Schism

Politics fuels itself off of divisions and platitudes that distort and/or magnify those divisions. A contest in which the two sides throw platitudes and one another will go nowhere, as the arguments are not framed in stasis with one another. Only through reasoned logic can stasis be achieved, and in arguments which even have the slightest speck of a theological tinge, logic can never be enough.

To have is to not have

Possession is an illusion that our conceited psyches project upon things and other people. The only thing that one can possess is oneself, and even that could be up for debate in less individualistic cultures.

The problem with psychology

Having a large vocabulary for labels of people does not mean that one actually understands people. Quite the opposite, by focusing on the definitions and dynamics of the labels, one is distracted from true understanding of the very people these labels supposedly represent. In this case, understanding is instead circumvented by thought that turns inward in the pursuit of classifications which understand labels and categories, not nuanced and changing people.

The basis for "abnormal" psychology is this: Person X shares characteristics with Group Y of people therefore they all share Z Problem. Even if we do accept the judgement that Person X actually does share Group Y characteristics (which are classified with Q label) and that this judgement is not erroneous, does that really mean Person X has Z Problem which is given Q Label? Or, even if Person X has Z Problem, does that mean that the nature of Z Problem is because of the qualities that are shared with Group Y? As one can see, in labeling people this way, there's a conflation of correlation and causality that impedes actually understanding people. Instead, labels are projected.

Ironic -- how the development of vocabulary to discuss people and their problems detracts from understanding people and their problems.

Have to go tutor. Will revisit this topic soon.