Loved this! Reminds me a lot of a chapter I like from a Jason Josephson-Storm book called "Metamodernism" where he talks about philosophy going in circles throughout history, but with each go-around the clarity moving slightly higher; so it kinda makes a cylinder instead of a circle with *one* dimension. Each time you return to an idea, you are technically examining the same view as before, but just a little higher-up in understanding it on a vertical axis (i.e; adding literal depth; understanding its nuances, etc.).
Can the pretty constant (until recently) switching between the party affiliation of the US president (two terms Democrat, two terms Republican) be a real-life manifestation of a general version of this mechanism?
Yes, if we also consider that the parties themselves change a lot over such a time scale. Per the median voter theorem, the parties try to adjust to what the electorate wants; and at the same time they try to be different from the opposition. So they tend to be contrarian but also attuned to what the majority wants, which gets us something close to (meta-)*contrarianism and explains why there's political alternance in most democratic countries. (Although not all, e.g. Japan)
Excellent points! The part about "seemingly irreconcilable positions" is especially interesting; most things are indeed complex enough for there to exist justified ways to hold apparent contradictions together. Although sometimes contradictions are also a sign of bad reasoning...
Loved this! Reminds me a lot of a chapter I like from a Jason Josephson-Storm book called "Metamodernism" where he talks about philosophy going in circles throughout history, but with each go-around the clarity moving slightly higher; so it kinda makes a cylinder instead of a circle with *one* dimension. Each time you return to an idea, you are technically examining the same view as before, but just a little higher-up in understanding it on a vertical axis (i.e; adding literal depth; understanding its nuances, etc.).
This is making me think of the "historical helix" in this essay: https://blog.nova-nevedoma.com/p/truth-crawling-back-to-her-well
ooh this was a good one! Thank you for the rec!
Can the pretty constant (until recently) switching between the party affiliation of the US president (two terms Democrat, two terms Republican) be a real-life manifestation of a general version of this mechanism?
Yes, if we also consider that the parties themselves change a lot over such a time scale. Per the median voter theorem, the parties try to adjust to what the electorate wants; and at the same time they try to be different from the opposition. So they tend to be contrarian but also attuned to what the majority wants, which gets us something close to (meta-)*contrarianism and explains why there's political alternance in most democratic countries. (Although not all, e.g. Japan)
I love this, I feel like my whole life is that drawing of A-B-A meta infinity.
Excellent points! The part about "seemingly irreconcilable positions" is especially interesting; most things are indeed complex enough for there to exist justified ways to hold apparent contradictions together. Although sometimes contradictions are also a sign of bad reasoning...