Choices, Dialectics and Subversion

I have written about the idea of dialectics which I have applied in many areas. Once again, quite a number of people have taken this synthetical idea to a literal sense. It should be viewed from at an abstract level and not on a micro level. Dialectics only work insofar that on a certain aggregate level- it should not be used as a form of conflict for conflict sake; hence justifying starting an argument just so to gain an upper hand. It goes against the principle in the first place.

The idea of conflict resolution insofar that the outcome would be better than a preponderant force imposing it's will on the general interest. Therefore the idea of starting an argument just so to gain an upper hand is in itself a cop-out and rigging of the idea in the first place. The reason is very simple- the intention is to impose it's will in the first place- the idea of conflict is just a means to an end, an end of which is to perpetuate it's own interest.

Therefore it results in an escalation of tension of which is detrimental to the spirit of it in the first place. Therefore one who starts an argument just for the sake of starting one while pretty familiar in the final outcome is in itself stating a parochial interest in the name of a general one.

It is therefore that the final outcome is ultimately worse off- this is because in comparison with a harmonious model where harmony and hierarchy rules, how does maintain this model while espousing another- which is ultimately the conflict one. Insofar in this case, it stated intention is a dialectical one but it's real one is that of harmonious and hierarchical one. Therefore of course we do better if we say and do harmony but how does one say conflict and do harmony. It's final outcome is already in itself a foregone conclusion.

Therefore, in order to operationalize this idea in our everyday actions while being aware of it's aggregate outcome is ultimately the way for it to work. Because prevailing interest always attempt to prevail, there includes in everyday discourse, in the intelligentsia and in the mass media. Hence it would be easy to see the idea in operation- the idea of conflict for conflict sake- while remaining ignorant that it's form prevails over the function.

This can be felt in an angst that we feel everyday- the existential question whereby where does my actions genuinely lead to? And if it leads otherwise, why the hell do we still follow it in the first place.

And the moment you take that route that somehow doesn't feel right- there is a sense of fatalism and it is only cured by all forms of pressure and tension releasing exercises- of which I believed most of us are already quite familiar with.

And the cycle continues every single day and minute. You are never released until the day you die, somehow is the feeling that you get.

Therefore that's why I have previously stressed on the importance of choices. The choices that we make every single day, aggregates the outcome on any given day. Hence if there is intention to cop-out, and sufficient people does the same thing, eventually the sense of fatalism feels even more heavier.

But the problem remains is that the moment I put it in words- it is then subjected to subversion. Someone would ask you the amount of water you drink today would result in when you would die- it is subverting the idea of choices to add an even harder dosages of fatalism. That's the reason that my ideas and thoughts were subverted till this end insofar that to perpetuate a prevailing interest. I am restricted by words but the idea remains authentic.

Choices make or break your day, but ignoring some choices is in itself a choice- because we must be aware that why should be forced to make a choice in the first place; who are these people to impose a choice on us in the first place- and decide our future for the rest of our lives.

Not making a choice is not being random- it is therefore that information is needed before making a choice, and not having to make a choice just because someone forced you to. Are you are playing Russian Roulette.

Subversion is not just restricted to the young and reckless- anyone can subvert it for their own ends. It is the intention that lies behind it- one is to assert an interest, the other is to perpetuate their's. Subversion is hollowing out of the words and to fill one's own to serve it's own interest and nothing else.

Therefore insofar that the ideas and thoughts I have written were already well-recognized among many- it surprises me that it could be twisted to a form quite unrecognizable by many familiar with it. I did not promote conflict- and to start an argument just for the sake one- neither did I say to make a choice on even how much water you want to drink to prevent drowning- all I ever did say was that the choices we make ultimately would make synthesis and not to continue one.

Therefore we have to recognize when the idea was being subverted in the first place- and the angst that one would feel is symptomatic in that, something is amiss. Why do I feel short-changed- one way or another- it's like damned if I do and damned if I don't?

That is really when your interest has been siphoned off from you. You would have done much better otherwise. Why must you make you choice in the first place- who says that drinking ice-cream today will lead to obesity 40 years later?

These are not choices but "categories" created insofar to contain your desires inasmuch that it could be used to better manage your needs. Management is not fatalism- if your cup is always full, then how do hell do you move your cup without spilling anything in the first place. When your cup is too full and filled to the brim. It would mean then that, no other substance can go in- hence how then can your cup be constantly full every single time; unless you can tell the future. And if we can, why do we bother working in the first place.

Really at the end of the day, this is not a clarion call to start a rebellion or revolution- this is a clarion call to ask yourself every single day, what have you done to improve your lot. The reason is very simple, people will always want to perpetuate their own interest- starting a revolution could just play into their own hands. How then could you improve your interest and lot without ever being made to make fatalistic choices- these are NOT divinely made choices, but constructed categories; it is malleable and have always been, otherwise the world would be stagnant for a long time.