english version

The principle of asymmetry and extremity

 The function of natural mechanisms is characterized by stability of its rules. Usually there are fluctuations only within the mechanism, caused by asymmetry necessary for the mechanism to function. Asymmetry causes harmonizing and therefore improves the mechanism. I listed market deviation as an example. Democracy is an example of a mechanism, which works on the base of certain non-symmetries that are constantly harmonized into equilibrium, but at the same time life creates many others. Such a system can exist independently on its surroundings and function eternally. Man himself is a kind of mechanism working on the base of non-symmetry. Hunger or any other insufficiency (non-symmetry) makes people work.

Extremity is created with a huge deviation, which goes beyond the interests of the mechanism, works against the mechanism and is a decomposing value. Extremity is excessive concretization, usually without any borders. In an unnatural life, extremity is proportionally higher by the lower understanding of the general. Extremity is also caused by absence of negotiation circumstance, usually belonging. Extremity is sometimes based on reification of an idea or a value and creating of an idol.

 Hegel’s and Marx’s dialectics is based on polar values (thesis and antithesis), which are re-worked into synthesis with the help of a fight. This synthesis is not a balance, but a new quality. Such a described development can exist, however it does not have general validity like its authors expected. The experience of the Communist regime was different. While democratic society tries to harmonize entrepreneurs and manual workers so that the society functions well, even though often there were extremities and it was necessary to solve things the problematic way, after some time, balance was created anyway. By destroying the capitalists in the Communist regime, the mechanism vanished and the fights over this area stopped and moved to another area. In the end even the Communists themselves learned that they need the natural mechanism of capitalism and they restored it. The fight for restoring harmony is a part of stability. Harmony of the opposites – capitalistic competition and worker solidarity is necessary, it is a constant theme and a target of conflicts. It is not possible to sustain any of these extremes permanently. Despite this, synthesis /new quality/ does not take place – the only thing that is created is balance. In a natural mechanism, there cannot be any synthesis born upon the ruins of both polarities, the polarities have to exist so that the mechanism works.

 The poverty of manual workers was caused mostly by overpopulation caused by better civilizational conditions and the capitalists tried to solve this problem by extending production and employing everyone they could. Let us not forget that the products had to be sold mostly to the rich and at the same time they had to make money for their investments so that they could employ more people (and make more money). Settling colonies, higher profits per hectare and using unsustainable material resources were used to solve the poverty, but advanced countries managed to get rid of it no sooner than the birth rate dropped. Capitalists could make people envious because of their lifestyle, but division of their property would not change the life of proletarians much. The whole violent version of social revolution was based on wrongful thoughts and it did not bring progress (land reform, which created the middle class, was a different story).

Therefore a history full of wars and disasters is the history of human revolt against the natural principles. These are constantly repeating acts of rulers, who resisted naturalness, who thought that they could control the society better than a natural order. Some of the earlier rulers claimed that they served God, the more recent rulers were considering themselves gods and therefore they thought that they are unmistakable. One extreme caused the other one. Voluntary rulers caused revolutions as reflections. How else could they remove an arbitrary ruling based on constructive projects? How else could they introduce a regime based on natural principles? Sometimes even traditional monarchies fell down, because the rulers were not acting morally, caused wars or drained the people for their own cultural campaigns. In short, every ruling not based on natural principles is prone to instability and extremity. It is given by human imperfection, which makes the requirements in the fight for their promotion extreme.
An example of extreme is professional sport. While most children are limited in exercise, directed towards the monitors and effort is made so that they become a life-long clients of an expensive healthcare system, another group is forced by their ambitious parents to resign on happy childhood with natural exercise, they are overloaded and they are made to be monsters, isolated from a normal life and made to deliver superhuman performance, so that the degraded majority finds a certain life segment inside their monitors. The meaning of sport is however widely based competition of most of the nation. Of course, such extremities appear in life many more times.

 Extremity also means supporting the interests of minorities. Minorities do not contain many people, but their interests are more important than the interest of the majority society. Everyone talks about the interests of the minorities and promotes them. This is for example feministic effort to promote the minority of women, who are ambitious and want to work in line with men (men get in their way). It is certainly right that these women have equal opportunities, however extreme promotion of their interests leads to requirement that all women be ambitious and make career, because otherwise they will not be equal. However most women naturally tend to family life and want to find a partner, who is secured financially. Due to extremes enforced by the minority this is not popular and women are pushed away from their natural mission, they do not want to talk about it and culturally they adapt to the minority, which usually leads to disruption of natural life.

 An often seen method of extremes is enforcing equality. For example enforcing the equality of homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Both these types of relationships are naturally not equal, because homosexuals do not have children; they are therefore a deviation, a handicap, to be more accurate. Promotion and advantaging of homosexuality (extreme promoting of interests of a minority exceeding necessary protection) can damage the interests of the society by involving young and suggestible people, who stand at the edge of the society, into this type of sex and therefore damage the interests of the society by not promoting family life. This of course applies to other types of handicaps too, if affected people are cared for excessively. Less successful people of a majority society then can see an advantage in such behaviour and try to learn it, or they do not appreciate their health, because it is not an advantage for acquiring life success. This applies to people on the edge of the society, who instead of trying to change their position with personal initiative, rather solve their problem by falling into a “cared for handicapped minority”.

 In a society where there are no moral rules and only the market is in power, not that the market became extreme in principle, but it seizes the whole life – politics, healthcare, culture and family. It supports infamous one-sided commercials, exaggerating in the name of promotion, convincing about untrue and illogical facts etc. Extremeness needs conditions. In this case it is dysfunction of other natural mechanisms, whose function is taken over by the market, so that complete chaos is prevented. I would say that this is secondary extremeness, directed by the whole paradigm. However the market has an aggressive character, it tries to push forward for promotion and nothing fixed opposes it.

 Extremeness is also a method of discrediting various movements. For example moderate nationalistic movements are still looking for an enemy and internally place themselves against other nations or races. Usually they very quickly exceed defending the national interests and start hating other races and nations more and more. They will proceed to searching for examples that are not exactly moral and acknowledged and the movement will succumb to real extremism. Some movements would not have a reason to exist without an enemy. The public would not recognize other movements without being extreme, because they do not contain an appealing idea. The same applies also to some ecologists, who get “stuck” with their idea. Ensuring the survival of a beetle species is very expensive, unreal requirements are pushed to extremes and consequently this can mean using some of these “useful fools” for damaging one of the competition companies. On the other hand there are efforts to discredit some of the ideas with pointing out their extreme derivatives (nationalism, church crimes of the past) as if these ideas cannot be normalized and everything has to be extreme at all times. All this is just a result of not enough general thinking. Getting “stuck” with a specific and reduced idea usually leads to extremeness and polarisation.

As I already said, also freedom and equality became foolish virtues, especially because of extremeness, which is a kind of method of their reification. Freedom changed into arbitrariness and equality changed into relativeness.
Natural mechanisms and dual sets, such as the family or the nation, are decomposed because of extremeness causing polarisation. Polarisation means isolations of the polarities. This can happen in a family, where the parents start to hate each other and every word of one causes a hateful reaction of the other. The protagonists isolate themselves, which in today’s modernity is widely supported by individualistic upbringing and easy possibilities of separated living. Natural mechanism is being decomposed. This can happen also in politics, where political parties polarize. In the end it culminates with hateful fights without any rules. Yet for the right functioning of the mechanism it is necessary that the polarities stay the same and one of them always create asymmetry provoking the other one to activities. However they cannot be isolated because isolation is turning inwards and shift from the mechanism. Polar values have to stay opposite to the mechanism and get activated with the help of it.

I will say here that disunited education usually caused by home schools and schools of various ideological directions (religious or other schools) without unified base of the national ideology can cause decomposing of the society, because the themes are opposing one another and children do not learn to meet other opinions and be tolerant, which is necessary for different groups to coexist. Polarization can have a dialectic character – it means destroying of the mechanism and creating a new mechanism, possibly destroying the polarities too. For example the start of the civil war in Spain – you will find out, that both parties (Socialists and Nationalists (Falange)) were polarized in the society. Every citizen joined the ranks of one or the other, even though he had to lower his standards substantially. New mechanisms, alienating the parties and their internal systems, were created. Just like various communities fight each other, here it was political parties that became communities. The White Army lost the civil war in Russia mostly because unlike their opponents, they did not create a mechanism with inner rationality. They fought each other without any common order.