Donald Barthelme’s 1974 short story “I Bought a Little City” is a surreal and satirical take on the American Dream, consumerism, and the power dynamics of ownership. The story follows an unnamed narrator who, upon hearing that the city of Galveston, Texas, is up for sale, decides to purchase it on a whim.
From the beginning, the narrator’s motivations for buying the city are unclear. He speaks of wanting to “take possession” of something, to “own a piece of land” and to “have power over people.” He seems to view the city as a commodity, a product to be bought and sold like any other, and he revels in the sense of control and authority that ownership brings.
Once he has bought the city, the narrator sets about making radical changes to it. He tears down houses, shoots 6,000 dogs, and rearranges the remaining buildings and streets into a giant Mona Lisa jigsaw puzzle, visible only from the air. His actions are senseless and destructive, driven more by a desire to assert his dominance than by any coherent plan or vision.
The destruction of the houses and the mass killing of dogs are particularly shocking moments in the story, as they demonstrate the narrator’s callous disregard for the lives and property of others. The dogs, in particular, are innocent victims, and their deaths seem to serve no purpose other than to demonstrate the narrator’s power to do as he pleases.
The creation of the Mona Lisa puzzle is equally absurd, as it suggests a kind of artistic vision or creativity on the part of the narrator that is entirely absent from his other actions. The fact that the puzzle is visible only from the air further emphasizes the narrator’s desire to be seen and admired from a distance, rather than engaging with the city and its inhabitants on a human level.
Overall, “I Bought a Little City” is a biting critique of American consumerism and the power dynamics of ownership. The narrator’s actions are presented as absurd and destructive, revealing the emptiness and cruelty that can lie at the heart of the pursuit of wealth and status. At the same time, the story is a celebration of the power of the imagination, as the narrator’s surreal actions demonstrate the limitless possibilities of creative expression. In this sense, the story can be seen as a warning against the dangers of unchecked power, but also as a celebration of the potential for human creativity and ingenuity.
Exaptation is a concept in evolutionary biology that refers to the process by which a feature or trait that originally evolved for one purpose is later co-opted for a different purpose.
In other words, exaptation occurs when a biological structure or behavior that evolved to serve one function becomes useful for a completely different function, often due to changes in the organism’s environment or behavior.
Exaptation can occur in various forms and across different levels of biological organization. For example, feathers, which originally evolved for insulation and display purposes, were exapted for flight in birds. The jaws of reptiles, which originally evolved for eating, were exapted for hearing in mammals. Similarly, the webbing on the feet of ducks, which originally evolved for swimming, was exapted for walking on land.
Exaptation is an important concept in evolutionary biology because it illustrates the role of chance and contingency in the evolutionary process, and highlights the potential for existing structures and behaviors to be repurposed for new uses.
“Not accepting others as part of us we cannot recognize ourselves. Not knowing ourselves we feel alone. We reject in others what we reject in ourselves. In need of an amnesty to unlock the danger”
As social beings, we depend on our connections with others to form our identities and understand ourselves. However, when we fail to accept others as part of ourselves, we risk feeling alone and disconnected from the world around us. This can lead us to reject in others what we reject in ourselves, creating a cycle of isolation and rejection. In order to break this cycle, we need to extend an amnesty to ourselves and others, unlocking the danger of disconnection and embracing the power of community.
At its core, the failure to accept others as part of ourselves is often rooted in fear and insecurity. We worry that by accepting others, we may be forced to confront aspects of ourselves that we would rather ignore or deny. We may also fear rejection or judgment from others, leading us to distance ourselves from those who we perceive as different or threatening.
However, this fear and rejection ultimately only serve to deepen our sense of isolation and disconnect us from the world around us. We cannot recognize ourselves if we do not see ourselves reflected in others, and we cannot truly know ourselves if we do not embrace the complexity and diversity of the human experience.
This is where an amnesty comes in. An amnesty is a pardon or forgiveness for past actions, often used in a political or legal context. However, in this case, an amnesty refers to a willingness to let go of past grudges, prejudices, and judgments and to embrace the potential for connection and understanding.
By extending an amnesty to ourselves and others, we can begin to unlock the danger of disconnection and forge meaningful connections with those around us. We can begin to recognize ourselves in others, embracing the richness and complexity of the human experience. We can also begin to break the cycle of rejection and isolation, creating a space for acceptance and community.
Of course, extending an amnesty is not always easy. It requires us to confront our own fears and insecurities, and to be willing to let go of past hurts and grievances. However, the benefits of doing so are immeasurable. By embracing the power of community, we can find meaning and purpose in our lives, and forge connections that transcend the boundaries of race, gender, religion, and culture.
In the end, the amnesty we extend to ourselves and others is a testament to the power of forgiveness and acceptance. It allows us to break free from the dangers of isolation and rejection, and to embrace the beauty and complexity of the world around us
The esoteric tweet that “Information is overrated in respect to the importance of Location” is a thought-provoking statement that invites us to reflect on the significance of the physical environment in our lives. The tweet suggests that location, or the “genius loci,” as Alexander Pope called it, is a crucial factor that should be taken into consideration when designing spaces, rather than simply relying on information.
There is too much emphasis placed on information in our society and decision-making processes, at the expense of other factors, such as intuition, experience, and common sense.
In today’s world, we are inundated with an overwhelming amount of information, much of which is conflicting or misleading. It can be challenging to discern what is relevant and what is not. In many cases, people may rely too heavily on information, assuming that it provides all the answers, rather than taking a more holistic approach.
Moreover, in certain situations, an excess of information can lead to analysis paralysis, where people become so overwhelmed by the data that they are unable to make a decision. This is particularly true in situations where the information is complex, and there is no clear-cut answer.
Alexander Pope’s principle of consulting the “genius loci” when designing spaces is a concept that has been around for centuries. It is based on the idea that each location has its own unique character and energy that should be respected and incorporated into the design process. This principle recognizes the importance of the physical environment in shaping our experiences and influencing our behavior.
When we consider the importance of location in our lives, we can see how it affects us on multiple levels. On a practical level, our location determines our access to resources, such as food, water, and healthcare. It also affects our social and cultural experiences, as our location can influence the people we interact with and the activities we engage in. On a deeper level, our location can influence our sense of identity and connection to the world around us.
In design, the concept of the genius loci can be applied in various ways. For example, when designing a building, the architect may consider the orientation of the building in relation to the sun and wind, the topography of the site, and the natural features of the surrounding environment. By doing so, they can create a space that is in harmony with its surroundings and enhances the experience of those who occupy it.
The importance of location can also be seen in urban planning, where the layout and design of a city can influence its inhabitants’ behavior and well-being. By incorporating green spaces, public transportation, and walkable neighborhoods, cities can promote healthy living and reduce environmental impact. Additionally, by respecting the history and culture of a place, cities can create a sense of identity and pride among its residents.
In conclusion, the tweet “Information is overrated in respect to the importance of Location” highlights the significance of the physical environment in our lives. By consulting the genius loci, we can create spaces that are in harmony with their surroundings and enhance our experiences. This principle reminds us of the importance of respecting the character and energy of each location, and incorporating it into the design process. Ultimately, by recognizing the importance of location in our lives, we can create spaces that promote well-being, connection, and identity.
The power of the imagination is often overlooked in problem-solving. While logic and reason are essential tools, imagination allows us to think creatively, to see possibilities where others see roadblocks, and to find solutions that may not have been immediately apparent. However, it is not enough to simply trust the imagination to work; we must first recognize and feel the problem before we can begin to use our imaginations to solve it.
When faced with a problem, it is all too easy to jump straight into trying to solve it. We often rush to come up with solutions, thinking that the faster we can fix the problem, the better. However, in doing so, we risk oversimplifying the problem and the solution. We may apply ideological band-aids that address the symptoms but do not truly solve the underlying issues.
To avoid this, we must take the time to truly feel the problem. We must understand its complexity, its nuances, and its underlying causes. We must ask ourselves difficult questions, challenge our assumptions, and be open to new ideas and perspectives. Only then can we begin to tap into the power of the imagination to find real and lasting solutions.
For example, let us consider a social issue such as poverty. If we rush to solve the problem without truly feeling its impact, we may come up with solutions that are well-intentioned but ineffective. We may propose job-training programs, for example, without recognizing the systemic issues that contribute to poverty, such as income inequality and a lack of access to education and healthcare. By feeling the problem, we can begin to see it in all its complexity and work towards more comprehensive and effective solutions.
Once we have felt the problem, we can begin to engage our imaginations. We can start to think outside the box, to explore new possibilities and to consider innovative approaches to solving the problem. We can use our imaginations to envision a better future, one where the problem no longer exists, and work backwards to determine the steps we need to take to make that vision a reality.
In conclusion, the imagination is a powerful tool in problem-solving, but it is not enough to simply trust it to work. We must first feel the problem, understand its complexity, and recognize its underlying causes. Only then can we tap into the full potential of our imaginations and find real and lasting solutions to the problems we face. By taking the time to truly feel the problem, we can avoid the pitfalls of ideological band-aids and work towards a better future for ourselves and for others.
The concept of the panopticon was first introduced by the philosopher Jeremy Bentham in the late 18th century. It referred to a prison design in which a central tower allowed guards to observe prisoners without the prisoners knowing whether or not they were being watched. This design was intended to create a sense of constant surveillance and control, which would discourage deviant behavior among inmates.
In the digital age, the panopticon has been reimagined as a metaphor for the ways in which our lives are constantly monitored and controlled by technology. However, the nature of this surveillance has changed significantly since Bentham’s time. In the new panopticon, we are not locked in, but rather locked out.
One of the defining characteristics of the new panopticon is that we willingly participate in our own surveillance. We share personal information on social media platforms, use apps that track our location, and allow cameras and microphones into our homes through smart devices. We do this because these technologies promise to make our lives easier and more convenient, but in doing so we also surrender our privacy and autonomy.
Another defining characteristic of the new panopticon is that the surveillance is largely invisible. We may not know exactly who is watching us or how our data is being used, but we know that it is being collected and analyzed by algorithms and corporations. This creates a sense of powerlessness and disempowerment, as we are unable to challenge or resist this surveillance in any meaningful way.
In the new panopticon, we are not locked in physical spaces, but rather in a network of technologies and data. This means that resistance and rebellion take different forms. We may choose to use encryption tools, delete our social media accounts, or boycott certain companies, but these actions can only do so much to challenge the underlying power structures that enable this surveillance.
Furthermore, the new panopticon is not just about surveillance and control, but also about the ways in which technology shapes our perceptions and behaviors. Our interactions with technology create a feedback loop in which our actions are recorded, analyzed, and used to shape our experiences in subtle ways. This means that our very sense of self and agency is influenced by the technologies we use, and it becomes difficult to imagine a life without them.
In conclusion, the new panopticon represents a fundamental shift in the nature of surveillance and control in the digital age. We are not locked in physical spaces, but rather in a network of technologies and data that shape our perceptions and behaviors. While we may have some agency in resisting this surveillance, the underlying power structures that enable it are deeply entrenched, and it will take concerted effort and collective action to challenge them.
In the new panopticon, we are not physically locked in spaces like in Bentham’s original panopticon, but rather locked out of control over our own data and experiences. The nature of surveillance has shifted to the point where we willingly participate in our own monitoring through the use of technology. This creates a sense of powerlessness and disempowerment as we are unable to challenge or resist this surveillance in any meaningful way.
The new panopticon affects not only our privacy but also our very sense of self and agency. Technology shapes our perceptions and behaviors, creating a feedback loop in which our actions are recorded, analyzed, and used to shape our experiences. Thus, the new panopticon represents a fundamental shift in the way that surveillance and control operate in the digital age.
Overall, the conclusion emphasizes the need for concerted effort and collective action to challenge the underlying structures that enable this surveillance.
“The virtual is opposed not to the real but to the actual. The virtual is fully real in so far as it is virtual. […] Far from being an object of knowledge, the virtual is, on the contrary, that which makes knowledge possible, indeed, creates knowledge.”
Deleuze
According to Deleuze, the virtual is not a realm of mere possibility, but rather a realm of real but unactualized potentiality. It is fully real insofar as it is virtual. The actual, on the other hand, is the world of concrete, material objects and events that we experience in our everyday lives. It is the realm of the present, of things that exist in space and time and can be directly perceived or interacted with.
Deleuze emphasizes that the virtual is not opposed to the real but to the actual. The virtual is not a mere representation of the actual, but an active force that shapes and transforms the actual. In this sense, the virtual is fully real, as it creates and makes knowledge possible. Deleuze argues that the virtual is not an object of knowledge but the condition of knowledge itself.
The relationship between the actual and the virtual is complex and interdependent. The virtual is constantly influencing the actual, pushing it to change and evolve in new and unexpected ways. At the same time, the actual is the material realization of the virtual. The actual is the result of the process of actualization, in which the virtual is made real.
Deleuze’s ideas about the actual and the virtual have far-reaching implications in philosophy, art, and technology. In philosophy, Deleuze’s ideas challenge traditional notions of reality and the relationship between the mind and the world. In art, Deleuze’s ideas have been influential in the development of new forms of digital and interactive art that blur the boundaries between the actual and the virtual. In technology, Deleuze’s ideas have been applied to the development of new forms of virtual reality and simulation technologies.
In conclusion, Deleuze’s philosophy of the actual and the virtual invites us to reconsider our relationship to the world around us. By emphasizing the interdependence of the actual and the virtual, Deleuze challenges us to imagine new possibilities for how we might interact with and shape the world in which we live.
To become other than ourselves is to enter into the flow of experience prior to the ordering of human perception; it sets in motion an ambiguous engagement with the multiple differential flows of life. So Deleuze proposed a modal distinction as a replacement for the problematic real-possible dichotomy commonly used in philosophy.
The possible presupposes that everything that is real must also be possible (which rules out a great number of conceptual inventions, consigning them to the ontologically lesser category of the unreal, or impossible), and it is unable to explain why that which is possible has not already come into being.
For Deleuze, both the actual and the virtual are fully real — the former has concrete existence, while the latter does not, but it is no less real for that fact. The importance of this distinction can readily be seen by giving thought to the state of being of an idea: it may only exist in our heads, or on paper, but its effects are fully real and may also be fully actual too.
Life is not defined by the real conditions of possibility, but rather by a creative flow of virtualpotential, or virtual difference.)
In the philosophical work of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, rhizomes refer to a way of thinking about networks, connections, and structures that is in contrast to the more traditional hierarchical models.
Rhizomes are root systems that spread horizontally and grow without a central point of control, unlike trees with their trunks and branches. In Deleuze’s view, rhizomatic structures represent a non-linear, decentralized, and multiplicitous way of understanding the world.
Deleuze and Guattari argue that rhizomatic structures can be found in a wide range of phenomena, from biological systems such as fungi and coral reefs, to social and cultural systems such as the internet or subcultures.
The rhizome model emphasizes the importance of connections, flows, and diversity over fixed hierarchies and centralized control. In this view, knowledge and ideas spread through a network of interconnected nodes, and there is no single “correct” way of understanding or organizing them.
Overall, the rhizome concept represents a different way of thinking about how things are connected and structured in the world, one that values diversity, flexibility, and interconnectedness.
Deleuze takes a closer look at history and examines how we thought about things in terms of what he sees as static, simplistic notions, and he tries to offer a different perspective from the traditional methods we think of ontology or politics. The definition of’ rhizome’ by Deleuze and Guattari stems from its etymological sense, where’ rhizo’ means “combination of shapes” and the biological word’ rhizome’ describes a plant type that can spread through its tuber-like root system and develop new plants.
Rhizomes have no hierarchical order in their networks as opposed to descending evolutionary classification models. Rather, Deleuzian rhizomatic thinking acts as an
open-ended efficient structure in which random associations and interactions drive, sidetrack, and abstract component relationships.
So, a rhizome is an extremely chaotic subterranean plant stem, not a root. It follows, of course, that roots system networks are formed … and then these random root offshoots can often connect one root network to another in bizarre ways at times.With what the mathematician calls ‘ n-1 dimensions, the rhizome contains horizontal and smooth representations of the natural world.
‘ It is always a multiplicity; it has no genealogy; it can be drawn from different contexts including Freudian psychoanalysis.
Deleuze and Guattari derive some of their ideas on rhizomes from Bateson’s Steps to an Ecology of Mind in which biology and information theory are conjoined. Bateson argues that a person is not limited to her or his visible body. The brain shoots electrons traveling through circuits. The person interacts and reconnects with other people, animals and the environment through the transmission of differences.
There is no form or core in a rhizome. Models are both in construction and collapse. In a rhizome, any point, connecting to any other point, may act as a beginning or end.
The verb “to be” is dictated by an arborescent thought process. Rhizomatic thinking works with the “and” conjunction:
‘ Rhizome ‘ explains the links that exist between distant things, places and people; the mysterious chains of events that link people together: the sensation of ‘ six degrees of separation, ‘ the sense of ‘ being here before ‘.
Every part of a rhizome can be linked to another component, providing an atmosphere with no distinctive end or entry point.
SYSTEMS OF KNOWLEDGE: THE TREE
As we formulate information structures, we always follow a pattern that has dominated much of history in Western thought: The Tree. The tree is a plant having a a single usually elongate main stem generally with few or no branches on its lower part, ordinarily growing to a considerable height, and usually developing branches at some distance from the ground.
Now, a tree it’s rooted in one place. It doesn’t move. There are clear demarcation lines between the different parts. The roots are giving way to the trunk, the trunk is giving way to the branches, the branches are giving way to the leaves. This type of awareness D & G call arborescent (or “tree-like”).
The problem with that is that, a deeply rooted structure is incapable of movement. So how do we account with well-defined parts that make up it and perform various roles, such as the person, the government, the economy, laws these things all work together and play their part within a framework?
Hierarchies are replaced by the rhizome which consists of one element’ and’ another by virtue of addition. The rhizome lives in an infinite space and defies binaries or points which would be used to assign locations in large space. In a world that builds finite games, Deleuze argues that such structures/finite games constrain creativity and position things and people into regulatory orders.
The rhizome is a much more accurate metaphor when it comes to the relation between thought, ideas and movements. Where is the center? There’s not one, to Deleuze, just as there’s no beginning, middle and end to a systems of ideas … just people get tunnel vision on a little section of the wall and then make a case why they’ve found out the whole wall. This is the mistake of the philosophers of the last two thousand years. When somebody creates a hierarchical system of ideas we just have a little section of the elephant masquerading as the whole elephant.
It is not a single growth line, but a lot of different stories at very different rates progressing and regressing. Deleuze’s view of the world can get us out of philosophy of this linear way of thinking. The aim is to create a pluralism of modes of thought, not a simplistic confrontation.
Rhizomatic formations can serve to overcome, overturn and transform structures of rigid, fixed or binary thought and judgement — the rhizome is ‘anti-genealogy’.
Rhizomes are everywhere, not just in human ideas. It is said that the nervous system is a rhizome, an internet or a network. Ant colonies, rat burrows, termite nests, vast habitats, human societies, nervous systems, city architecture, people’s actions within the city, books are rhizomes, connected to other books, videos. Deleuze and Guattari see the promise of rhizomatic thought in Bateson’s research.
But just to demonstrate how difficult it is to nail Deleuze down. In spite of all this rhizome talk, he still has no issue at all with the tree.
Deleuze and Guattari write about a’ becoming-radio’ or’ becoming-television’ that can give rise to good or bad connections; constructive or destructive. The way they are being captured by capitalism and its multifarious redundancies makes them too often become ends in and for themselves, in a sphere of what Deleuze calls a generalized ‘techno-narcissism’.
The distinction between reality and the real is an intriguing philosophical concept that has captivated the minds of many thinkers throughout history. Reality, as we know it, is a symbolic construct that we use to make sense of the world around us. It is composed of our perceptions, beliefs, and experiences, all of which are subject to interpretation and manipulation. However, the real, on the other hand, is something that cannot be fully grasped or comprehended. It is an index of the ineffable, something that is always beyond our reach.
The notion of reality has been a central theme in many philosophical and scientific disciplines. In philosophy, reality refers to the external world that we experience through our senses. It is the world that exists independently of our perceptions and interpretations. However, reality is also a construct of our minds, shaped by our cultural, social, and individual beliefs and biases. For instance, the reality of a person living in a war-torn country may be vastly different from that of someone living in a peaceful, affluent society.
The real, on the other hand, is a concept that has been explored by many philosophers, including Jean Baudrillard and Jacques Lacan. The real is something that cannot be reduced to a symbolic representation or language. It is beyond words and concepts, something that cannot be fully grasped or captured by our minds. It is the index of that which is elusive and enigmatic.
The breakdown of reality has become increasingly apparent in recent times. With the rise of technology and social media, we are bombarded with images and messages that challenge our understanding of what is real. In many ways, reality has become a commodity that can be manipulated and manufactured for various purposes. This has led to a sense of disorientation and confusion about what we can trust and believe in.
The real, on the other hand, is a more elusive and mysterious concept. The real is not simply a reflection of our perceptions or experiences, but rather a deeper truth that exists beyond these constructs. It is an index of the ineffable, something that we can sense but never fully grasp.
One way to think about the distinction between reality and the real is to consider the difference between a map and the territory it represents. A map is a symbolic representation of a particular place, but it can never fully capture the richness and complexity of that place. The real is like the territory itself – it is something that we can experience directly, but it cannot be fully captured by any map or representation.
Another way to understand the concept of the real is through the idea of the sublime. The sublime refers to something that is both awe-inspiring and terrifying, something that exceeds our ability to fully comprehend or control. The real is like the sublime in that it is something that we can experience but cannot fully grasp. It is something that challenges our understanding of the world and our place within it.
The breakdown of reality and the search for the real has been a recurring theme in art, literature, and philosophy throughout history. Many artists and thinkers have sought to push beyond the limitations of reality and explore the deeper truths that lie beneath the surface. This has led to a rich tradition of avant-garde art and experimental literature that seeks to challenge our assumptions about the world and our place within it.
In conclusion, the distinction between reality and the real is an important one that has become increasingly relevant in our rapidly changing world. While reality is a constructed and symbolic representation of the world that we live in, the real is an elusive and mysterious concept that defies easy definition. As we continue to grapple with the breakdown of reality and the search for the real, we must remain open to new experiences and perspectives that challenge our assumptions and expand our understanding of the world.
Optical illusions are intriguing phenomena that can trick our eyes and brain into perceiving something that is not actually present or perceiving it differently from reality. These illusions can be caused by various factors, such as the way our eyes perceive light, shadows, or depth perception, light, color, shape, and contrast, to name a few. They can be static, dynamic, or even interactive, providing endless opportunities for scientific research and artistic expression.
The Ninio’s extinction illusion. It shows 12 black dots on a gray-and-white grid. However, it is impossible to see all 12 dots at once. If the grid wasn’t in the picture, people could see all 12 dots.
My wife and My Mother in law. Some people see a young lady with her head turned towards the background while others see an elderly woman’s side profile.
What do you see in the center of the image: curvy lines or zigzag ones? Most people see both — double wavy lines and double angled lines alternating. Now look at them as they appear over the black and white area. What do you see now? The truth is all the lines are wavy.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1206458118873309185
The back wall is in fact built at a sharp angle and the floor and ceiling are steeply slanted. This creates an illusion that makes people and objects on one side of the room seem much smaller or larger than people or objects on the other side of the room.
The Cafe Wall Illusion has been described as a checkerboard with the squares slightly jumbled or off-kilter. The alternating light and dark squares do not line up directly with the squares on the rows above and below them. The result is that the horizontal lines in between each row appear to be slanted. In reality, the horizontal lines are perfectly parallel with one another and totally straight.
The Simultaneous Contrast Illusion uses a shaded background to trick the viewer into inferring things about the color of the main object. The horizontal bar in the middle of the picture is one solid color. However, the changing gradient behind the bar makes it seem changing
The penrose stairs. The four flights of stairs appear to link together so that a climber would go up or down the steps in a continuous loop but never arrive at a higher or lower point.
The Ponzo Illusion: Ponzo was able to trick viewers into thinking that the parallel line in the background was much longer than the one in the foreground.
The Necker Cube: The basic illusion is that some people will perceive a three dimensional cube with one side in the front while others will imagine that the very same side is the back of the cube.
The rabbit duck head
If you show people the same image in different locations, they will automatically assume motion. pic.twitter.com/rMKj8ZqqlV
Optical art images seem to be moving even though they aren’t animated. Most theories about the illusion of motion in optical art have to do with the brain’s inability to process the different colors and shapes simultaneously. sm and other more-classic forms of art.
@YouTube The illusion uses a set of cylinders and a mirror, with the cylinders cut so that depending on the angle from which you look at them, they appear to be either rounded or to have angled corners.
The Müller-Lyer illusion consists of three stylized arrows. When viewers are asked to place a mark on the figure at the midpoint, they invariably place it more towards the “tail” end. . This illusion consists of two lines of equal length with arrowheads pointing inward or outward at each end. The line with outward-pointing arrowheads appears longer than the one with inward-pointing arrowheads, even though they are the same length.
Other
The Hermann grid illusion: This illusion involves black squares that appear at the intersections of white lines, creating the illusion of gray blobs.
The Kanizsa triangle illusion: This illusion involves the perception of a white triangle against a black background, although no such triangle is physically present.
The Zöllner illusion: This illusion involves parallel lines that appear to be distorted by diagonal lines placed across them.
The Motion aftereffect illusion: This illusion occurs when we perceive motion in a stationary object after being exposed to a moving image for a prolonged period.
The Adelson checker shadow illusion: This illusion involves two identical squares of different shades of grey, but one appears lighter or darker due to the shadow cast by the cylinder.
