Political Science is the compare and contrast study
of governing authority powers
with concomitant economic responsibilities,
and…um…opportunities,
speaking perhaps too candidly.
Why not other powers,
nutritional loves that can be owned only cooperatively,
can be, and would like to become, health invested,
but cannot be purchased?
Political scientists wonder if everything and everybody is for sale,
or could be if the MBA’s created a market for them
by persuading people they would have more value
if they paid for,
rather than freely borrowed.
Like humanity, for instance? Air? Water?
How about fertility?
Yes, we have expanded political powers into all these markets,
including physical and intellectual slavery,
both bodies and their nondual minds.
Really? You can buy kindness?
Health?
Well, we do have Motivational and Anger Management Therapists.
And, pharmaceuticals are big corporate businesses
heavily invested in the wins and losses of political gamesmanship.
Political Science is the study of economically powerful games?
In which you purchase authority by investing in responsibility?
No, responsible behaviors and attitudes,
hopes and mistrusts,
are the subject of Health and Therapeutic Sciences.
Political and Economic scientists assume authority is wealth worth winning more of
and not losing to control less of;
not necessarily the same thing as increasing or decreasing health value or merit,
or demerit.
Political scientists remain neutral on health meritocracies of power.
But economic health and political wealth can go together, right?
When you and yours are having a nutritiously enriching politically sustaining year,
investing in empathic trust inviting multicultural beauty dancing days
and harmonic nights,
now, but also open and accessible to future
and past Earth regenerations?
Yes, I suspect political wealth branched off from economic health
back about the time we developed token value economies
which rapidly developed corporate monopolistic hoarding tendencies,
as opposed to investing in next year’s healthy harvest
of politically redolent fragrances and tastes,
deep trusting warmth
emerging from mistrusting cold ambivalence.
This WinLose Political Chemistry Game
seems to suboptimize WinWin ecopolitical roots
and regenerative potentiating branches.
Sorry, weren’t we talking about the Science of Politics,
rather than the Chemistry Games of political practitioners?
I thought the first was our subject
and the second is becoming our shared objective?
That might feel right,
but what is this Political Chemistry Table
you seem to set?
I’m noticing that WinLose political evolution stories are important,
but do not explain full optimizing potentialities of WinWin revolutions,
healthy ecopolitical wealth gaming conjectures.
Win today to Lose tomorrow does not comprehend redundant reiterations of Earth’s natural ecosystems.
You have either said too much
or too little.
Explain, please.
WinWin could be (0)-sum objective
of Political Chemistry Gamers.
WinLose could be either
nurturing health without much of any political power of wealth,
or WinLose could be
political power of authority
without healthy economic responsibility.
LoseLose could be the fundamentalist baseline
for ecopolitical devolutionary terror and death.
That is your Political Evolutionary Gaming Conjecture,
but wherein lies this Political Chemistry Theorem?
How would you measure these chemical powers
of health as wealth or poverty?
What is chemistry for you?
Perhaps algorithmic formulas,
rationally-symmetrically viral
or doomed to dustpiles of irrational dissonance?
Or, is chemistry more primally about what smells good v bad
and in-between?
What tastes marvelous or ugly and toxic,
and in-between?
What feels warm as neither too hot nor too cold,
too fevered or too nearly flat-line recessive,
negentropic,
dead?
This political science conjectural process
has become a series of questions responding to theoretical questions,
seeking mutual WinWin resolutions.
My concern about your WinWin Politics of Science
revolving Earth-Centric ReConnecting Chemistries
is that empathic chemistries of trust v mistrust v distrust
may blur empirically deductive orthodoxy
with spiritually inductive advocacy.
Perhaps not advocacy so much as exegesis,
rooted in ecopolitical evolutionary WinWin v LoseLose
full spectrum of historicultural experience
within Earth’s Great Transitional Conjecture,
to win both political empowerment of multiculturing peaceful revolutions
and integrating balance of economic nutritional flow-trends
is to become re-rooted in globally co-empathic WinWin trust;
healthier than either-or,
and our Theorem for defining political democratic chemistry success
can be measured against current LoseLose
fundamentalist baselines
monopolistic,
monochromatic,
rabid-toxic,
dissonantly stuck chaos
of elitist anthrocentric hubris,
because egocentic struggling-against-other enculturation
begins to smell stale and over-heated,
to taste like day old microwaved fast-food french fries,
and feels like death stalking Earth’s polypathic possibilities
for global transregenerational happiness
because of our relentlessly competitive and catastrophic ways.
This Political Chemistry Theorem
defines and exegetically redefines
flatline oppositional BusinessAsUsual shadows
of what Earth’s polyculturing healthy wealth WinWin Gaming Design
originally conjectured
through our co-empathic trust
as polypathic chemistry
of beauty smelling organically fresh and balanced.
gdill52 