Scientific Cultures of Health
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?
Compassions
that can be governed only bipartisanly,
and would like to become
health care co-invested?
Political scientists worry if everything and everybody is for sale,
or rent,
or could be if the MBA's created a more competitive market price for them.
Like human resources, for instance? Air? Water?
How about fertility, sexual passion and pleasure?
Yes, we have expanded political powers into all these markets,
including physical and intellectual property,
both bodies and our sometimes competitive
and sometimes cooperative
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 mental/spiritual health investments.
Political Science is the study of economic power vestments?
In which consumers purchase public authority
by investing in privately taxing responsibility?
And responsible behaviors and attitudes,
trusts and mistrusts and distrusts,
are the subject of Health and Therapeutic Sciences.
Political and Economic scientists assume authority empowers wealth worth winning more of
and not losing to control less of;
not necessarily the same thing as increasing or decreasing health value
or cultural 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 successfully nurturing a politically enriching year,
investing in mutual trust inviting multicultural beauty dancing days
and harmonic nights,
now, but also open and accessible to future
and past EarthTribe regenerations.
Yes, I suspect political wealth branched off from economic health
back about the time we developed token value economies
which slowly evolved incorporated
private monopolistic hoarding tendencies,
as opposed to investing in next year's healthy harvest
of publicly redolent fragrances and tastes,
deep trusting warmth
emerging from mistrusting cold ambivalence.
This WinLose Political Competition Game
seems to suboptimize WinWin ecopolitical roots
and regenerative Natural Science branches.
Sorry, weren't we talking about the Science of Politics,
rather than the Economic Health-Governing Games
of monoculturing anti-EarthScience practitioners?
who would rather eat than be eaten,
and find no space or time in-between partisan rabidity
and impoverishing paranoia?
I thought Political Science was our subject
and Economic Resilience Games
are becoming our shared Earth objective?
That might feel right,
but what is this Political Wealth Table
you seem to set?
I'm noticing that WinLose political evolution stories are important,
but do not explain well-being potentialities of WinWin revolutions,
healthy ecopolitical wealth gaming conjectures.
Win today to Lose tomorrow does not comprehend redundant reiterations of Earth's natural WinWin
symbiotically interdependent ecosystems.
You have either said too much
or too little.
Explain, please.
WinWin could be a non(0)-soul objective
of resilient Political Wealth Gamers.
WinLose could be either
nurturing private health without much of any public power of wealth,
or WinLose could be
public power of authority
without healthy private economics.
LoseLose could be a despairing flatline
for ecopolitical devolutionary trauma
and death.
That is your Political Evolutionary Gaming Conjecture,
but wherein lies this Political Health Theorem?
How would you measure these cooperative powers
of health-empowerment growing wealth
or poverty?
What is health for you?
Perhaps non-apartisan formulas,
synergetically viral vital organic resonance
not doomed to dustpiles of disempowering dissonance
and unpleasantly voracious competitive tastes?
Or, is health more primally about what smells good v bad
and in-between?
What tastes marvelous or malignant,
and in-between?
What feels warm as neither too hot nor too cold regard,
too bullying or too nearly flat-line recessive,
entropic,
dormant?
This political science conjecture
has become a series of questions responding to healthcare questions,
seeking economic WinWin resolutions.
My concern about your WinWin Politics of Science
revolving EarthCentric ReConnecting HealthyWealth
is that empathic climates of trust v mistrust v distrust
may blur empirically deductive orthodoxy
with interdependent inductive advocacy.
Perhaps not advocacy so much as historic wealth analysis,
rooted in ecopolitical evolutionary WinWin v LoseLose
full spectrum of historicultural peak regenerative events
within Earth's Great Transitional Conjecture,
to win both political empowerment of polyculturing peaceful revolutions
and integrating balance of economic nutritional flow-trends
is to become inter-re-ligioned in globally co-empathic WinWin trust;
healthier than deduction's monopolistic either-or bipolarity.
Our BiPartisan Win Theorem
for defining political democratic healthcare success
can be measured against current LoseLose
systemic trauma baselines
monopolistic,
monochromatic,
rabid-toxic,
dissonantly stuck chaos
of elitist anthro-hubris,
because egocentric Self-against-Other
smells dangerously over-heated,
tastes like fast-food corruption,
and feels like doom
stalking Earth's polypathic possibilities
for global trans-associative happiness
because of our relentlessly competitive partisanship
and catastrophic capitalist competitive ways.
This Political Culture of Health Theorem
defines and refines
flatline BusinessAsUsual 0-sum liabilities
opposing what Earth's polyculturing assets
healthy wealth WinWin Gaming Design
Earth's original life conjecture
through co-empathic trust
polypathic integrity
of sacred synergy
smelling organically fresh,
and pronouncing this empowering fragrance
"healthy".
|