On the topic of “On the contrary”

We know that contrary options move us and for good reason, because they “nudge” or in some cases push us. They serve several purposes in human existence or rather co-existence. They bind us together against the others, they can come across as ignorant and spur our semantics, they can even be overheard if they do not come with the leverage of respect or if they come from the unknown, maybe an outlier, a minority. They can engage us in fierce discussions impacting our physical habitus because they are not our habitus. They create conflict, most often of the healthy type, but sometimes also unhealthy types like war. They can present themselves as epiphanies, as that small last piece of a semantic puzzle we have been missing to create our own understanding…of something or someone. Basically, they have dual power, the power of divergence and convergence, their third characteristic is neutrality, which could be ignorance, disinterest or lack of leverage and critical mass. The latter is the most dangerous because it means we are not even listening. That is not to say that years later we find our unconscious playing tricks on us, time and event become proxies for relevance, and suddenly it pops up, that remark from way back when. “On the contrary” is a most valued and powerful analytical tool, for all of us, every day and in everyday life, it is not exclusive to philosophers — it is in the realm of commoners, like you and me, us and them…we. Their homeland is dualism, and their ontology is what is, is, but also always something else — the contrary is in extreme imaginability and in intelligent encounters more often feasibility, in the sense, could the argument fit, is the statement true, would it be possible…to turn the game on its head?

Annoying as they may be, they remain a fruitful tool and a mental state, to discover the contrary.