Thanks to David Lavery for the following dialogue on the word "narrative" in politics—
"It's like – does this fit into narrative?
It's like, wait, wait, what about a platform? What about, like, ideas?
What about, you know, these truths we hold to be self-evident?
No, it's the narrative."
"Is narrative a fancy word for spin?"
Related material —
Church Logic (Log24, October 29) —
What sort of geometry
is the following?
"What about, you know, these truths we hold to be self-evident?"
Some background from Cambridge University Press in 1976 —
Commentary —
The Church Logic post argues that Cameron's implicit definition of "non-Euclidean" is incorrect.
The four-point, six-line geometry has as lines "all subsets of the point set" which have cardinality 2.
It clearly satisfies Euclid's parallel postulate. Is it, then, not non-Euclidean?
That would, according to the principle of the excluded middle (cf. Church), make it Euclidean.
A definition from Wikipedia that is still essentially the same as it was when written on July 14, 2003—
"Finite geometry describes any geometric system that has only a finite number of points. Euclidean geometry, for example, is not finite, because a Euclidean line contains infinitely many points…."
This definition would seem to imply that a finite geometry (such as the four-point geometry above) should be called non -Euclidean whether or not it violates Euclid's parallel postulate. (The definition's author, unlike many at Wikipedia, is not anonymous.)
See also the rest of Little Gidding.
