| Re: There is no pitching without catching? |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX 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.
| 
