Quote Discussion, Current quote: “The problems of victory are more agreeable than those of defeat, but they are no less difficult.” page 15

INFINITE*

but i have no idea what you’re trying to say. it says “all rivers” not “all things”, and … what does that have to do with it being contextual?

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

INFINITE*

but i have no idea what you’re trying to say. it says “all rivers” not “all things”, and … what does that have to do with it being contextual?

METAPHOIRCALLY speaking:
1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
2. A thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, esp. something abstract.

After all, isn’t all of these quotes being put up by Dartval some form of metaphor?

AND, the def of metaphor does sound a lot like that for conceptual context: a definition in which the term is used by embedding it in a larger expression containing its explanation;…

AND, often times, I have little-2-NO idea of what I’m trying to say, either….lol
I just keep at it until I finally stumble over something that “sounds pretty goood”.

well you haven’t stumbled over any such thing here yet.

Criks, I think ya pretty much shot down your own shitty attitude about the METAPHOR when ya said: ""…because it is a cycle…""

How exactly did that part shut down my own “attitude” ?

The only sense I can make of it, is that you’re implying that im using a metaphor to explain myself, as if I used the word “cycle” as a metaphor. Which would then somehow be hypocritical.

If that is the case, then no it’s not metaphorical at all. It is literally a cycle, as in the water goes through several steps of process until it ends where it started, forming a virtually endless loop (assuming I didnt spell “cycle” wrong).

When water heats up (by the sun) it forms clouds, which are then by the wind (which is created by heat differences) taken over ground, to then cool down as liquid to be rained down on the ground, forming rivers, just to by gravity be taken back to where it started again, just to repeat the process, it creates a cycle.

---

That’s all I could make sense of your post. I don’t see how adding internet definitions to the word metahor changes anything, and I dont understand at all where you’re going with the “YOUR” and “ALL” sentences.

Criks, it doesn’t work out if you take it literally. Think of it more deeply than just the literal meaning.

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

well you haven’t stumbled over any such thing here yet.

Well, if such is how YOU prefer to “take it”…..
okie-dokie.

Yet, I think what Dartval said just above is something of merit that I could do well to stub my toe on.

Originally posted by Dartval:

Criks, it doesn’t work out if you take it literally. Think of it more deeply than just the literal meaning.

Well the problem I’m having with the quote is that I can’t find anything deep and abstract about it, thats why I made that long post about the negative sides of metaphors and analogies.

I’d love to hear others interpretations of the quote if they can find any analogies to it though. But one point I was trying to make with my long post was that even if they do find a good analogy with the quote, the quote itself doesnt make sense, which would make it very useless when trying to make metaphors.

KONG: 7105 topics, 325625 posts
AND, “we’ve only just begun”.
What better example could ya want?

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

KONG: 7105 topics, 325625 posts
AND, “we’ve only just begun”.
What better example could ya want?

Example of what?

Yes, over 7000 topics and over 325 000 posts can feel like a lot, but turned into something little when stating its only the beginning.

If you want to connect it with the quote, you’re gonna have to reformulate it first. Probably into something similar to “Even if all rivers end in the ocean, the ocean barely change in size”, which is actually quite far away from what the actual quote states, and is still very loosely linked to your comment.

If the key message of the quote was “everything is relative” then the quote did a poor job presenting it.

If the key message was “no matter how much you try to change something, the changes can always be made insignificant” it is a very long shot.

I can go on making similar messages, but so far I have to go far from anything the quote states.

Because the sea evaporates, too.

Duh.

Originally posted by onlineidiot1994:

Because the sea evaporates, too.

Duh.

The sea evaporating has nothing to do with why the sea isn’t full, in itself. In fact the entire quote is nonsense when you take it literally. I think the originator was attempting to posit: “All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea basin is not full.”
Otherwise, it’s like saying that if you were to shrink a substance uniformly, the constitution changes…

What fills the basin IS THE SEA.
Ya’re “over thinking” this……
Forget the science of “evaporation”….
just go w/ the (ahem) “flow” of the phenomenon of a cycle of rain//snow that sources the rivers which flow to the sea…which is not their DESTINATION,,,,but, rather merely a point in the circle,,,,an area which the sea rises to become clouds that carry the moisture to elevated environs,,,,only to once again fall to the ground and begin the journey anew.

What fills the basin IS THE SEA.

Yes, but without boundaries, you cant use the word full to describe it. The ocean does not have any clear boundaries, which is why it can never get “full”, making it irrelevant how many rivers lead to it, thus making the quote illogical.

Adding the word basin gives the ocean boundaries enabling the use of the word full. It doesnt fix the quote though since it still doesnt make sense.

---

The lack of actually useful and/or progressive discussion on SD is frustrating. I must quench my thirst of logical reasoning in other ways, and fast, or I’ll get thrown out head first when Im in the pub with friends this evening.

I guess if all of the universes (assuming there is a multiverse) got completely filled with water, then it could be defined as full. Maybe Solomon knew that and was trying to make an allusion to the fact that no matter what happens here, we are insignificant compared to the entirety of the universe.
Maybe not.

Originally posted by Criks:

What fills the basin IS THE SEA.

Yes, but without boundaries, you cant use the word full to describe it. The ocean does not have any clear boundaries, which is why it can never get “full”, making it irrelevant how many rivers lead to it, thus making the quote illogical.

Adding the word basin gives the ocean boundaries enabling the use of the word full. It doesnt fix the quote though since it still doesnt make sense.

---

Good grief, STOP over-analyzing this—-hmmm, interesting that the word “ANAL” is in “analyze”…..eh? LOL Dartval needs to come up w/ a new quote that addresses those obsessed w/ the usefulness of the bark on a specific tree growing on the morning side of the mountain of a particular glen in a forest……RATHER THAN look for the forest w/o seeing JUST the trees.

OR, maybe even a quote about those ppl who like to argue just for the sake of arguing. Which is what I see YOU as being….and, as such, will likely fail to “get started down THAT silly path” in the future.

Here, let me offer the entire Biblical passage from which Dartval obtained his quote. At least Solomon—a man considered to be a giant among intelligent, wise men—understood the meaning of his metaphor.

Of course, fershur, we all have the “right” to see such “enlightening words” in any manner that best befits our particular “needs”. Contemplation on the minutiae rather than the “big picture” has its benefits….I find myself doing it (in private though….kinda like masturbating,,, of the mind…lol). Nah, such “exploration” into the specific—as well as the trivial—can be as fun as it is “beneficial”.

The lack of actually useful and/or progressive discussion on SD is frustrating. I must quench my thirst of logical reasoning in other ways, and fast, or I’ll get thrown out head first when Im in the pub with friends this evening.

Dood, YOU are the priggish sort that does make your above statement true….for me as well,,,,,since I now require a really good “drunk”….. and this includes the appropriate huge hangover in effort to render YOUR “sense of logic” little more than a distant nightmare.

Here’s a thought, howzzabout ya find that ""actually useful and/or progressive discussion"" WITH THOSE FRIENDS of yours at the pub this evening. Should they throw ya out….maybe ya should rethink your penchant for such discussion and/or your choice of friends…lol.

Originally posted by BoxBeat:

I guess if all of the universes (assuming there is a multiverse) got completely filled with water, then it could be defined as full. Maybe Solomon knew that and was trying to make an allusion to the fact that no matter what happens here, we are insignificant compared to the entirety of the universe.
Maybe not.

BoxBeat, that’s a very interestingly, deeply “outside-of-the-box” interpretation. I like it. Esp. if I can add: "…our insignificance (of rivers) is likely to never fill such a void. I like it.

Well really a river usually flows from ocean to ocean, through a series of stopping at lakes, and other water deposits. So really an ocean flows to an ocean, unless you throw in that whole evaporation cycle, then this is gonna get intense.

How does one know if the sea if full? Clearly, if the sea is full there would be no land do to land being submerged under land. Another thing, the meaning could also be linked to tenacity and potential. No matter how many times you do something to improve you can always get better.

Maybe it’s foreshadowing the end of life as we know it. Rivers of human blood that never cease flowing (the stopping point would be it’s metaphorical “fullness”).

Originally posted by sabwab:

Well really a river usually flows from ocean to ocean, through a series of stopping at lakes, and other water deposits. So really an ocean flows to an ocean, unless you throw in that whole evaporation cycle, then this is gonna get intense.

Hmmmmm…..“lake-stopovers”.
Now, why didn’t I think of that?
This angle certainly evaporates MY theory.

Originally posted by WorufgangoSama:

Maybe it’s foreshadowing the end of life as we know it. Rivers of human blood that never cease flowing (the stopping point would be it’s metaphorical “fullness”).

Man….that’s deeeeeep.

Hahahahaha! Great Karma.

It’s like reading every book on the face of the earth, but when you’re done all you know is you read a lot of books.
“All the rivers run into the sea (you read the books and the words went through your head) yet the sea is not full. (you learned nothing)”

Well the quote actually makes sense now that I’ve been given the whole quote:

New International Version (©1984)
All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.

It is simply addressing the evergoing cycle of water, and can actually be used as analogies and metaphores now.

Now please lets move on, I have a suggestion.

“Does truth trump happiness, when they are not the same?”

-unknown

Time for a new quote:

“Time is dead as long as it is being clicked off by little wheels; only when the clock stops does time come to life.”

-William Faulkner

When we can only think of time (passing) under the imposition of restraints, we fail at applying it effectively due to anxiety. However, when we are relaxed, but mobile, we achieve great things. It is a matter of human nature- what seems more appropriate by reason is not necessarily the best route in practice.

That quote doesn’t make sense at all.