Caston George is a 10-year veteran political professional and former politician, accomplished writer, researcher, author, and archivist.
How The Law of Duality Supersedes The Second Amendment
When two factors, equal in value, act in opposition, it indicates polarised stability: whether it be positive and negative, active and passive, democrat and republican, top and bottom, fixed and volatile, transmission and reception, peanut butter and jelly. Together, they may produce a variety of results, each of which will be pulled to one pole or the other, to greater or lesser degrees, creating different points on the monolinear spectra and expanding it, giving it multidimensional qualities. When two polarities synthesize a product amongst themselves due to their action upon one another, that creates the most basic of primary factors. Yet each product will, by nature, also result in the production of its opposite. For instance, the right-polarised Bush presidency resulted in the production the left-polarised Obama presidency, and the existence thereof resulted in the production of its, opposite, the Trump presidency, which is itself a synthesised product resultant of the action of the Republican Party and the mistakenly named 'tea party’, upon and with one another -- just as they themselves produced their polarised opposites, in Occupy/$15/Berniecrats, etc. From universal elements to atomic basics, to sociality, to the formation of stars, this law would seem to be true. A polarity results in a tripolarity, which by nature prompts the production of its opposite, giving a quadripolarity.
New experiment, a factor from one pole, repolarises to the opposite pole, receiving the charges and qualities of both, along with each prime point, and the resultant products, and the various virtues, principles, etcetera, thereof; and comes to stand, perfectly balanced, alone, at centrepoint in the quarternarial spectra. Or, instead of around a circle, it instead chooses to go "up", and thusly ascending to a new plane, and pioneering itself and the whole into an as yet uncharted new dimension.
Either this factor will choose one pole over another, given the potentiated qualities possessed by this factor, resulting in an imbalance and the natural correction of that imbalance, and further/escalated perpetuation, like with guns in the US, generating its opposite, which causes a product -- gun debates and hearings -- that, inevitably, due to shortsighted "Constitutional" (the document, not the actual definition of the term constitution) rules via the 'second amendment' made "permanent" (until the constituents of this Constitution choose to self-determine and not follow those rules anymore) always default to an imbalanced supremacy of the pro-gun side, which results in cyclical perpetuation, and the escalation of gun violence; wash rinse repeat, over and over again, building with each cycle and escalating in intensity, with each turn of that particular wheel.
Thus my hypothesis would seem to be proven correct.
Which sadly means that I can predict with some certainty that as long as the Second Amendment exists, people will continue to die, this cycle will continue, until the intensity gets so high after so many turns of the wheel and cyclical perpetuation that... Well... And you can take this any number of ways, until all resources are expended, and the cycle cannot continue due to either faction not being able to produce anything new amongst themselves. The stagnation of progress, and the inability to compromise, in this instance, with any result that would have meat, weight, or teeth to it, will mean that the increasing intensity of each cycle will burn out all resources, until the factors themselves are extinct.
In other words, this impasse will perpetuate this endless loop until the people are all dead. And on a personal note, I ask you what good is a constitutional Second Amendment if there's no one around left to follow it?
... Or if it produces a country you don’t want to live in anymore, cannot leave, and due the nature of its provisions and rules cannot feasibly, practically change... But I digress, as that is the topic of a very different hypothesis of mine and will have a very different result! Best broached in another post.
Getting back to our centrepoint of our quadripolarity, what if, and just think for yourself (
But what if instead of a cancellation or a perpetuation, the empowered fixed variable, with said potentiations, chooses to do something different?
Getting back to our centrepoint of our quadripolarity, what if, and just think for yourself upon this for a moment and the implications of this prospect.
Instead of inevitable doom it could do something new, choose its own unique destiny for itself, and perhaps, for the whole.
By accepting the definitions of the other four poles and their products, it falls under one of their respective domains, and as they would then define it for itself, those definitions are, by literal definition , boundaries and limitations, such as is the case in the instance of the example, the second amendment.
But if that centrepoint, so empowered and balanced, did in fact choose to throw out the definition it was determined to have by the four factions and the binary poles they fall under, it then creates its own definition for itself, and self-definition is self-determination.
That is to say, it can choose to ascend upward, as previously indicated, which would add a dimension above the previous four, just as the four points of a single-plane figure such as the square rise upward to a single-pointed focus at the apex of a pyramid, instead of yet another loop around the circle. In case of guns, in order for any meaningful change to occur, we must leave the second amendment, as currently defined, out of consideration: it only defines the parametres of the debate — and thusly confines and limits the options available the gun crisis — to only those measures past which are all under the supremacy of the black and white parent polarity, with the quadripolarity only the various shades of grey that fall in betwixt the two.
Those options are all weighted in favour of the restrictor and it’s pole, i.e., the second amendment and it’s guns, their opportunistic manufacturers, fanatical owners, and their zealous admirers — rather than the liberator, and its own pole: the side of, at its extreme, total disarmament, with its grey shading falling between loosely affiliated positions ranging from assault weapons band and magazine restrictions to ammunition taxes, which have no chance at overcoming their polar opposite, due to the second amendment and the ‘apparati systemica americana’, even if 60% percent of the public were behind such an effort, without extraordinary measures.
If those boundaries of the second amendment cannot be changed, then they must be — willfully — ignored.
If that centrepoint remains self-determined, however, and not choosing one pole or one duality over the other, and instead decides to do something of its own accord, election, and volition, do you know what that makes?
A new faction; that is to say, a new and variable element.
Whereas it/they/she/he would have been, by picking a side, kingmaker to one of the various poles and the larger binary, perpetuating the cycle either into eternal balance or into stagnant extinction, he becomes a king in his own right, and therefore constitutes an empowered faction, or kingdom, in and unto himself and his sphere of existence and influence.
You can apply this principle to the gun debate, to party politics, to interpersonal relationships, to workplace interrelations, etc.
Once that change manifests and the old limitations of the past discarded or evolved beyond, it is not to be undone thereafter (not easily, anyway), and represents a permanent alteration and shift in consciousness, as it signifies true self-awareness through self-determination, and it means that our quadripolarity chart either changes shape dramatically, such as a square or equilateral cross becomes a pentagon or pentagram by recognizing the point synthesized from the previous four points of the quadrilateral, or shall, in the case of the boundaries restricting dramatic shape changing due to the 'systemica americana’, have nowhere else to go but upward instead of outward, into that higher plane, as with the pyramid, and be either: A) The fifth faction, equal in value and power to the other factors of the former quarternarial (now quinary) factionaries or; B) their superior, that is to say, the fifth faction and director/leader/regulator thereof the other four.
Which one shall He/it/they be? No way to predict, as the fifth faction self-determines, remember?
You could ask that faction (which reminds me, share your comments this post, or questions, below! ) Though, if that fifth faction were ME, I would say, "I will both do and be what I will, and what I will will both do, and be."
And I'd be sassy and hashtag it with #LongLiveTheKing and #LongMayIReignWhadddaaaapp! cause, you know, I'm cute and stuff.
Casey Evans is a writer and columnist with Seattle Planet Magazine and ExtraNewsfeed.com. Casey reports and offers commentary on politics, culture, spirituality, and life in the Pacific Northwest.