The usual view of the political spectrum is this kind of smooth dichotomy, almost a yin-yang emblem. There's one side, there's the other side, there's a lot in the middle, and then there's the "horseshoe theory" connection between the two far ends, almost like a wormhole.

There are several problems with this view.

1) Politics isn't unidimensional. There are more dimensions, including several that are very well known and influential.

2) Even if we focus on this conservative-liberal essence, it's probably not accurate to represent the idea as a single variable on a spectrum.

3) Depicting conservative-liberal as a spectrum implies that the ends are complementary and equally valid.

What happens when 3 fails, for example when one end of the spectrum develops an aversion to information, science, education, empathy, etc?

Now you've got two sides, still, but one of them is frequently or largely wrong. Yet there's this illusion that both have a lot to offer, even are equally valid.

I'm for equality and egalitarianism, but I'm not for telling people their delusions are real.

Color makes up so much of vision, yet it seems mnemonic. For example, this red colander from the dollar store and these red apples near it are about the same color, but the similarity is superficial. What makes the fruit skin red and the plastic red are not the same. While the redness of the apples tells me a smidge about ripeness, the redness of the colander tells me nothing of the sort; it's a decoration. The colander is red for a sensory pleasure of redness. We seem to use color to help us distinguish among items, but not, day to day, to tell us in absolute terms what they comprise.

When we go for a walk and look at things, their colors often tell us very little. If we were more scientific, the colors might help us identify materials on a molecular level. But the colors in themselves do not tell us much. Objects that reflect red do not seem to share anything else with each other, in general.

When we look out into the universe, the picture is a little different. Wavelengths of light are among our best resources for identifying what elements and compounds our telescopes detect. Yet when we look around us on Earth, colors help us sort objects and materials but tell us little to nothing about their character. White may evoke purity for some, oppression for others; even for the same people and same items, these reactions may be evoked at different times. When I see blue sky and blueberries, the similarity of hue tells me nothing, so far as I can see. Yet I know that clear daytime skies and the light dusty patches on those berries look similar, despite, I think, having nothing in common beyond a relatively small wavelength gap.

A price tag does not accurately measure the value of anything.

Most of us accept this on some level, yet we spend lots of time living as if prices do accurately reflect value.

And some of us are deceived entirely. There are monetary fundamentalists among us.

It isn't that we shouldn't have prices or money, but given that neither actually reflects value - does not reflect it either accurately or precisely - it is rather dangerous to encourage an illusion otherwise. That wouldn't be like an illusion in the movie theater, where you can forget you're watching a movie but five minutes later walk out, step into your car, and drive away, no crazier than before. When we believe money truly reflects value, some truly horrible things happen: children starve, diseases aren't treated, people freeze sleeping on the street, etc.

People make a big deal about not caring what anyone thinks, and then they become spiteful dolts over the silliest things. It's as if what they really want is to warn others not to care what they think, so they can opine recklessly in reaction to others. The old two-way street clogs up. Many seem, by this prosaic "not caring" heroism, to be admitting their own opinions tend toward moronic jerks of the knee.

I care what people think, and that's in part because my thoughts are worth something; I want people to care what I think in turn, given that I care what they think.

It isn't that *I* think it, or that I *think* it, but that I have put a lot of care into the thought. That is why I think others should care, and it is why I care.