Doing Injustice to JUSTICE

Doing  Injustice to JUSTICE

(Note: at play here is logic and illogic.
and analogic, the irrational as well as
the rational. Forgive me. I Hope you
don't have a problem with that.)

I’ve been setting up either/or’s (reductively)
because—if you think about it: an either/or
(yes/no, open/closed, on/off, 0/1) is always
going to be at the head or bottom of
some complex issue. True? 
 
Shake IT down: any complicated controversy
going on—like monkeys jumping from limb to
limb jiggling the whole tree & I think I got one
cornered and he’s a off by his tail swinging
to a new branch HA! And it goes round
and round, up and down:
monkey business.
 
And so IF I can get IT down to some sweet
fundamental  either/or  root  (small IS beautiful /
bigger IS better, say—if I’m an economist;
go to class, hike Suicide, if I’m a stunned student)
—or reduce it even further (the more reductive
the better, keep the monkeys at bay): to Mall or
not to Mall; to nap  or merely nod ) so much
the better.
 
Without doing injustice to complexity and diversity
and free ranging argument: at the BASE of all
controversy and converse-action is an either/or.
Resist it as much as you want (it’s never black
and white Sam, always mixes of grey etc):
it’s still the truth.  A complex grows out of a
simplex—some division, separating
dividing, multiplying--the  varous grays
emerging out of the black & white
distinction.  
              

 





Indo European da, dai “to separate” –
divide, divine, daemon, demon, time,
tide. In the beginning is the distinction.
Draw one of your own  or hitchhike
the universe of ones already drawn.   

And you can fool with the complexity or with
the simplicity or (if you are a Stage III thinker)
mess with both plus the relationship between
simplicity and complexity AND maybe the
frame of minding of your worthy opponent.
 
“Sam: you set up these either/or oppositions
and insist we “do justice” to both, but can’t
you conceive of the possibility that only one
side is worth privileging—and the hell with
the other?”
 
Sure—plenty.  To sleep in or come to class;
to work in NYC or Hawaii,  to vote Democratic
or Republican, to Just Vote or why bother…. Call
them faux opposition if  they don’t really challenge
you with a choice that involves a sacrifice—

Maybe they DO, maybe you are torn between
two loves,  say: sleep/class, NYC/Hawaii,
Democrats/Republicans. Well then they would
be FOE OPPOSITIONS and you'd be caught
in the middle, like devils and deep blue seas, 
rocks and hard places and  THAT’s when this
dealing-with-OPPOSITIONS is interesting
and becomes (I claim) liberal art..
 
What to do?
How to do justice to both,
avoiding doing injustice to either? 
Cake and Eat IT too?
 
This is where the notion “dialectic” rises up,
an emergent phenomena.. How do  I come
to terms with my LOVE and my HATE,
with my FEAR and my Confidence?’
With my desire to be civil and yet the
necessity of offense?

Foe Oppositions, damnit: damaging .
I'm damaged and damaging--the more
I wiggle the tighter my double bind. . 

Turn them both up.
Polarize. Put them in play.
Don’t let either side win.
Anticipate revelation.
Small apocalypse now & then, too.  

xxxooo, Sam