The dichotomy as a tool may serve well to distinguish entities - but the risk of forgetting everything in between is significant. Think Hegelian dialectics holds some promise of nuance if not hybridity. Fully agree, if we had the answers to what good systemic is, we wouldn't have to "trial and error" - it would perhaps be ideal (not entirely sure in regards to human life and contingency), but for sure not real (currently).
The dichotomy as a tool may serve well to distinguish entities - but the risk of forgetting everything in between is significant. Think Hegelian dialectics holds some promise of nuance if not hybridity. Fully agree, if we had the answers to what good systemic is, we wouldn't have to "trial and error" - it would perhaps be ideal (not entirely sure in regards to human life and contingency), but for sure not real (currently).
The dichotomy as a tool may serve well to distinguish entities - but the risk of forgetting everything in between is significant. Think Hegelian dialectics holds some promise of nuance if not hybridity. Fully agree, if we had the answers to what good systemic is, we wouldn't have to "trial and error" - it would perhaps be ideal (not entirely sure in regards to human life and contingency), but for sure not real (currently).
The dichotomy as a tool may serve well to distinguish entities - but the risk of forgetting everything in between is significant. Think Hegelian dialectics holds some promise of nuance if not hybridity. Fully agree, if we had the answers to what good systemic is, we wouldn't have to "trial and error" - it would perhaps be ideal (not entirely sure in regards to human life and contingency), but for sure not real (currently).