This is the third and final post about viewing things slightly differently via situations. The first post is here and the second here.
Situations have two aspects, a physical aspect and a logical aspect. When situations change or evolve, new situations may be generated with different physical and logical aspects. In other words, natural laws may evolve and change as the logic of situations evolve and changes. Natural laws applied to complex situations such as social trends, are not so much inexact as variable, possibly even unique.
People are said to be broad-minded, tolerant or sceptical when they understand the complexity and range of linked and embedded situations encountered in real life. People are said to be narrow-minded, intolerant or gullible when they take too few situations into account.
Analysing real life via situations is what we actually do, but our personal situations differ, often markedly, so we are unable to analyse all situations in exactly the same way and equally unable to reach exactly the same conclusions.
Similarly, we are not able to analyse all the situations enfolding another person with precision, simply because we ourselves are enfolded within different situations to which different logic may apply.
Political life is about promoting some situations over others with the aim of causing them to become dominant. As already touched on in the David Cameron example, the issues to be analysed are the comparative stability of social and cultural situations and the resulting trends.
Situations, their stability and their changes are what we experience as evolution, in its broadest sense biological and possibly non-biological.
That’s it. All I wished to do in these three posts is to demonstrate how easy it is to view things from a very slightly different viewpoint – and maybe how necessary. Success or failure is not the point – the point is to explore - and it surely isn’t difficult.