Or put in a less than free-flowing summary:
Primary forum wants us to reply to posed question of choosing between- or in-between success or hapiness.
I think we derived from that the political choices between, or in-between socialism and communism.
The entailed relevance here is connecting success and hapiness with communism and socialism, as though the above were correlate.
So let’s assume they are, or, could be.
Could be one person be more happy or succeed in one form of government and not the other?
Could Communism offer happiness but not success, and Capitalism offer one or the other, as well?
My spin revolves around the question of how people function under either systems of governance, and how such function determines what the eventually reduce to their meaning of how they opine about such functions.
And thirdly, what objective criteria , based on both types of derived meaning: can cast a unified structural cohesion that can serve as a model for cyclic re-presentation , or fine , ‘harmonic’ fed back system , that can induce the basis for the workeable model.
Or how the entailed choices that we are able to make in every day life reflect the underlying political processes that may pre-determine every day life choices between hapiness and success.
I called it a paradigm illusion, because, it goes to the very essence of democratic principles, specifically voting rights .
How real in that case is the view that individual votes mirror the democratic objectives of the plurality ?
There are grave doubts of representative government’s validity, or at raising the question of insinuation of such validity corresponding to the phenomenally reduced function and capacity of that idea.
The issues raised are cyclic, harmonic and based on a reversed paradigm, that are dynamic and nit static, so if the philosophical underbelly is as such, how can it’s mirroring linked to humanly assumed rights of hapiness and success be measured simply rhetorically?
And has this ever really occured in the process of political evolution, that require built in procedures that can mirror each others’ tenacity, a reified firm of eidectic limit-so that the simulation of such will not rise tell far or below expectation?
In days when political holes induced paranoia, the need to realize social psych danger was minimal because red baiting, hirishima, and Hitler were recent history.
GIs coming back from thresholds of death were toughened and saw things as they were, not like today’s brave new world order tries so hard to candy-wrap a world, whets everyone can have 3 cars in the garage, and push buttons to find out how to keep up with the jones’.
The paradigm illusion is perfect and both have prices to pay, wether it is ‘happiness’ or’success’
The Hitler example and the eugenics experiments prove beyond doubt that the illusion’s maintenance at the expense of exposing the truth, was met by severe repercussions.Stalin and any other ideogologue exposes their own underlying fear. Those who fear betrayal will betray their kin, at the tip apex, without a flinch.
How does this work out and pushes political philosophy to it’s very limits. The collapse of the USSR left the political arena with a huge hole, that which was becoming credible to the plurality.
The minority elite, had to shift the paradigm so as not to confuse, but to save the world from The Coming Catastrophy that no one could afford.
So the process of inversion became the norm, and no one except those possessing death wish could argue with it.
The thing transcended the death of objectless transcendence, and it validated everything that far.
There can not be a reestablishment to epithats like politics not based on identity, but not one self madd, but one rather, mass produced in manufactured think thanks producing uniformity.
The loss of the material dialectic was a severe blow not to have reprecussions, and the NWO had to somehow the messages behind the brave new world of 1985, and what is more comforting that AI will become responsible for it.
After a who but hystorians of the middle of the last century, in the old millennium can remember the structure that eventually fell victim to the passage of time.
Oh but yes, we are living beyond the end of hystory now, somewhere far away and long ago.