power is the ability to shape the rules of the game, to alter the boundaries of belief, to decide which narratives are given gravity, and which are discarded as noise.

it is the ability to define an arena and control the narrative. it can reshape the appearance of an established arena—or create entirely new ones.

power is also a who, for those with dimensional advantage choose the structure of the arena for those without that advantage.

i posit that power creates places where every conceptual bounce is engineered to support a certain conclusion. ancient structures, reinforced over generations of thought, lead inevitably toward outcomes that best serve this power.

these structures point to themselves as part of the fundamental shape of truth, yet require constant maintenance to persist. in this way, they are alive through the people who support them.

let's say, we throw a concept, and instead of hitting how we expect, it reveals some deeper truth instead. we love this sensation so much we laugh, and seek it out. i posit we are so bored with what we know, we jump onto and value novelty very highly.

power hates this revealing quality of humor, and often seeks to control narratives and appear as humorless as possible.

to laugh at a concept is to be changed by it, for, when we encounter that possibility again, we have already incorporated it into our frame of reference, and recognize that sort of throw when we encounter it again, any laughter from then on does not carry with it catharsis.

power can also control narratives by allowing certain facades to be lifted strategically in order to distract its occupants, but nothing that shakes a foundation to its core.

under ideal conditions, i say, debate should be an exploration of the shape of truth, but in practice, it is competitive arena construction in real time. you are literally defining the parameters by which your opponent must argue, and thus, it is a game which can be gamed, you can dominate in the game, and not touch a fundamental truth at all, if you make a compelling case.

debate, then, is a game of power, and power is not interested in truth, it is interested in control. it is interested in maintaining the status quo, and it is interested in maintaining the power structures which support it, its arena of truth.

in this framework, art is a map of the shape of truth from the perspective of the artist. the best art reveals the shape of truth in the mind of the viewer.

authority is a shortcut in knowing the shape of truth for yourself. if you trust an authority, you allow them to dictate an arena for you to exist within, placing you in a very vulnerable position.

school is for arena construction. we all start out as blank slates and create our inner arenas as we grow. however, power requires a predictable landscape in order to exert itself over you. it is done at an early age, before we are able to question what we are taught. successful products of a school ensure a uniform and reliable arena that can be exploited by an employer. so much of our language of learning is similar to being shaped, molded, deconstructed and built anew, no?

through a narrative, we are guided through an arena of truth that might be similar or foreign to us, but the best narratives, in my view, are able to take us out of our daily lives and place us in some compelling reality.

through narrative, we can explore hypothetical worlds and see through the perspective of those different from us. we love narratives so much, we are encouraged to adopt one for ourselves, often feeling disappointed when some unexpressed plot line does not turn our way in reality.

this is why control over narratives is one of power's most obvious yet invisible tactics. if you are able to maintain the perspective of your audience, have them create an arena of truth that reinforces their authority.