the devil’s ontology; a brief introduction
In this paper, I argue hat personifying evil as the devil enables the expansion of its conceptual diversity to fully understand the operational complexity of deception. By adopting terms like ”diversity” and ”variety,” I explores how the devil creates ontological traps by making certain words untouchable, preventing investigation and discourse. I show how the right, by rejecting diversity, limits its own potential to overcome these traps. I introduce Ashby’s law of requisite variety, which posits that for a system to be stable and successful, its complexity must match or exceed the disturbances it encounters.
In this paper, I argue hat personifying evil as the devil enables the expansion of its conceptual diversity to fully understand the operational complexity of deception. By adopting terms like ”diversity” and ”variety,” I explores how the devil creates ontological traps by making certain words untouchable, preventing investigation and discourse. I show how the right, by rejecting diversity, limits its own potential to overcome these traps. I introduce Ashby’s law of requisite variety, which posits that for a system to be stable and successful, its complexity must match or exceed the disturbances it encounters.
In this paper, I argue hat personifying evil as the devil enables the expansion of its conceptual diversity to fully understand the operational complexity of deception. By adopting terms like ”diversity” and ”variety,” I explores how the devil creates ontological traps by making certain words untouchable, preventing investigation and discourse. I show how the right, by rejecting diversity, limits its own potential to overcome these traps. I introduce Ashby’s law of requisite variety, which posits that for a system to be stable and successful, its complexity must match or exceed the disturbances it encounters.