is an interior line that can be visualized as two. For certain, any circle has, at least, two diameters. Where there is one diameter there must be many, if there is such a thing as a circle.
Therefore many lines make up one circle, or one line, as it represents many lines (diameters), or one curve (circumference) makes up a circle. This may seem unimportant, uninteresting or confusing. Or, perhaps, frustrating.
However, it is the most important dynamic beating beneath any reality man, or any other entity, process, or system, can imagine (or realize). Relationships (families) prove circle (two co-existing, eternal, points of view).
Imagination, if it is the opposite of reality, must help us to discern reality. We cannot have reality without something that is not real, and imagination, is one word that encompasses a not-quite-real reality. Again, a mandatory pair. You cannot have an idea without its counter-idea because one is background for the other (always).
So, we can use our imagination, and we must and should, to figure out the circle is an entity and a process that is part of, and, most obviously responsible for, this eternal dichotomy man must live.
Physicists should be the first to study and discern this. They have a sublime and a supreme (extreme) responsibility to humanity to do so. For once the physicists agree, half of them, that circle is reality, the rest of us, starting with philosophers and psychologists, and then followed by educators, government leaders, business leaders, economists, and everyday people, can get on with reality in a more intelligent way. (We accept two points of view as an expression of the circle, rather than man’s unintelligent choice to remain in conflict).
In the day and age when this is written, circle seems silly, arcane, jejune, insipid. In the day and age when this is common knowledge, circle seems obvious, ubiquitous, certain, predictable. By the time you read this, it is my (our) wish that you understand and accept (the) circle fully.
We respect the things we understand, as soon as we understand how (that) understanding is essential to our reality. Circle is one of the things we understand best, and, thus, respect most, if not now, eventually. This makes life much easier. It makes planning and organizing for reality much easier. It makes conflict much easier, and, certainly, more useful.
Circle is simple, which is why it is perhaps difficult to imagine, or discern.
But if you hear a heartbeat, or if you see it, you can find a circle circling there. A tap, tap, tap, in any type of beat, the wind, the rain, a movement, represents two points joined, and thus a circle circling, from, thus, a line. In a sense, a conflict.
Any two points joined are line and circle, diameter and circumference. You can find these in your imagination, and then imagine the circle circling as you hear, or see, an oscillation. Once you see it as a foundational, or ubiquitous reality, you can move it to a reproductive cycle, and you can notice the heartbeat is a reproductive cycle for many other things: beat, sound, movement. In a sense, again, a conflict.
That is, as a heart beats, it makes a sound, and it moves, and, therefore, produces, or allows for many other sounds and movements (also known as cells, organs, systems). In a sense, again, a conflict.
Tracing reality to a circle is magnificent, and, certainly, as we get our heads around this circle we can fix many things that seem unfixable otherwise. Man’s conflicts, ways of thinking, ways of organizing, ways of sharing, ways of moving, speaking, building, creating, can be expressed to better advantage.
That is, we can welcome conflicting points of view, integrate them, and move on, assuring all mankind is safe and productive in a reliable reality bound and supported by something we can understand. We can use the time and space normally consumed by conflict for something more imaginative and helpful.
In the past we have found many names for this foundation. Now we have found the correct name. Circle. Circle makes any point of view real and correct. But not without its opposing point of view.
Some will insist circle is not the correct name for this mandatory foundation. No matter. No matter at all.
Half will notice and embrace circle as the correct name for reality. This half, integrated with the other half, cannot help but produce a reality that is more reasonable, and, thus, more safe. This we can predict, assuredly (via circle, two points of view make one).
Safety and reality are in the province (circle) of the individual. We cannot produce safety for any individual. He must produce it for himself. His ideas must take him to wherever, and whenever, he feels most safe. For some, safety is not safe. This we cannot avoid. It is circle.
However, for safety’s sake, we must embrace the circle as reality, and understand it deeply. It is the only way we can survive. It is the only way any individual can survive. Without two options, no individual is safe.
So dual options in politics, and elsewhere, are valid and essential. Trying to force one option is unrealistic and never possible. Without two options, no circle. Without circle, no option. There is no no-circle no-option possible.
Two options, two points of view, are required for one. Now, finally, we can all understand why.