Your essay reminds me of topology. In topology, we have sets that have properties. Those properties intersect, in other words, they share properties. Once you start seeing the things in our world as possessing groups of properties, you can begin to see the connectedness of all things, and where things are unique. This allows one to appr…
Your essay reminds me of topology. In topology, we have sets that have properties. Those properties intersect, in other words, they share properties. Once you start seeing the things in our world as possessing groups of properties, you can begin to see the connectedness of all things, and where things are unique. This allows one to approach things, as the sage of Barsoom is doing, in an analogical way, looking for patterns of form.
In the case of the systems that he describes, both are focused on expressions of power, their origins, and basic properties of expression. Rather than thinking of them as diametric, think of them as complementary.
He has noticed that there is no reason why both these things can’t be true at the same time. In other words, he has abandoned the addiction to dialectic for the freedom of analogy. In other words it’s not either or, it is both and.
Once we can make the leap to looking for the connections between things before we look at the things that distinguish them, we can avoid the cognitive dissonance and anxiety that results from the endless wash of propaganda which intolerably fills the world around us.
Your essay reminds me of topology. In topology, we have sets that have properties. Those properties intersect, in other words, they share properties. Once you start seeing the things in our world as possessing groups of properties, you can begin to see the connectedness of all things, and where things are unique. This allows one to approach things, as the sage of Barsoom is doing, in an analogical way, looking for patterns of form.
In the case of the systems that he describes, both are focused on expressions of power, their origins, and basic properties of expression. Rather than thinking of them as diametric, think of them as complementary.
He has noticed that there is no reason why both these things can’t be true at the same time. In other words, he has abandoned the addiction to dialectic for the freedom of analogy. In other words it’s not either or, it is both and.
Once we can make the leap to looking for the connections between things before we look at the things that distinguish them, we can avoid the cognitive dissonance and anxiety that results from the endless wash of propaganda which intolerably fills the world around us.
That's brilliant. I'm pinning this.
I think of propaganda as a marketing ploy.