Yes, fair comment, ta. I am conscious that there is a fair bit of repetition, in part because one cannot assume readers have read previous essays. The next essay, for instance, goes over much of what is in this essay, but from a different angle: the emotional logic of the politics of the transformational future.
Yes, fair comment, ta. I am conscious that there is a fair bit of repetition, in part because one cannot assume readers have read previous essays. The next essay, for instance, goes over much of what is in this essay, but from a different angle: the emotional logic of the politics of the transformational future.
The plan is not to just publish the essays unchanged, but to edit so the narrative is more seamless. Also, the process of writing and wrestling with the material, and the comments received, have meant that the analysis has continued to evolve. A trivial example: what was called ‘vanguard capital’ early has become ‘dominion capital’.
Yes, fair comment, ta. I am conscious that there is a fair bit of repetition, in part because one cannot assume readers have read previous essays. The next essay, for instance, goes over much of what is in this essay, but from a different angle: the emotional logic of the politics of the transformational future.
The plan is not to just publish the essays unchanged, but to edit so the narrative is more seamless. Also, the process of writing and wrestling with the material, and the comments received, have meant that the analysis has continued to evolve. A trivial example: what was called ‘vanguard capital’ early has become ‘dominion capital’.
So, thank you again for your thoughtful feedback.