Political Function for the Psyche

There are many descriptions of domains, and the first of its mistakes is an overbearing construction. By being contextually restrictive, there is the possibility that the domain does not relate to the individual, thus preventing any narrow objective, and even if there were a rumination, it would not be realized by the individual. This is commonplace in the restrictive settings of religions that may not be relatable to individual parameters. The second problem with an overbearing domain is its lack of receptivity to what is external to it, so that even if the domain is serving the individual parameters, it may not serve to adequately receive information that is external to it. However, because we noted that the individual and the rumination are completely paralleled fundamentally, the domain cannot ignore the rumination nor can it be unrelatable to the individual. It appears unrelatable because it complexifies itself and represses certain material, making it a puzzle to notice the relatability which exists at all times. The access has been disturbed, but the domain is instant and serves the individual in completeness. If it were unrelatable, it would not have any vitality to stand upon. The main way to disrupt access is to invert the domain’s appearance, so that every parameter reflects its opposite, acting as ironic prose relative to the real intent. The irony is possible because the psyche is available to refraction and poetic instances.

It becomes overbearing for that very reason — because it is ironic, imposing a very strict ironic notion so that the irony is lost from the process, and thus access is lost as well, even as relatability remains intact. We find this very commonplace with political conceptualizations, which are a metaphor by nature — a country is neither an individual nor concerned with individual parameters. The only way for an individual to interact with a political formation is to apply it as metaphor to their life, allowing it to reflect personal systems. However, that very circumstance has the political organization become overbearing, pushing the metaphor to such lengths that, even as the relatability is the same, access to that metaphor is diminished. Consequently, it is believed to be true and genuine, even as it operates as a metaphoric construct like any story or narrative. In this contemporary era, it feels most ironic because of the inability to notice this process.