Regarding the neural manifestation of the psychic domains

[tcaudilllg]

Studies have shown that people whose brains respond quickly to change lean liberal, and those whose brains respond slowly lean conservative. Psychic domain theory suggests that there are two axes of change, one oriented toward adaptation to changing circumstances, and the other oriented toward changes in consciousness. This suggests that the current findings are indeed, only half the entire story, and that the adaptation axis has yet to be identified.

Before I continue, I would like to state my feelings on the nature of human existence. I believe "we" are work that is carried out by our bodies; proper, "we" are electrons, electrical current. Neurons form the physical mass which regulates the flow of electrons, and gives us coherent identity. Neurons are very much like people, more so than other cells that we know of: they compete, communicate, and perhaps in ways that we have not substantiated, fight amongst themselves. Neurons communicate via neurotransmitters shared between them, the same influences their actions. But do all neurons respond to all neurotransmitters equally? It seems unlikely given that the neurons themselves have observable textural variation and too, the degree to which regions of the brain are specialized. Saying the brain is "complex" doesn't cut it for precision research, or even for accurate understanding of the individual dispositions held by what is in fact a living community.

I hypothesize that there is locked in the DNA of neurons a disposition for or against change. The behavior of this distinction must be very subtle and only emergent as a collective community dynamic. The details are fuzzy, but the point is that because neurons themselves produce all neurotransmitters used in mental processing -- no other organs of the body seem to have a direct role in neuron production -- it must be that it is the neurons which determine what transmitters are produced. There must be as-yet unknown genetic dispositions toward some neurotransmitters over others, which I believe in the macro yield not only political disposition but also the IM aspects, elements, and even the functions themselves. Particularly, localized colonies which have certain dispositions toward one transmitter over another, will engage in behavioral patterns distinct from those of other colonies as a factor of their selectivity, thereby processing different forms of information.

[Search]

VERY interesting........

I disagree to an extent. I have no problem at all with change...if it presents as better than the existing. However, I am conservative. Obama AND McCain both make me sick with their politics...... I also think that changing something just to change it a waste of time and energy.....and, if a matter brings with it a good case why wouldnt you change it for the better?

[tcaudilllg]

VERY interesting........

I disagree to an extent. I have no problem at all with change...if it presents as better than the existing. However, I am conservative. Obama AND McCain both make me sick with their politics...... I also think that changing something just to change it a waste of time and energy.....and, if a matter brings with it a good case why wouldnt you change it for the better?

That's the problem: change-oriented people -- distinguished from conservatives and traditionalists -- are engrossed in the constantly changing world around them. To explain it, from their view, detracts from their observation of the change. They ask, how deeply must we explain it before we will be understood? To them change, and the reasons behind it, can be understood given the context of what they observe to be a constantly changing world. As a rule, they desire change on basis of increased efficiency and depth of understanding.

Another thing: that which liberals propose often gets twisted around by the circumstance axis. (I most frequently call it the life axis, because its primary intention is reproduction and population sustainance) Welfare is a case in point: Lyndon Johnson never intended for people to raise families on welfare alone, but it happened because people on the life axis (the adaptists and traditionalists) tend to regard the quality of their lives as instinctual matters. (consider the importance they place on the family and its advancement. Liberals will not do this; if they hoard up cash at all it's usually for a cause of some sort. Instead of saving up for a new car, they give up their cash to Obama's presidential bid). Consider the case of my mother, who told me that gas prices were so high that it was better for her to take a lower paying job closer to home than to take one that was several dollars higher but required a long distance commute. This is happening all over the United States as qualified professionals struggle to stay employed in the face of what is beginning to look like cultural upheaval. However, if you notice it's life axis people who are doing it. (you can get a good sense of where adaptism in particular is at at any given moment by looking at CNN.com's headlines. Autism, oil addiction are their big buzzwords now). Progressivism buzzwords are corruption and accountability, because the big push right now is to drown out the id from public life; isolate it; study it; and see what can be done with it.

The life axis is always embroiled in its own battles of institutionalism and replication vs reform and individualism... but they hate outside interference because they see the consciousness axis as uncomprehending of the intricacies of efficient process. Iraq is (was?) a mess because Bush tried to force a cultural change there, and ended up getting the heavy traditionalist al Sadr enraged. But Bush invaded in the first place to unseat Saddam, a sociopathic progressive. In my view, the American life axis thinks Bush lied about Saddam developing weapons of mass destruction (a threat to their lives and a violation of their trust; they barely understand progressivism or its motives, remember). But Bush has a difficult time showing self-restraint in the face of opposition.

Progressivism tolerated Saddam because it was frankly terrified of those crazy Iranian conservatives who practice the sharia law crap. They knew the Sunnis and the Shia hated each other... so many reasons it seemed for Saddam to be left well enough alone. I remember thinking Saddam would destroy dams, bridges, you name it; but I misunderstood Saddam's commitment to progressivism, embodied by his commitment to the image of the modern president who abides by international law yadda yadda.

I think you should vote for Obama because for one thing, more than most progressives he has the nation at heart. He's a natural consensus builder who is judicious in his judgments and knows how to avoid making people upset. (well, everyone makes mistakes) This means he'll do a lot to restore America in the eyes of the nations abroad, such as the EU. He's a lot like Reagan in that he only aims for the immediately feasible, and won't endorse idealistic jaunts that could enrage his constituents. We've had a lot of presidents who had his trait of consensus leadership and all of them good. He won't pull completely out of Iraq unless the Iraqis ask us to, but he will draw the troops down faster than Bush has. He won't leave until the terrorists are defeated, that's for sure.

He might raid Northern Pakistan in search of Bin Laden... progressivism wants him bad for the death of Benazir Bhutto last year, and of course everyone wants to see the charismatic leader of al Qaeda brought to justice. He hates partisanship because he knows it divides the nation. It'll be a very Ronald Reaganesque presidency.

...Can I ask you a question? You conservatives have a habit of using one nation to attack conservatives in other nations you deem not as culturally advanced. Why is that? I mean, it's definitely conservatives who run the show in Iran right now, and yet Bush (a conservative) wants to blow them up. Why?