Every generation believes its political divisions are the worst in history. Yet beneath the noise, the same ancient conflict repeats itself in new costumes. The struggle between conservatives and liberals, between those who hold to the known and those who reach toward the new, is not merely political. It is psychological, even biological. It is the rhythm of human adaptation itself.
Today this tension has hardened into hostility. The political space has become a battlefield rather than a classroom. In many countries, including Japan and the United States, public discourse is no longer about persuasion but about purity. The recent reactions surrounding the new Japanese prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, revealed how deep this division runs. Many liberals who have long advocated for gender equality could not celebrate her historic achievement simply because she came from the “wrong” side. Similarly, conservatives worldwide treat liberal victories as existential threats to civilization itself.
The same can be seen in how American liberals describe Donald Trump, or how conservatives interpret global institutions as plots by invisible elites. The emotional charge is identical: the other side is not merely mistaken but malevolent. What was once political disagreement has turned into moral warfare. It is no longer about what is true, but about who belongs.
This intensity gives the illusion of progress. Yet the hostility only deepens. What we are witnessing may not be a new crisis at all but the failure of an old ideal: that reason and dialogue could lead to harmony. The dialectical dream of synthesis, which once guided philosophy and politics alike, seems to have lost its power.
Politics as a Modern Religion
When people lose faith in religion, they rarely lose the need for belief. They simply move their devotion to another altar. In the modern world, that altar has become politics. Ideology now performs the functions once reserved for religion: it defines good and evil, prescribes rituals, and promises redemption through struggle.
Both liberal and conservative camps exhibit this religious structure. Each has its saints, martyrs, and devils. Each possesses its sacred texts, whether they are constitutions, manifestos, or social media feeds. To question them is to risk excommunication. The energy that once filled temples and churches now fuels political rallies and online crusades. What makes this dangerous is not the passion itself but the loss of humility that faith once provided. Without a transcendent reference, ideology turns inward and worships its own certainty.
This is why reconciliation feels impossible. Politics has become theology without forgiveness. Liberals and conservatives no longer argue over policies but over the meaning of salvation. One side seeks liberation from tradition, the other from modernity. Each believes the other’s existence prevents paradise on earth. The irony is that both sides, in their own ways, desire order, justice, and peace. They simply imagine these goods through different moral grammars.
Such conflicts cannot be solved by reason alone because they are rooted in identity. To compromise feels like apostasy. The enemy is not a fellow citizen but a heretic. What once united societies under shared myths now divides them into moral tribes, each certain of its righteousness.
The Broken Promise of the Dialectic
The Western tradition once believed that truth advances through conflict. From Heraclitus to Hegel, the idea persisted that contradictions propel history toward higher unity. Marx secularized this process, turning it into the motor of material progress. The dialectic became the philosophy of modernity: from opposing forces, a synthesis would emerge. But that faith depended on one condition; communication.
Today, the dialectic has broken down because communication itself has collapsed. The two sides no longer inhabit the same reality. They read different news, speak different moral languages, and live within echo chambers where feedback is replaced by applause. The internet, once praised as a marketplace of ideas, has become a mirror maze. Every argument is reflected back as affirmation. Instead of synthesis, we have symmetry: two camps shouting opposite slogans with perfect rhythm.
The dialectical model presupposes good faith. It assumes that truth can emerge from debate, that each side recognizes the other as a partner in discovery. When trust vanishes, the dialectic becomes theater. It produces heat but no light. We see this everywhere from parliamentary shouting matches to social media outrage. The process that once promised historical progress now traps us in perpetual repetition. Conflict no longer refines; it consumes.
When Discourse Becomes Noise
One of the most striking signs of democratic decay is the death of listening. During Prime Minister Takaichi’s inaugural address, members of the opposition interrupted her with heckles so loud that even television viewers could sense the discomfort in the air. Many citizens, regardless of ideology, were dismayed. The event revealed how politics has become performance. The goal is no longer to understand but to display defiance.
Noise replaces dialogue when people give up on persuasion. It becomes enough to show loyalty to one’s tribe. Every insult is a badge of authenticity, every interruption a sign of strength. What is lost is not civility but curiosity. When conversation collapses into slogans, politics becomes theater without purpose. The actors repeat their lines, unaware that the audience has left.
This degeneration is not limited to Japan. The same pattern plays out in Western democracies, where public debate has become a ritual of outrage. It resembles the quarrels of medieval theologians, each convinced that the other’s salvation is impossible. In such an atmosphere, truth cannot grow. Only noise multiplies.
Beyond the Dialectic: The Cybernetic Vision
To escape this trap, we may need a new model of understanding. Dialectics imagines progress as collision, but cybernetics imagines it as feedback. In a cybernetic system, information flows continuously between parts of a whole. The goal is not victory but stability. The thermostat does not defeat the temperature; it adjusts it. The system learns from its errors and maintains coherence through adaptation.
This is not a mere metaphor. Every living organism operates on cybernetic principles. Cells, organs, and nerves communicate through feedback loops that preserve balance. Machines and rockets use the same principle to correct their trajectory. In each case, survival depends on responsiveness. Too much rigidity leads to collapse; too much volatility leads to chaos.
If we apply this to society, the conservative and liberal forces can be seen as opposing yet cooperative elements within a self-regulating system. Each provides feedback to the other. Conservatism warns against reckless change; liberalism prevents stagnation. The goal is not to eliminate tension but to use it as energy for balance. Seen in this way, conflict becomes signal, not sin.
Cybernetics invites us to shift from the language of war to the language of adjustment. Politics could be understood less as competition and more as calibration. Instead of trying to defeat the opposite camp, each side could learn to read its reactions as valuable information. The purpose of disagreement is not to destroy but to refine the collective course.
The Political Body and Its Nervous System
Imagine society as a living body. In this body, the conservative function is like the parasympathetic nervous system, slowing the heartbeat, conserving energy, protecting continuity. The liberal function is like the sympathetic system, quickening the pulse, reacting to danger, pushing for movement. Both are necessary. Without one, life becomes either restless or rigid.
When one side dominates, the organism sickens. A purely conservative society cannot adapt to new threats. A purely liberal one cannot maintain cohesion. Health lies in rhythm, not uniformity. The alternation of tension and relaxation, of innovation and preservation, keeps civilization alive.
This view transforms how we see political opponents. They are not enemies but organs of the same organism. Their disagreements, however heated, are signs of vitality. When feedback flows freely, the social body corrects itself. When feedback is blocked, through censorship, propaganda, or moral arrogance, the organism loses sensitivity. It begins to decay from within. A mature society, like a healthy body, must learn to sense pain without destroying the source of it.
Homeostasis: The Hidden Wisdom of Peace
Homeostasis is the quiet miracle that makes life possible. It is not a static state but a dynamic equilibrium, a continuous dance of adjustment. The body maintains temperature, pH, and energy through countless microcorrections. The result is not perfection but persistence. Peace in nature is never still; it is rhythmic.
Applied to civilization, homeostasis suggests a new kind of peace. Not the absence of conflict, but the capacity to respond without collapsing. A nation in homeostasis can absorb dissent, error, and change while remaining whole. It knows that every disturbance carries information. The task is not to silence it but to interpret it wisely.
The tragedy of modern politics is that both sides mistake disturbance for attack. They believe peace requires victory. Yet life itself contradicts this. The heart never stops oscillating between systole and diastole. The earth’s ecosystems thrive on tension and release. True peace is not the end of movement but the grace of balance. A homeostatic society would cultivate resilience instead of purity, flexibility instead of triumph.
Feedback as a Spiritual Practice
If cybernetics describes the mechanism of balance, spirituality describes its meaning. Listening, humility, and responsiveness are not only technical virtues but moral ones. Every tradition teaches that wisdom begins with attention. To hear before speaking is to honor the living feedback of existence.
In this sense, feedback becomes a spiritual practice. It asks us to see others not as obstacles but as mirrors. The criticism of an opponent, the resistance of an environment, even the discomfort of failure, all are messages from the system reminding us to adjust. To live without listening is to separate oneself from life’s intelligence.
Buddhism speaks of interdependence, the truth that nothing exists in isolation. Christianity speaks of the body of Christ, where every member suffers or rejoices together. Both express the same insight: wholeness arises from responsiveness. Homeostasis, at its deepest level, is not mechanical but compassionate. It is the art of staying connected to the living whole.
When we cultivate this attitude, even political dialogue can become a path of self-understanding. The opponent’s anger may reveal our own rigidity. Their fear may mirror our neglect. To engage with others through feedback rather than domination is to participate in the intelligence of life itself.
Toward a Homeostatic Civilization
What would a homeostatic civilization look like? It would be one where feedback is valued more than force. Governance would be designed to learn, not merely to rule. Policies would evolve through observation, not ideology. Education would train citizens not only to argue but to listen. Media would reward reflection rather than outrage. Technology would amplify awareness instead of division.
Such a civilization would not aim for uniform agreement but for stable diversity. It would treat dissent as oxygen, not poison. Institutions would act like immune systems, responding to threats without overreacting. The goal would be dynamic harmony, not mechanical control. Progress would be measured by adaptability, not domination.
This vision may sound idealistic, yet it already exists in fragments. Some communities, organizations, and even families practice it intuitively. They adjust through honest dialogue, admit mistakes, and value feedback as the essence of trust. The challenge is to scale this wisdom from the micro level to the global one. The tools of cybernetics and the spirit of homeostasis together could guide humanity toward that evolution.
The Peace Hidden in Feedback
In the end, the world is not made of battles but of balances. What we call conflict is often the visible edge of a deeper coordination. The stars move in tension, the tides pull and return, the heart beats through opposition. The universe itself is a feedback system, and we are part of its rhythm.
To recognize this is to find peace without illusion. Peace does not mean that problems disappear. It means that responses grow wiser. It means that we learn to read turbulence as communication, not as chaos. When nations, communities, and individuals learn to hear feedback rather than fear it, they rediscover the intelligence of life.
Perhaps the next stage of civilization will not be ideological at all. It will be ecological in the deepest sense: a world that understands itself as a living system. In such a world, the myth of eternal conflict will fade, replaced by the quiet knowledge that everything is connected and every reaction is an invitation to balance.
The universe does not fight itself. It learns through feedback, adjusts through tension, and finds peace through homeostasis. Humanity can do the same. What we call enemies may only be parts of ourselves trying to speak. To listen to them is to begin healing the whole.
Image by Pexels
Tom’s Blog 