I was thinking about some contentious ideas like the TPP pact and political issues. I can see where the excess-substance of the Ideal-Real breaks apart into antithesis and moves off in diverging directions. Before the divergent break, there are antitheses that wind themselves together like a braided cord, there exist differences in the reality/ideal substances but these work together as if one substance, and it is upon those shared substances that the depths of life and human life exist. We are only what we are because of those shared-mutual depths in us, which shared depths do make up the world itself.
This is Parodites' idea of anti-dialectics, the antithesis continues to develop more antitheses, and these still more, ...until there is this long braid-like thing in the fabric of existence. The braid is made up of material and "immaterial" (ideas, facts, triadic) substances. Now, what we have with humans is very interesting, exampled in the contentious issues I was thinking about: the depth of being (in this case, human beings) is finite in practice (although perhaps in theory is infinite) and thus can only hold a finite amount of daemonic substances; the braiding of the previous anthtiesis-series is based on the fact that these series are able to incorporate as an existing 'being', like a person, and in a more general sense of the society as a whole, but because of the finite and accumulative time-bound nature of that being, at a certain point the antithesis-series is unable to project its next-step antithesis into being proper. When this limit is reached being "sees itself" as the negative threshold of all that it is capable of, and it is forced to conceptualize now upon that threshold-limit namely its thought, action and affect polarize in the terms of the most-recent antithetical categories of the receded antithesis-series.
Like with TPP, "free trade is good" or "free trade is bad", polarized positions based on certain arrangements of facts or ideas about facts (which may or may not be true) such as in the first case "increase wealth, productivity, cooperation" and in the latter case "loss of national autonomy, neoliberal fascism, outsourcing jobs, colonialism", that sort of thing. The fact themselves are tangential and don't even bear upon the reality, which is fascinating. Only the perception of the facts really matter at the threshold-limit, and the facts themselves only matter because they must at least in some sense exist in order to generate the grounds of perceptions of "facts". But the facts themselves would be, if they were actually catalogued and known in reality, an articulation of the most-recent point in the receded series of being, namely the world at large and a fuller accounting of it; then the totality of the true facts would mandate the currently-arrested antithesis-series to break with its threshold-limit-lock and bring the two diverging series together, i.e. wind the braid another step forward.
This is what human history represents, this reaching the limit and breaking the existing series into divergent flows, only to at a later point have an existing being become large and true enough to assume the most-recent point of the series and thus unite the divergent flows back together, only to again at that point cause the series to create new antitheses which create new divergences. It's incredible how this works. So really my task to apply my philosophy and thought generally to the problems of political economy is only another false (partial) attempt to assume the receded series into the present moment (threshold limit), but currently I am not able to do that because I don't have nearly enough of the true facts of the matter, nor enough understanding of the history of it all. Were a person to gain both of those things they could complete the cycle again and push the world into a further point of the series (as I think Nietzsche did). The braid itself is all that really matters, and eventually every point in the braid which had formerly been a reality in every sense of the word, becomes just another unitary domain of daemonic contents productive to the whole history upon which is mounted the threshold-limit of the present-moment space and time arrangements being read-written in real time, which we call "life".
So the task of political economy or other applied philosophies cannot succeed until one could reach the point of being able to adequately unite the diverging series represented by the many irreconcilable contradictions in the world today, when it comes to thought involving political economy, society, psychology. Without this all such thought and work can't be anything but, at best, a spur in the side of future thinkers who might attempt that momentous task of really changing things, which means really knowing them. Yet our work in "pure philosophy" is safe, exempt from this problem because focused only on philosophical investigation itself. This is exactly what makes philosophy so powerful and why philosophy is already-always the negative-implicit form of knowledge and the self: philosophy as 'pure thought for its own sake' is freedom from the realities of the braid and its threshold-limit.
Philosophy has not understood this reality, the braid and limit thing, but that failure of philosophy is on an entirely different order from the failure of so-called applied or practical philosophies, because the applied philosophy isn't for its own sake but is aimed at something concrete, namely reconciling something in the past with the present i.e. bringing currently divergent flows back within the ontic braiding.
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N
“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning