| Re: There is no pitching without catching? |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: zinniczinnic Date: Aug 11, 2008 12:14
On Aug 11, 12:57Â pm, "THE BORG" heaven.co.uk> 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!).
>
> 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
Even human children would recognise that this is implicit in my post!
Only the retarded Borg would see any need to S P E L L it out!
| 
