Non-digital == analog

Watch out, I'm about to talk about math.

[math talk]
Math is the study of structure. That is the only thing it ever talks about. There is not an inherent context for math. Thus, when I say that by studying math I am studying everything, I mean that I am studying everything with structure. I believe everything has structure. Thus, I believe I am studying everything. In the math of 2 + 1 = 3 I don't care what 1, 2, or 3 mean. It could be that 2/3 + 1/3 = 3/3 or two people plus one person is equal to three people. In the relationship math of 2 + 1 = 3... a couple plus another person equals trouble. It would then follow, in that particular logic, that 2 + 1 = 1 + 1 + 1, usually. This explains why threesomes nearly never work. When they do, they tend to be 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 + 1 + 1. (with the occasional 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 + 2)

The Arts are a study of context only. To say that "a rose is a rose by any other name" is not the same as saying "a turd is a turd by any other name." The math works, but the aroma is different.

The real power of math, however, is when you marry the two together. It might be a lot of fun to talk about Eulerian Cycles, but it's more interesting to talk about a street sweeper who doesn't want to sweep the same street twice.
[/math talk]

[The non-math recap: Math is about structure. Art is about context.]

So, this explains why I so thoroughly enjoy analogies and paradigms. They are my way of teasing out the structure from the context. I take something that is complicated and try to find a structure that operates in about the same way. Then I manipulate the structure and try to put the context back on. Then I try to find out if this new construct makes any sense. When it does, it's really exciting.

This explains some of the strange questions I ask. If someone said, "Women are like cars." I might ask, "So, if you stick something small from your pocket into the right place and twist... it turns them on?" That isn't really such a sexist statement. I am not manipulating the idea of Woman... I am manipulating the idea of Woman As Car. In fact, that question is working more from the car -> woman direction as opposed to the question: "Are periods then equivalent to oil changes?" That question goes woman -> car. But analogies always break down. That is because women may, in fact, be like cars... but they are not identical to cars. It might even be entertaining to say that a flat tire is like a broken heel, but I know that they aren't the same.

The benefit of analogies or paradigms like "women are like cars" is that it can make it easier for someone who is intimidated by the vastness of the topic "woman" to understand them better. Men who don't understand why a woman might be upset about a broken nail might understand better if they were told that it's like having a rock chip on your hood. Where trouble lurks is the place where you stop saying "like" and "similar to." When your girlfriend isn't feeling positive about her appearance and you suggest a hot shower... for two... then you deserve being slapped. It doesn't matter that you perceive that you car feels better after going through the car wash. When you cross the line between "Women are like cars" toward "Women are cars" and then to "Women are just cars" you will quickly be reminded of how wrong you are.

In the meantime, buy used. The resale value drops 60% as soon as you take her off the lot.