This is a speculation on the process of political and sociological theorizing as it is currently practiced, and to some extent on how it has been historically practiced, in Europe and North America. It considers this theorizing across a range of geographic, temporal and cultural contexts without resorting to the more traditional approach of "comparative analysis". A primary aim of this work is to sketch out an alternative approach to this type of thinking. Through a series of theoretical discussions, I will demonstrate that the two over-riding presumptions of comparative analysis (that there is a mediating standard to which these contexts being compared can be meaningfully related and that the author of the comparison is not engaging in what Nietzsche has called "special pleadings") involves a seriously flawed presumed approach. It is suggested that comparative analysis results many times either in trivial conclusions denuded of important detail or in evidence of incommensurabilities which resist effective reduction to common interpretation and that incommensurabilities are necessarily eliminated by a kind of 'nuke-em' strategy at the end of the so-called "analysis". In line with the author's belief that all theory, in its promulgation, should be self-demonstrating, sections seven and eight involve a consideration of the modernity/postmodernity discussions as they seem to operate within four broad groups of theorists. The discussion is framed in such a way so as to both illustrate the presence of incommensurabilities and, as well, to demonstrate an approach to dealing with the unavoidable existence of incommensurabilities in human experience. This is done through a process of "envisioning" - first in a completely abstract manner and then drawing on the works of authors within groups under consideration.