10-11-2013, 10:23 PM
Newton's Cradle was superstition, or was it the scientific method? Both statements are equally true, and it is not math that counters superstition but science. However we are also, or only talking about the the five balls in a cradle that demonstrate conservation of momentum and energy, thus "clacking ball". Thus
"Terror is never as simple as the unseen clacking ball."
I am assuming you mean terror is never as simple as cause and effect? So terror is a series of difficult to see connections.
The ball is swinging. Using the swing of the ball to represent the many connection of terror, and also impending death.
The fallacy is that terror leads to death, does it? Maybe in the movies.
Todd, I feel you are trying to build a case here, but I do not find that case compelling.
If you are trying to imply that cause and effect in terror is built upon many steps and that these steps proceed incrementally I am also not convinced.
I also do not think it a good argument to try and define something by what it is not.
Regardless of how you are trying to say terror proceeds, in explaining it you do not get a free pass to just skip from talking about terror to a cryptic statement about death (death does not proceed dying, death is the end result of dying).
So for me the problem with this poem is that the sum of the parts do not equal a whole, leaving me empty. Invalidating the second law of thermodynamics
Dale
"Terror is never as simple as the unseen clacking ball."
I am assuming you mean terror is never as simple as cause and effect? So terror is a series of difficult to see connections.
The ball is swinging. Using the swing of the ball to represent the many connection of terror, and also impending death.
The fallacy is that terror leads to death, does it? Maybe in the movies.
Todd, I feel you are trying to build a case here, but I do not find that case compelling.
If you are trying to imply that cause and effect in terror is built upon many steps and that these steps proceed incrementally I am also not convinced.
I also do not think it a good argument to try and define something by what it is not.
Regardless of how you are trying to say terror proceeds, in explaining it you do not get a free pass to just skip from talking about terror to a cryptic statement about death (death does not proceed dying, death is the end result of dying).
So for me the problem with this poem is that the sum of the parts do not equal a whole, leaving me empty. Invalidating the second law of thermodynamics
Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.