Why one attempts to unify one’s idea? Why others expect one to unify one’s idea? Why needing consistency at explanation?
Why needing a unified theory to explain everything in a given discipline?
When theories are unified, do we not get a consistent methodological approach that leads to consistent answers?
And when this happens, do we not have a compressed version of rules that, we when choose to follow, we can always expect consistency?
If this is pursued wholeheartedly and believed instinctively, is it not possible that what drives one to search for a unified theory or what drives one to love the idea of having a unified theory is the viewing of consistency as good and inconsistency as bad?
Is it not possible that the association of consistency with goodness is because one does not like to be disappointed to find out what one relies on to assure one’s self of security and predictability turns out to be glitchy and unreliable?
Is it not possible that, to put it more sharply and perhaps blatantly, the association of consistency with goodness is because one is looking for the sense of reliability in the same way one has been looking for a fatherly, omnipotent figure, the omniscient teacher, in politics, in education and in religion, or in the same way one has once suffered from the intermittent disappearance of the mother’s breast, the single most familiar source of gratification, such that splitting occurred, and one has been struggling to reconcile with that split by approaching, claiming, clinging to and extolling goodness while repelling, denying, denigrating and demonizing badness ever since?
Is it not possible that, in this case of the need for consistency, the need of the adult takes the exact shape of the infantile wishes?
Inbetweenness 