The Shadows of Totalization, Part XXXV
A polemic isn’t necessarily closed to net external force…In order to show a polemical discourse was inertial (totalizing) it needs to be shown net external forces don’t or can’t act upon the polemical.
If a polemic inspired investigation, criticism, or questioning (even if there were better ways of inspiring these) I would be unable to call the polemical inertial, although maybe I could still make a case for calling the polemical relatively inertial. However, I am looking for some social discursive or nondiscursive practice I can call absolutely inertial. Can I build the case that the polemical is absolutely inertial?
I want to temporarily propose that the polemical is fed by principle, not by investigation, criticism, and questioning. I have to come back to how I know the polemical is fed by principle, or principle exclusively. I first want to see: what is a principle?
Wikipedia defines a principle,
A principle is one of several things: (a) a descriptive comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption; (b) a normative rule or code of conduct, and (c) a law or fact of nature underlying the working of an artificial device.
(The Wikipedia definition corresponds with the other dictionary definitions to which I have access.)
A fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption could not change without losing its status as a fundamental law, doctrine or assumption. As fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption it could not change. It must be inert. If the polemical is fed by the inert, it would be to that extent less apt to change. It would be at least somewhat stabilized. How much stabilized?
Painting by Gloria Petyarre.