Paradigmatic? (and anti-paradigmatic and nonparadigmatic-singular) Song alluding outside/aspectually irrelevising of Structural Repetition:
Mike Oldfield and Anita Hegerland – innocent
Speak to me like the very first speak
You are magnificent when you’re innocent
Laugh to me like the very first laugh
You are from heaven sent when you’re innocent
The Holländischer Käsehändler says: Balance and Imbalance, Equilibrium and Disequilibrium. For example from a Structuralist perspective, they are all in the same game. A game with a structural-patternised balance of imbalance. Stability of ritual and co-constructing repetitions. Structurally structure_isable/pattern_isable for example, with the pattern pictures/mathematical representations of: Circles, or as Oscillations of a Pendulum etc.
The political can be interpreted as a great perpetual stage play (noncoherent etc. theatre) that is not meaningful as such or in-it’self’*. But it’s (maybe) something that enables the perception of pluralistic and not pre-fixated/structurised moments, things, compositions, siutations or other phenomena. The zero-sum or otherwise empty theatre of social fixations like friend/enemy-constructions, good/evil-ascriptions, „moral“ hybris and pretentious „self“-construction-by-and-with-aggrandisement etc. in a relativity-construction (and regularlry with a group-construction) as for example: „We“ are better than „them“, „I“ am better than „you“, „our“ ideology is better than „yours“ and perpetually so forth.
It thus may be for example metaphoric and on the level of constructions and patterns: A frame, an energy structuration/channeling, a contingent but effective structuration that enables human beings to see things beside that contingent frame. To have a reference frame where to put the need for structure and order and „reliability“. And (‚then’/parallel) — sensing/intuiting/knowing/etc. the contingency and nonbasicness of every such particularistically** constructed frame — to perceive things besides this theatre.
* Structurally: Empty.
Asymmetric (post)structurally: Perpetual delay/shift of realisation (because Emptyness or other state of [not]being).
Individually: exist no de-individualised constructions.
Something that explains ‚everything‘.
In a structural(istic) perspectivs one can interprete that something that explains everything explains nothing. Because it has no contrast.
That’s a perspective. And in another, not relativistic or structuralistic perspective, one can also assume that there could theoretical-practically be someting that explains everything. Because as a theoretical whole of every single and absolute and whatever-form-of existing things, when they’re all explained in every possible way and angle etc. Then there would be everything explained. Infinity captured, for example. [In my opinion Georg Cantor is a transcender sender/subjectcomposition-aspectually expressing interesting things.]
We can call this state or reference „Hologram“, „God“ or „Heaven“ etc. Or Fredric Jameson*. 😉
*And his theoretical way of writing about critical totalisations to engage other totalisations.
Reviving socio-biology with structuralism/structuralist modes of human thinking and structuring/ordering the world?
Human brain -> Big and creative from evolution -> Too big/hot/activist to be calm -> Too differentialist (by nature, with or without being biologically-culturally necessary any more) to transcend the in/out, good/bad etc. dualist constitutions and hierarchical contrast-addiction. And the human need for battle, winning, fighting, and creating problems to solve them and creating new ones again and again and again.
During ‚the week‘ we are working in jobs, ordinary jobs, but it could also be non-ordinary jobs, still they are jobs, and part of the binary „job-nonjob“. At the weekend, we meet to play different roles and have fights. I, for cultural example, and some others play ‚the fascists‘, another group of guys* play ‚anti-fascists‘ trying to make the world a better place by beating the shit out of us. „We against them“ working well (for a satisfactory experience, as long as we stay in the illusion of the game) for both sides. Sometimes we have different chronological orders in which we play out the role-play. But it mostly contains the following elements: We argue, shout paroles and phrases, engage in more or less intense name-calling and individual and group-construction-oriented insults. Sometimes with rather fact-citing or selective fact-cherry-picking arguments, sometimes rather with the big worldview-pictures sabre fencing/clashing of constructs. Often with much emotional input, sometimes bringing some awareness of absurdity into the play by shifting into sarcasm or irony.
Often, it culminates in a scrimmage (double meaning of fight and exercise/sports) and a more or less intense (depends on our energy level, form of the day etc.) fight.
Afterwards we are either going our own way, if we are emotionally still too much into our roles to sit together calmly. Or we are drinking something together and have some lower-profile-role-based group activities, like having conversations about life, playing darts or table football or watching a football game in the saloon.
* We are mostly male participants, but in other contrastive constellations/role-play settings, we also have female participants.
Michel Focault was assigned with a lot of concrete ideological attributions. This is the way human beings in social contexts narratively incorporate social actors (and maybe especially prominent and outspoken public figures) into the societal, social and individual narrative structures (and/or structural narratives).
To me, he was a searcher/seeker that looked for the questions and followed them to new questions rather than answers of which he knew that they were new artificially fixated narratives. He was more interested in the process and the search, as poststructuralism does as a method/way of thinking etc., than in the construction of new fixated answers. Though we ’need’/have the fixations we also need/have the seekers and wanderers (and as the [post]structuralist could say: By constructing the answers/fixated orders we also always produce (besides the symbolic „enemies“ and the „other“) the new counterweights to them with it.