Head vs. Heart: The Two Party System
Why is there almost always a great point on both sides of an argument? There are infinite opportunities for conflict from the vantage point of opposite sides of the superimposed polarity. Humans are prone to following a binary system of thinking, as it reduces complexity and inner conflict. Just like the two party system, but vastly less intricate. It's a head vs heart battle. Economics vs Ethics. On one end, the logic would be both economic and evolutionary logic; efficacy and utility rules. On the other, humanitarianism and environmentalism are the priority; compassion, liberty, and sanctity. Technically, both are systems of morality and logic, but in their own respective ways as they see through different lenses, and have their own priorities.
The utilitarian end of the spectrum is like the tough Love that we need to be able to utilize, protect, and economize our surroundings for survival. Morality would be the soft Love; acceptance, forgiveness, and unity. Where the utilitarian logic falls short is immoral logic: overusing resources, prioritizing the physical qualities over the ethics of the matter.
Its counterpart, the ethical standpoint, would see its weakness in illogical morality: oversight of utilitarian opportunities, telling the truth when the truth may cause harm to another, sticking to your values but making survival more difficult.
The time-scale also heavily comes into effect in this predicament. Head-oriented perspectives focus on short-term problem solving while heart-oriented perspectives focus on long-term sustainability. Cause and effect need to be looked at with both perspectives to find the proper policy.
This dualistic conflict is a core part of the beauty of our human nature. We look at a field and the head sees inventory, efficiency, and usefulness where the heart sees beauty, natural order, and sentimental value. When survival gets involved, that's where both sides are trying to solve the same problem but they disagree on what's causing it, and have different priorities. One side wants to farm for maximum yield and will be susceptible to endorse exploitation while the heart may want to leave it untouched even amidst a food shortage. The effects of both soil mineral depletion and social unrest both need to be taken into account.
Balance is needed so that a society doesn't turn into a soulless calculating machine of consumption nor a system of chaos that enables mercy on the merciless, thriving psychologically while issues of survival are abundant. The head lacks compassion and the heart lacks structure. The head tells us what constraints and challenges we need to overcome and the heart leads us to do it with awareness of the bigger picture. Leaning excessively towards either side of the spectrum inevitably results in fragility. Too much head and you get authoritarian technocracy, too much heart and you risk instability and exploitation of naïveté.
It's not a matter of which is right and which is wrong, but a matter of where one is disconnected from the other. Disconnection versus integration. We need to constantly seek a third option that takes into account the initial resiliency of the body, survival, and also follows the pursuit of meaning, and evolving sustainable, peaceful civilizations.
