I am impatient and common sense(?) would tell, imprudent. But I can not resist. I want to use my new found knowledge to find answers. Regard it as an experiment, a sort of case study. To put all the data out and applying the framework and let the thoughts unleashed, without fear and prejudice. Well just a little prejudice, the least. But not to the point that will compromise the thoughts.
As I was thinking lately about attractors, the set of states that a system falls as chaos is testing all configurations possible. Chaos unleashed as is physically observed by the frantic involvement of all the people engaged in the presidential elections. That drives the efforts of countless individuals in their attempts to preempt the chances of one or the other candidate.
But what would be these attractors in this particular case? Corresponding to what is mentioned here
"falling into an existing attractor in the case of a recognised odour, but bifurcating to form a new attractor in the case of a newly learned stimulus."
An existing attractor, like a recognised odour or bifurcating into a new attractor in response to new learned stimuli. What can the existing attractors be? Or what a new attractor be? Which of the candidates represent or even, is the expression of the existing attractors and what of the new attractors? There is no doubt about that. Mr McCain rely upon the existing attractors whereas Mr Obama represent that part of the american state that wants to bifurcate to new attractors, to a new set of states, be that social, political or other.
As what would the content of the attractors be, a fair amount is deduced by reading through the article 'For Obama, a Taste of What a Long Battle Would Hold' in New York Times.
"In the last few days alone, Senator John McCain has mocked a statement Mr. Obama made about Al Qaeda in Iraq. The Tennessee Republican Party, identifying him with his middle name as Barack Hussein Obama, suggested that his foreign policy would be shaped by people who are anti-Semitic and anti-Israel."
By 'mocking' instead of 'criticising' brings about an air of superiority and condescension, the superiority myth of the white race. By referring to the middle name of 'Hussein' makes artificial connections by the name's Arab origin and assumes that, the name determines the foreign policy. Soon it would follow the transliteration of Mr Obama's name to Ossama and again will instigate connections with Al Qaeda. And even the very name of Mr Obama for its lack of the Anglo-Saxon origin, will be used against.
The thoughts brought out in this post
"History bears witness as countless norms and laws have perished as they journeyed to infinity and oblivion as they were not part of the attracting basins and countless more keep perishing and will perish as the human kind draws closer to its goal."
Is that the time, where the norms that define the policies that Mr McCain stands for, to journey into oblivion, as they are not part of the attracting basins. And the policies that Mr Obama stands for, taking advantage of their favorable position within the attracting basins, to materialise a state that will find Mr Obama a winner of the presidential election, and Mr McCain his policies and their followers into the doldrums of history?
No comments:
Post a Comment