>>Both these are human systems in which the random nature of chance may have
>>a disproportionate effect. Hence their exciting nature.
>>
>>The fact though that the Democratic and Republican parties have subjected
>>themselves to such a close- fought risk-filled contest, should not be used
>>as an excuse to glorify the two party system which keeps the overall
>>dynamics of political life, firmly under the influence of capitalism.
>>
>>Chris Burford
>>
>>London
>
>
>comment: an interesting question is why or whether the 2 party (plus a
>perterbation of 3rd parties) does seem stable and to legitimate what
>people accept (Hume's paradox, chomsky).
>
>the same issues that cause 'chaos' also cause its 'colapse' into stable
>attractors. for 'radicals' the issue is can one can get out of the 'rut'
>we are in.
I think that is right. It is very difficult for radicals to get out of the rut that we are in, because the two or two and a half party system is fundamentally very stable. Even when it is going through a perturbation with a closely fought election, that is paradoxically just when you can see all the factors moving in to stabilise the overall effect of the system.
This is not opposed to the quantum, Heisenberg uncertainty, of the fine grained phenomena - it actually arises out of it.
So why are such bimodal systems relatively stable? - with broadly determinate results even though the fine details are indeterminate?
One answer is that if they were not somehow self-perpetuating they would not last and they would not exist for us to analyse them or moan about them. There would just be chaotic noise. A tautology.
Certainly there are many contradictory systems in nature, that is, systems composed of two or more forces which contribute contrasting aspects to an overall system that is self-interacting and self perpetuating. This links in with traditional dialectical approaches to analysing reality.
Hume's paradox I don't recognise. Any further details?
Chris Burford
London