The Gestalt Switch in Politics

I like your premise. Whenever I think of those Gestalt pictures I smile. The pictures, though...that's the problem. They are inherently a compromise, so are they a true representation of either side...or only a muddied image - a true Rabuck?

There is no such thing as a Rabuck, and though I think your premise is interesting, I think it also misses a point. The point is that we should communicate on a level playing field, not necessarily to agree at all costs. And ultimately it's about knowing one's self, not convincing other's of it to support your own belief system. There is a Monty-Python skit where a fellow goes looking for an argument, but his host merely contradicts him saying "Yes, it is", or "No, it isn't". The fellow is correctly arguing that his host is not arguing, just contradicting, when he paid for an "argument". The fellow is arguing, his host isn't. The point is it's a waste of time unless both agree to rules that can make any sought-after answer meaningful to both. Why then does a relativist argue, since relativley speaking, all arguments are the same? That leads to pointless nihlism and crumbles under the fog of its own logic. A sincere person wanting to live in a manner consisten with that thought is probably a bhuddist, but only the ones still in training. Enlightened monks are the first ones to throw off their robes, abandoning escapism to rejoin the world. Regards.