Nice! does it also mean that it is a generalization - for a common man, anything that is overly complicated and not sufficiently understood hovers on the borders on being mystical or hides under the covers of the unexplained (magic here)? If yes, then it becomes just a placeholder term to duck under or shove under. It may not necessarily be used in the true sense of the term.
rendezvous, good summary :) But this "It may not necessarily be used in the true sense of the term." The contention is that that is the true sense of the term!
rendezvous, The claim that the statements are getting at (but not saying so explicitly) is that, when the circuitry (or structural details) of a phenomenon are beyond our current purview, we as a people have called it "magic" i.e. that is what magic is.
Relentless warrior against windmills, champion of pedantic non sequiturs, deconstructively critical when provoked, in doubt, and at all other times. Subject has so many edges that he may fleetingly be mistaken to be well-rounded by a casual observer. If said illusion of well-roundedness is not visible at first, a small (or large) amount of squinting may do the trick.
8 comments:
Like the post! It's like my dad considering it magic that I could pull instant data from the net about a topic we were discussing.
OK, i finally get it. I think...
Nice! does it also mean that it is a generalization - for a common man, anything that is overly complicated and not sufficiently understood hovers on the borders on being mystical or hides under the covers of the unexplained (magic here)? If yes, then it becomes just a placeholder term to duck under or shove under. It may not necessarily be used in the true sense of the term.
Maybe I'm not thinking correctly here....
rendezvous, yep, right-o :)
rendezvous, good summary :) But this "It may not necessarily be used in the true sense of the term."
The contention is that that is the true sense of the term!
Unawoken,
The "true" sense of the term is a bit elusive to me :-) I understand you are saying that this IS magic here is used as it means.
Did I get that right?
rendezvous,
The claim that the statements are getting at (but not saying so explicitly) is that, when the circuitry (or structural details) of a phenomenon are beyond our current purview, we as a people have called it "magic" i.e. that is what magic is.
got it! :-)
Post a Comment