This video examines ideological possession through the lens of epistemic structure, cognitive schema formation, and developmental psychology. Rather than framing polarization as merely political or moral disagreement, I analyze it as a structural rigidity within the architecture of belief formation itself.
Drawing from depth psychology (Jung, Neumann), hemispheric lateralization theory (McGilchrist), evolutionary anthropology, and philosophy of knowledge, I argue that both religious fundamentalism and strict naturalistic materialism can exhibit identical epistemic closure despite divergent axioms. The issue, therefore, is not the content of belief, but the rigidity of the structure through which belief is processed and defended.
Using the problem of suffering as a case study, I explore how metaphysical claims are frequently critiqued outside of their own narrative and ontological frameworks, resulting in cross-structural misinterpretation rather than substantive engagement.
In response, I propose what I term oscillatory epistemology — a disciplined movement between stability and revision, tradition and progress, acquisition and integration. This model does not advocate relativism. Rather, it argues that coherent development requires grounded axioms alongside interpretive adaptability.
The capacity to revise interpretive schemas without dissolving foundational structure may be essential for both individual psychological integration and collective civilizational stability.
The aim of this discussion is not to defend a single ideological position, but to examine the mechanisms by which positions become rigid — and to propose a developmental pathway beyond that rigidity.
Michael Thacker 