Either way to slice a melon, you still get a sliced melon.

One of the greatest mistakes of man is comparison.

Seems like an odd thing to say, isn't it? After all, everything we know is due to subjective understandings, concepts of things. Even Kant said: 'Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.'. We have distinct concepts: thought, intuition, idea. Each representing not only the meanings of those words, but also those similar to them. In other words, 'the meaning of a word is its use in the language' (L. Wittgenstein). Without comparing the words to the concepts surrounding them we would not understand the words at all. Comparison is what allows us to understand articulated (and less articulated) speech.

The necessity of comparisons is not evident only in language, but also in more abstract systems - mathematics, physics, chemistry, even philosophy. Without comparing different forces, we would not anticipate changes in trajectories. Without comparing integers, we would not be able to count. Without comparing chemical elements, we would not have a system called a periodic table. Without comparing ideas, we would not have praised epic literature and dissed the incompetent. We need comparisons for systematization. And we need that for the world to make sense. After all, 'Scientific theories are judged by the coherence they lend to our natural experience and the simplicity with which they do so. The grand principle of the heavens balances on the razor’s edge of truth.'. The scientific principles we have now are in place because they make more sense than any other theory that has been come up with so far.

However, comparisons limit mankind severely. Comparisons are based on our subjective reasoning and are limited to what we can think of. But, as language is based on comparisons, our concepts are limited. 'How?', one might wonder, but it is only a simple truth he'd need to understand. Our brains are processors, the neurons within work with binary operations ('signal'==1;'no signal'==0), the commands that guide the operations are words and concepts that have been linked to neural patterns and pathways. Thusly figured, any abstract thought not connected to existing concepts is unlikely (nearly impossible) to occur. If it does occur, it is a 'ghost in the machine', a random segment of code that manifests itself in something quite random. It is part of the slow process called 'evolution', but it can drive a brain mad. It is practically impossible to force such a bug to occur at will. After all, as they say, 'the limits of your language are the limits of your world.' (L. Wittgenstein). Innovation itself is slowed down by existing linguistic concepts.