Before my reasoning about this issue with a specific example, I have to explain that catching a circular process requires using words that imply an earlier version of the same kind of thing or process, like “reorientate”, which thus mean returning to an earlier position or a line of thought.
The variation in opinions among people concerning politics can be coarsely divided into left and right. This division is, however, actually a multidimensional statistical classification of people, since the opinion of the people in this matter actually is a set of opinions in different political matters (ie, a difference along several axes). It means that this division is bound to compel a new division along some other axes, for example a particular faith, which people that do not feel at home in either left or right think best reflects the difference between them and leftists and rightists of the other kind of this kind (ie, among non-believers of this particular faith). Similarly, each new division compels a new division until only single things remain, which can’t be divided further.
At this practical end point for the principle of division (ie, fission), people reorientate into the principle of fusion, instead starting to form coalitions with people they think best reflects the similarity between them in contrast to other kinds of this kind. This principle can’t, however, return all the way to the beginning from a the single state, but must instead end in a single coarse dichotomous polarization of all people, which means a main crisis for humanity.
After this crisis, humanity once again reorientates into the principle of fission, and so on…
This process is the circle of opinions. This circle is predetermined so that all of us just takes the chair that appears to fit us. We’re just pawns in the game. The only way to liberate ourselves from this circle is to view this process from above, ie, to listen to what our enemies say. In this position, we can take part of the arguments that our intuitive enemies claim and keep our minds open to either accept or contradict them. Only by this approach can we reach a truly democratic position, ie, not assuming that any division, coalition or opinion is correct, but instead letting every democratically elected government try to reach its goals for a restricted time period, like 3, 4 or 5 years.
The problem with this system is that a blind can’t lead a blind, but what’s the alternative? Mohammed’s seditious expressions in the Koran?