Binaries aren’t Black & White

Binary Oppositions have Value, but there’s a Deception Pattern Based on the Form

Maurits Cornelis Escher, Day and Night, 1938, print

Recently saw a post in an online community that raised some important points [click for the link]. Not the post itself - it was a thoughtful enough cultural analysis - the associations. Reading generates ideas that aren’t directly discussed but come to mind for tangential or personal reasons. In this case, the broader socio-political landscape that the post refers to. For this Substack to have value, it needs to identify things that are practically useful - beneficial and applicable. Like a common deception pattern in that landscape that’s not hard to see through when noticed. So not a discussion of the blog post, but credit for a train of thought. When binary thinking is appropriate and when it’s a potential pitfall. Ironically, a binary.

The Band has been hard on binary thinkers and with good reason. Reality is complex and putting things in simple boxes guarantees misunderstanding. Opposing positions always include more than just the inverse/negation of each other. Outside of logic of course. One more reason theoretical ideals crash and burn in material reality. But the Band’s perspective was [general approach to understanding reality]. There are lots of specific cases where binary oppositions are relevant. Where secondary connotations aren’t pertinent to the context. Often times there’s one overriding concern, and positive or negative reaction to that is a useful distinction. What matters is the pertinence. Abstract pairs have the same form whether truthful or false. And different things with similar forms are perfect for sleight of hand.

Frederic Edwin Church, Twilight in the Wilderness, 1860, oil on canvas

Binary thinking is natural. We have bilateral symmetry, binocular vision, sexual reproduction, bipedal movement, two hands, two lobes, and so on. Our physical nature is built on pairs. Decisions tend to be bidirectional. Even a field of choices is generally winnowed down to two. Foreword or backward. Positive or negative. The physical world presents a lot of oppositions as well. Rising or falling. Expanding or contracting. Stop or go. In or out. Magnetic North or South. Obviously there are interstitial spaces, but the distinction stands. An interstitial space has to be [in between things] to be interstitial. Twilight doesn’t change the directional polarities night and day. The point is binary thinking is natural. And not a problem, so long as it doesn’t distort understanding the truth.

Honest binaries that clarify a decision make understanding the central issues easier. The Band was criticizing imposing binary structures where they don’t belong. Binary thinkers force everything into contrived oppositions, including complex layered fields. As a reflex, it really does distort human understanding of reality. In defined contexts, we use them all the time. One more place where discernment shows its value. The beast media-digital environment is a flickering deluge of “content”. Never more important to think it through when a particular figment catches the eye.

The best known deception is the false binary - two things presented as opposing choices that really aren’t. The beast does this one all the time. School “reform” vs. status quo when the real choice is beast school or homeschool. Liberal and cuckservative when the real choice is globalism / nationalism politically or atavism / generation morally. This post is looking at a different form of deception. Closer to a false analogy between binaries, where it’s the form that creates the illusion of content sameness. Isomorphy as homology.

The blog post mentioned at the start brought three related binaries to mind, and how they are often passed off as the same. Call them moral, political, and ideological. Not a deep analysis - thats the kind of thing that could turn into a huge Band post. Just basic useable definitions.

The moral binary is objective morality. Good or Evil defined as alignment with or opposition to reality/Creation. Reality in its fullness, not a materialist chimera. My perspective is Christian so on the personal level, I define it in those terms. There are other framings that are close enough to understand. A good thing or a bad thing in common parlance. Mainstream Western “secular moral assumptions” being a subconscious cultural Christian ghost run. The point isn’t to define what objective morality is. That’s the series of Band posts. It’s that any morally conscious person will have a moral binary of some sort.

The ideological binary is not metaphysical, but gets treated as such by materialists. Modern ideologies tend to be critical of an existing order [sorathic] so the binary becomes [new ideology] / [anti-new ideology]. The part of Hegelian dialectic that isn’t retarded.¹ If things balance, the system will coalesce into two antagonistic ideologies.

Clown world plays one of the most protean binaries - Left and Right. The blog post was smart for using “the Left” to refer to a continuous atavistic ideology. It’s correct on the macro level and sidesteps all the different things left/right has meant in history. An atavism / generation or production binary does truthfully reflect current socio-ideological reality. So long as the second term isn’t limited to economic or biological spheres. It’s an attitudinal polarity. And Left/Right works as long as the appropriate context is kept in mind. Contextual, not general.

The political binary is the two talons of the same beast party system. Theoretically, they represent popular clusters of issues and people choose on the balance. Modern parties developed around post-War versions of Left and Right. Gen X remembers the late Cold War Left / Right binary - it was slippery with ambiguous wiggle room hand waved off as a “big tent”. There were actually several binaries treated interchangeably - collectivist / free or individualist, godless / “Judeo-Christian”, socialist / capitalist. Which are not actually the same at all. The binary driving events was between political systems. USA / USSR. Universal ideological claims covered a political conflict with no moral or ideological rigor or coherence. Since then the USSR’s collapse, rise of the neoclowns, BRICS, etc. completely changed that superficial world order. The only real binary is the eternal struggle. The moral one. The parties still pretend the ideological signal lights fit the old paradigm. But the old paradigm doesn’t exist.

There are reasons why the three overlap.

The areas are naturally related. A healthy person will want to get their ideological, moral, and political choices as closely in line as possible. When these are offered in binaries, perfect fits aren’t possible for everyone. But which of the two should be predictably consistent. They’re not random, like correlating [preferred side of bed] and [if I’m free for lunch].

As always, the problem is deception. The binaries represented are not the binaries presented.

The ideological and political binaries are presented as the same. Left / Right, Dem / GOP. But Left / Right only makes sense as atavism / generation, which isn’t how it’s shown in the NPC upload. And the parties are globalist husks serving - at best -different factions. By the fruits, neither offers the people productive pathways or protection. As for the moral problems - they are obvious when ideological and political alliances aren’t what they’re believed to be. So the binaries don’t align. Why then is the illusion that they do so persistent?

Mass stupidity is always a viable explanation - the NPC meme is brilliant for a reason. But the way this specific zombie mash-up of anachronism and illusion keeps lumbering on seems different. This is getting long, so a short answer. Isomorphy.

They look alike. The three fields are related, so the connection is already there. People tend not to think things through, so instincts can be sloppy. And the premise that the political, moral, and ideological do align has been an article of fake faith for a long time. Since it “seems” like they should line up, and they look like they line up, no need to think further. It’s a form / content problem. Isomorphic forms can hold contradictory content. You can pour anything into a bottle. Be attentive to pushers of binary solutions, especially excitable ones.

It’s like reading the label.

Image from a Band post on the House of Lies

1. The retarded part is mistaking ideological gradients for natural law.