The human mind, like matter, is infinitely fragmentable and compartmentable. This is why people can have diverse and even contradictory political, economic and monetary opinions. This is kind of a two edged sword in that differences of opinion can lead onto genuinely new thinking (but only if the philosophical underpinnings of that new thinking are consistent and thoroughgoing which marks the difference between a crank and the innovator or even a visionary) or lead to cognitive dissonance on the scale of an entire society as we’ve all been noting in discussing Bill’s post. The latter mindset and mental habit also tends to degenerate into continual contentiousness as in Democrat/Republican, Tory/Labour etc. and which also ends up with one or the other side declaring TINA and trying to enforce their reality on everyone. The “trick” in avoiding this scenario is integration/the integrative process itself which consists of combining only the particles of truths, workabilities and applicabilities in both opposing ideas, theories etc. and not trying to enforce any of the untruths, unworkabilities or inapplicabilities of either side which only ends up throwing the entire process back into inevitable contentiousness/mere duality as in the political party situations as per above. Finding an actual solution to problems consists of this integrative process of opposing ideas, theories etc. and which leads to a third and more unifying condition. People can see this as correct and the actual process, but what is most difficult is overcoming/deciding on the importance of the ethical superiority of such integration over opinion or involvement with personal agenda of power, personal opinion and/or control. And this is why a thoroughgoing linguistic/psychological/philosophical unity is so important…because it clarifies and focuses one’s understanding while simultaneously raising the ethical nature of the debate.