There is no pitching without catching?
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
alt.philosophy only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

alt.philosophy Profile…
 Up
There is no pitching without catching?         


Author: zinnic
Date: Aug 11, 2008 09:02

Base ball was never my game, but in a thread about meaning in Art
(this NG) it was claimed that "there is no pitching without catching".
Is this aphorism from baseball correct or should it be "there is no
catching withour pitching"?

This question may seem to be trivial but IMO it has real significance
when it is applied to the reality that 'emission does not require
reception, whereas reception requires emission.(Mystics
notwithstanding!).
4 Comments
Re: There is no pitching without catching?         


Author: THE BORG
Date: Aug 11, 2008 10:57

"zinnic" gate.net> wrote in message
news:bc8db80e-0aea-4bb6-9480-e427143a1563@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Base ball was never my game, but in a thread about meaning in Art
> (this NG) it was claimed that "there is no pitching without catching".
> Is this aphorism from baseball correct or should it be "there is no
> catching withour pitching"?
>
> This question may seem to be trivial but IMO it has real significance
> when it is applied to the reality that 'emission does not require
> reception, whereas reception requires emission.(Mystics
> notwithstanding!).

Seems you are trying to understand a stupid thing another human said and
trying to find intelligence in it.
Of course you can pitch a ball even when there is no one there to catch it.
But you cannot catch a ball unless someone pitches it.
You can transmit or broadcast - but no one need be there to pick up the
transmission.
But to pick up a transmission - someone has to transmit.
THE BORG
no comments
Re: There is no pitching without catching?         


Author: zinnic
Date: Aug 11, 2008 12:14

On Aug 11, 12:57 pm, "THE BORG" heaven.co.uk> wrote:
> "zinnic" gate.net> wrote in message
>
> news:bc8db80e-0aea-4bb6-9480-e427143a1563@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Base ball was never my game, but in a thread about meaning in Art
>> (this NG) it was claimed that "there is no pitching without catching".
>> Is this  aphorism from baseball correct or should it be "there is no
>> catching withour pitching"?
>
>> This question may  seem to be trivial but IMO it has real significance
>> when it is applied to the reality  that 'emission does not require
>> reception, whereas reception requires emission.(Mystics
>> notwithstanding!).
>
> Seems you are trying to understand a stupid thing another human said and
> trying to find intelligence in it.
> Of course you can pitch a ball even when there is no one there to catch it.
> But you cannot catch a ball unless someone pitches it.
> You can transmit or broadcast - but no one need be there to pick up the ...
Show full article (1.21Kb)
no comments
Re: There is no pitching without catching?         


Author: Pop Fly
Date: Aug 11, 2008 18:46

On Aug 11, 12:02 pm, zinnic gate.net> wrote:
> Base ball was never my game, but in a thread about meaning in Art
> (this NG) it was claimed that "there is no pitching without catching".
> Is this  aphorism from baseball correct or should it be "there is no
> catching withour pitching"?

Typo -- did you mean "there is no catching with our pitching"? Which
would explain why baseball was never your game.

Seriously, you're right. Also it should be, "Can't eat your cake and
have it too."
> This question may  seem to be trivial but IMO it has real significance
> when it is applied to the reality  that 'emission does not require
> reception, whereas reception requires emission.(Mystics
> notwithstanding!).

Coitus interruptus notwithstanding?
no comments
Re: There is no pitching without catching?         


Author: ZerkonX
Date: Aug 12, 2008 04:08

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:02:11 -0700, zinnic wrote:
> Base ball was never my game, but in a thread about meaning in Art (this
> NG) it was claimed that "there is no pitching without catching". Is this
> aphorism from baseball correct or should it be "there is no catching
> withour pitching"?
>
> This question may seem to be trivial but IMO it has real significance
> when it is applied to the reality that 'emission does not require
> reception, whereas reception requires emission.(Mystics
> notwithstanding!).

A ball is pitched. There is no catcher. The ball is still pitched.
There is a catcher. No ball is pitched, no catch.

On the other hand, sound, by definition, needs a receiver.

It may be a matter of energy and work. Unless there is a receptor of some
sort energy will not produce work. Work can be change.
no comments