Does it, though? I can see why you're abstracting up from distance to topology. But the text you quoted doesn't do that. It uses distance to make the larger points, much like one might use money to make a larger point about poverty. Money is too simple to express poverty. This sort of reductionism is the right target for criticism. Focusing on that inappropriate reduction *is* the point. The reduction is lossy. There's not enough information in the low dimensional concept of distance to express the change in topology, much less flesh out the change in psychological kind.
Dave's point about wealth being discussed in context is along the same lines of my initial salvo at this thread, that wealth has to be understood in the context of private property and ownership. On 3/16/21 9:18 AM, jon zingale wrote: > To some extent, the emphasis on the low dimensional nature of distance in > Heidegger misses the point. The end of the frontier and the reality of our > compact environment confers a radical change in psychological kind, and a > change in topology is no trivial matter. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
