About
This site is a little project that lets me make fun of some things and sense of others. I use it to think a little more relationally without resorting to doing actual math.Subscribe
This site is a little project that lets me make fun of some things and sense of others. I use it to think a little more relationally without resorting to doing actual math.
I’d like to distribute this to potential dates and ask them to place on the chart where they think magnets should be.
It hurts me how much I want to quote this. But it’s a graphic. You can’t quote it directly. But I feel like I am going to reference this sentiment a lot from now on. And when I do, I’m going to credit you.
I disagree, even when one perfectly understands a thing it can still be quite magical. Even more so. I mean, think about the interactions that create a rainbow, much more interesting than a rainbow itself. Or human consciousness for that matter. I firmly don’t trust anyone who doesn’t believe magic exists, because that just means the kid inside them is dead.
Then you didn’t disagree, AdInfinitum Spero. We’re all entitled to use the definitions of words we prefer – you and me and Jessica included! – but you can certainly tell from context the definition Jessica has implied for “magic,” and it has nothing to do with “being incredibly fascinating” or making you feel all warmth and biscuits inside (as both rainbows and the knowledge of how they come to be make me feel, though – like you – the latter moreso than the former).
“…even when one perfectly understands a thing it can still be quite magical.”
You’ve just defined the upper-right point labeled “knowledge” – much like Jessica did – but you used the word “magical” in place of “awe.” So no actual conflict here – you seem to agree quite strongly with the graph, but you’re using a different set of lexical tokens.