Mixed Synthesis

On the allure of perfection.

The same integration — physiology modulating anatomy — holds for mixed synthesis. The problem is the joined presence of both longings. Each predisposes the undesirable pole of the other dichotomy. A mixed state that holds both at once is therefore an interstitial potential: it waits for a dominant longing to take charge. That waiting state is the raw form of mixed synthesis:

• Mixed Synthesis (Raw form):
  • {[I≢L → (I≡ ^ I≢)] ^ [C≡L → (C≡ ^ C≢)]} → {iD ≡ iO ≡ iR ≡ iE} = mΣ

When one longing takes charge, two concrete states follow from the predispositions already named:

• Functionality Longing predisposes Imperdurability: C≡L → (I≡ ^ I≢) = I≡.
• Perdurability Longing predisposes Dysfunctionality: I≢L → (C≡ ^ C≢) = C≢.

So the two possible interstitial states are:

• Imperdurable Functionality.
• Perdurable Dysfunctionality.

The dilemma is then:

• Would you prefer a system that functions well and does not last? Or a system that lasts and works badly?

In the abstract, that question can run for a long time. EIC is not allowed to stay abstract. Every development here has to be testable against the other inventive edifications. The two states already exist as structures in the world:

1. A perdurable system that accepts dysfunctionality: C≢ ^ I≢.
2. A functional system that accepts imperdurability: I≡ ^ C≡.

For the first, return to the empire. Lesser nations have little say in what the emperor decides. Political representation is dysfunctional. For the emperor that dysfunction is not the problem, so long as the empire remains one. Forced unification keeps it perdurable, at the cost of function.

For the second, a presidential term. Most nations refuse perpetual tenure at the top. Histories differ, but the reticence is shared: even a popular holder, whose governance still looks functional, is blocked from remaining. The system reconciles representation with what a society needs by accepting that the term will end.

The first choice is Unification Synthesis. The second is Conciliation Synthesis. Unification centralizes authority so the system may last, even at the cost of representation. Conciliation favors responsive representation, and takes the time-limit as part of renewal.

The same cut shows up outside government. A company that will not replace its founder, even as the work has outgrown them, is unifying in order to last. A protocol that versions, forks, or sunsets a release so the next one can work is conciliating. A family that treats a custom as unamendable, versus one that lets a generation revise the custom and remain a family, is the same dilemma at a smaller scale.

Ethically, conciliation synthesis is the preferable model. The remaining problem is practical: how do we live with its imperdurability?