The Left, The Right and The Dangers of Dual-Thinking

Familiar to most is the idea of mentalities known as the Left and Right. Extreme left wing is represented by the archetype; tree-hugging, drug-taking, flighty, laid back, protest-conducting hippies. The right 'archetype' is something like (if not exactly like) fascism and typefied by suit-wearing, bible-thumping, conservative authoritarians. So ingrained is that duality in the modern era (post-industrial revolution) that we tend to assign these archetypes historically before then. Sometimes that is apt (the United States of the 1950's) and sometimes it is not (the third reich of WWII). Incidentally, the Nazis, while somewhat spiritual, were more against religion than for it. The real problem is the number is sides we have; two. If we had, for example three sides and three arms this would be a discussion about trialisms.

Afa, Lota and Bufu

So lets imagine a scenario; There are three monkeys named Afa, Lota and Bufu of indeterminate gender. These monkeys live exclusively in trees and venture to the jungle floor only in extreme circumstances. One monkey, Afa, likes to swing from branch to branch without having its hands empty at any time (to avoid falling). Afa is cautious and avoids confrontation and is what you might call 'organized' with his bananas. The other sibling, Lota, leaps from branch to branch seemingly flying through the air effortlessly. Lota is brash and tends to be one to start fights. Bufu, as the youngest sibling, tends to be a moderate version of the other two; alternating between swinging branch-to-brach and leaping. Bufu stands up for itself, even starting a fight, if necessary. Bufu does, however, find itself frustrated sometimes though, because it doesn't seem to have as much fun as Lota and gets injured more often than Afa (though not as much as Lota, who misjudges leaps sometimes and has the injuries to prove it). Afa, the eldest, is seen as the wise one - something that frustrates Bufu as well.

Why is Bufu frustrated?

This somes down to identity. Everyone in the jungle knows that Afa is wise (and in much better condition than Lota despite Afa's age), and that Lota is fun (though a bit beat up seems much happier in general than Afa). The other denizens of the jungle take this as fact - Afa will not partake in tomfoolery - and Lota will always do so. That's just how it is. Afa for wisdom and Lota for fun. Nobody seems to pay much attention to Bufu, though. And why not? Bufu considers itself capable of being both like Afa and Lota. Really Bufu's entire personality has been based in reaction to Afa and Lota; what are perceived as extreme opposites and a major part of Bufu's life. Perhaps had Bufu been born first, or even second they could have reacted to Bufu's personality - but what is Bufu's personality? Hence the frusutration. Bufu sometimes wonders if Lota's wildness is a reaction to Afa's strictness or visa-versa. Typically, Bufu finds itself in the middle.

One day Bufu notices Lota swinging branch-to-branch like Afa. For some reason, it feels dissappointed - even angry. Is it because Lota is cramping Bufu's style and becoming Afa/Lota-esque too? No, Bufu decides - what style is there to steal? - so it's not about Bufu. Has Afa finally rubbed off on Lota, who has seen the error of its ways? That seems dissappointing to Bufu. Anyways, Bufu feels somehow wrong about the whole thing - like it's somehow unnatural.

As it turns out, a few days previous, Lota had taken a particularly nasty fall and injured itself. As soon as the injury had healed itself though, Lota was back to its old ways. Bufu felt better about it - though he realised it might have felt equally strange had Afa had begun to act Lota-like. Bufu couldn't figure out why.

The Three Monkeys as Subjectivity

Here's what happened: Afa and Lota, while apparently opposite do represent two of the greatest subjectivities in Bufu's (though fairly limited) life as a monkey. The point is not that Afa is the archetypal (or sterotypical?) older sibling; cautious, wise and authoritarian. Or that Lota is the archetypal middle child; wild, foolish and rebellious. Their sibling-position (which is probably more familliar to most) could be switched and it would make no difference to this story. It does not matter if indeed Lota's rebelliousness was a reaction to Afa's authoritarianism. While Bufu wondered about that, he didn't know and took Lota's personality at face value. The point is that their personalities are seen by Bufu as polar opposites. Bufu doesn't dissect their personalities as being prudent or wild or whatever; they are just the two ways of being - two extremes. Bufu's worldview, behaviours and even personality is generally a reaction to theirs. At best, all Bufu could do is exist somewhere in the continuum between what it perceived as poles. In this simple universe, the subjectivities most obviously evident to us are Prudence (Afa) versus Impulsivity (Lota) - though Bufu (being a monkey) hasn't labelled them as such. To Bufu, swinging branch-to-branch is what Afa does, which means being Afa-esque. Crazy leaps is what Lota does, so it's being Lota-esque. These are sujectivities that bind (give boundary to) Bufu's reality. They are a part of what he experiences a conciousness. That's why Bufu becomes dissoriented when Lota begins acting like Afa; his subjective boundaries (which comprise his subjective narrative) are becoming blurred.

Not a stupid monkey though, Bufu has come to understand other subjectivities seperate from the siblings; "The Bottom", in particular, is important because it acts upon everyone in the jungle - even Flying-Things sometimes. The Bottom is the ground in Bufu's mind and exerts a force we know as gravity. Bufu doesn't know about gravity so he thinks The Bottom 'pulls' things down to it (which is not entirely inaccurate scientifically). The Bottom can also technically 'consume' things as well. So for someone who lives their life in a tree, The Bottom takes on a monster-like quality that is to be feared, if not respected. Afa and Lota, perhaps predictably, react to The Bottom in different ways. Afa seems afraid of it. While Bufu has never seen Afa fall even once, his over-cautious locomotion through the trees suggests Afa really doesn't want to fall as Lota has. Lota seems to enjoy teasing The Bottom by nearly falling all the time - though Lota clearly doesn't like it either.

Bufu

One day Bufu decides it's had enough. Bufu feels it is losing monkey sanity and needs to do something about it real soon. Should Bufu act Afa-ly or Lota-ly? "Bufu-ly would be nice - it's who Bufu is, after all". It seems it must make a decision. Perhaps a compromise. Perhaps it could swing like Lota (which Bufu enjoys) but avoid conflict (which Bufu doesn't enjoy) like Afa. Bufu decides that that idea is ingenious for a monkey, perhaps rivalling Afa for Afa-ness. But, then it hits Bufu; "wouldn't I still be just an amalgam of the two anyways"? The solution, while Bufu thought it ingenious, leaves a foul taste in its monkey mouth. What to do?

Bufu decides to out-Afa Afa. Bufu arranges its bananas in nice order and begins brachiating through the trees even more carefully than Afa. "I am very Afa. More Afa than Afa, in fact". Now Bufu will be the venerable wise-one. After about a week of this though, Bufu realises that Bufu is going to go mad. Where Afa is reserved, Bufu had become repressed. In a fit of desperation, Bufu decides it would instead out-Lota Lota. Bufu will be the one everyone comes to for fun. The pain is worth it. So, Bufu finds the highest tree it can find and makes a collosal swing and leap from the vine. The leap was far larger a leap than even Lota would have attempted and Bufu knew that it would most likely result in disaster ("if Lota couldn't do it, how could Bufu"?). But Bufu didn't care anymore, Bufu needed to find Bufu - even if it meant becoming acquianted with The Bottom on a permanent basis. Bufu wasn't dissapponted and hit The Bottom so hard as to be knocked unconsious.

Poor Bufu

Bufu, while laying unconsious and helpless, got carried off and likely eaten by an indeterminate ground predator. "Poor Bufu", said a grieved Afa and Lota in monkese. "He just couldn't live in our shadow anymore". "Bufu tried to outdo us but never found Bufu [monkey sobs]". Ending this way, this tale becomes a cautionary one with Bufu as the protagonist and Afa and Lota as the antogonists. The older siblings did nothing to actively antogonize Bufu other than be themselves. Overshadowed in this way, Bufu was a self-antogonist and protagonist. His hamartia, an inferiority complex coupled with his lack of self-awareness, led to his downfall - which makes this story a tradgedy.

Well, the author of this piece finds many of these literary devices limiting - so I won't end the story there. I said Bufu was likely eaten by an indeterminate ground predator. Well, shortly after doing the dragging, the predator decided it wouldn't like the taste of the particular kind of monkey Bufu was - and left Bufu for tastier game. Bufu had time to recover from his injury and think about what it had done.

The Rest of the Story

Bufu woke up and saw unfamiliar terrain. Bufu had been dragged into a field with nothing but shrubberies - nothing taller than itself. On the walk back, Bufu realised it was already doing something neither Afa or Lota had ever done - remained on The Bottom for more than a couple of seconds. It was something that had never occurred to Bufu. From that time forward Bufu knew that not only was The Bottom relatively safe, not only that it could go there whenever it wanted to, but that all along there had been this third option apart from being Afa-like or Lota-like. The fault for this was not Afa or Lota's - they were merely doing their own thing. No blame is to be assigned to them for it was within Bufu that the conflict existed.

Afa, Lota and Bufu as Subjectivity

I think it important to mention that while Bufu came across subjectivity by accident, it could have just as easily done it through an act of will. Bufu could have decided instead of making the suicide swing that it would willingly investigate The Bottom. In doing so, Bufu would have been neither Afa-like or Lota-like. The fact that this perceived 'third option' is, in fact, only one of infinite options is perhaps a glimmer of a thought in Bufu's mind. In this scenario, when Bufu stopped reacting Bufu realized the right path. So intense had Bufu thought about swing styles and banana arrangement that it didn't come (in either scenario) to the realization that it didn't matter and that these subjectivites were limiting its ability to think. Also, the refreshing realization of The Bottom as subjectivity not only made Bufu realize there more still, but that the whole Afa/Lota dualism was so increadibly small.

The Aftermath

Bufu eventually returned to the jungle and was reunited with Afa and Lota - who were glad to see their younger sibling. Recent deforestation in the area by an indeterminate cause forced the monkey siblings out of the trees. Bufu's experience with The Bottom is the only thing that made their trek to another wooded area possible.

Why this Story Makes any Kind of Sense in the Real World

Afa is obviously the Right and Lota the Left. Again, the similarities are only allegorical and not the point. You'll find that if you mix or/and replace Afa and Lota's attributes, it makes no difference. They represent archetypes (familiar or otherwise), dualisms that exist in a polar continuum where all other possibilities are subsumed within them. In real life, people are forced to make a decision, for or against, Left or Right in their journey for subjectivity or identity. Forever forced into reacting to the dogma that is dualisms. Like the older sibling, this is not anyones' fault actively, except maybe the one who allows their thought to be limted to a dualism. In the real world, the deforestation could have been any number of perceived catastrphies. Catastrophies that the limited mind would have perceived as tradgedy - and likely not their fault. But what other avenues/paths had they tried? What is also probably worth mentioning is that both Afa and Lota's personalities were very possibly reactions to the greater sujectivity that was The Bottom. Allegorically, this can be seen as political parties reactions to the issues.

My Point

My point is: The idea of the Left and the Right is innappropriate (not to be confused with outdated - which implies progress). How can we still be using these political archetypes when they're so incredibly old? Parties are constructed in several countries along these archetypes and nothing is really changing. Perhaps labels are inevitable, but when you have to assign your political leanings along even two or more dualisms, you are limiting your options. Dualisms create either a continuum or, worse yet, an ultimatum that is limiting us as to how we look to classify our issues.