|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
I haven't ever seen a circular eddy
That's why when you do see one, Wordwind, it's very eddifying. For me, as well.
A circular argument is no longer eddifying. What is contrary is often eddifying because it turns against the flow.
There's nothing wrong with the mainstream, of course. But it only flows in one direction.
More directions are no harm to the mainstream. If nothing else, they allow for some aimless excursions which might carry back crustaceans and such nestled in the silt of some dead-end rivulet.
These tasty morsels may help to feed the fish flowing in the mainstream.
Reminds me of a line from a little poem my father always enjoyed reciting to me when I was a kid [especially when I got into trouble]:
"Only the game fish swims upstream, the sensible fish swims down."
It's a good thing most fish are sensible enough to swim in schools. But there's a case to be made for fish who like to play hookey as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
(sorry to those of you who read in the threaded mode.. this is out of order..)
one poster comments:
There's nothing wrong with the mainstream, of course. But it only flows in one direction.
yes, well maybe.. i guess.. but..
i live in NYC. We have a river, The Hudson
(well, technical it is a fjord, and technically in NYC (but not in NYS its called the North river, but these quibbles aside)
it is a large river. (well over 1 mile wide in NYC area)
It is a long and deep river (NYC/harbor does silt up, but just a few miles north of the city, where there is less silting, the river bed is over 250 feet deep)
the river has a 'backflow'--that is the ocean and tides flow upstream-- over 50 miles. (at high tide, the backflow current is much stronger than the downstream current, and the river flows 'upstream'!)
Most east coast rivers have water falls and the falls stop tidal backflows, (and since the falls are often less than 50 miles from the mouth of the rivers.. the back flow is limited) --the first falls on the Bronx river is less than 10 miles from mouth of the river, for example.
but tidal backflow is not unique to the Hudson.
and backflow is not only caused by tides.
several tributaries to the mississippi river creat backflow.
The mainstream, even when you talk about rivers, is differentiated because there are frequently (if not always) contrary flows.
I would argue the term mainstream evolved to clarify the predominant flow of water, but that there are backflows and contrary currents in almost every river (and eddies, form and collapse to deal with the backflows.)
--the same situation exist 'socially' --A mainstream idea (or behavior) might be the more common one, but there are always contrary ideas and behaviors going on.
Rereading, and trying to clarify, i recognize is the BUT in the second sentence that is bothering me.
There's nothing wrong with the mainstream, of course. But it only flows in one direction.(EA)
the but negates the whole first sentence. it implies there is something wrong. and then goes onto tell you what is wrong, (it only flows in one direction)
its like saying I agree with you totally, BUT for one point--well if you don't agree on 1 point, you don't agree totally.
So it seem the mainstream (ie, the predominant flow ) has 'nothing wrong' --Except it flows in one (predominant) direction (that is, it is the main stream.)
mmm.... i agree total with the person who posted the comment, BUT--
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
mmm.... i agree total with the person who posted the comment, BUT--
I agree totally with the person who posted the comment, BUT -- [This argument is becoming circular. :) ]
Thanks for playin' along with my eddy, Of Troy. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 176
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 176 |
Circ-LE-ar
[ smile ] Sorry: it was there; I had to take it. I try, but sometimes I just can’t help kicking that ‘nucular’ dog, wherever it may appear to me. [ /smile ]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154 |
Eddies occur where there is water flowing in one main direction. Sooner or later there will be an obstruction near the edge of the current and some of the water can't continue downstream so gets redirected upstream, it can't go in a contrary direction for ever and is eventually caught up again by the current and heads back down again. Thus the contrary flow has become circular, (actually it's usually oval.) Try looking where a log has fallen into the water at the edge of the stream.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
Thus the contrary flow has become circular, (actually it's usually oval.) - This remark points to the cause of the present controversy: a circle is generally considered a geometrical figure, all points of which are at the same distance from the centre. The adjective circular however, is often used in a topological rather than geometrical sense: a circular path simply has no beginning nor end, and its shape is irrelevant and can be very involved. An eddy is a is a circular path of water molecules - or electrons. Which is the direction of the mainstream - does not matter for the eddy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
> Why circular?
>> An eddy is a circular path of water molecules - or electrons.
Like all planets, all stars, all atoms and all things in this universe, eddies are vaguely spherical.
God created the universe and said: 'Here, have a ball!'
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
Why does an expression like vaguely spherical go down quite well, while vaguely cubical would not  ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
> vaguely cubical
Well, a cube is an abstract geometrical shape, whereas spheres and spirals are natural facts found everywhere. A sphere is a decidedly simple and highly efficient form, a box is not - unless you want something to *not roll anywhere:-)
Your comment illuminates the interesting interplay between two basic personality types though: the very boxy, prickly ones versus the well-rounded<g>, touchy-feely ones. The difference here is not one of varying view points of course, but a question of one's focus or resolution.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 176
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 176 |
I like ‘vaguely cubical’. In fact, I think vaguely works well with just about any word, the more unexpected, the better – ‘vaguely pregnant’, for example, or ‘vaguely dead’, ‘vaguely on’, ‘vaguely off’, ‘vaguely adamant’, ‘vaguely specific’, ‘vaguely exact’, and so on. As with koans, and certain forms of humor, an unexpected association of words affords one a millisecond or so of confusion, and/or clarity, temporarily derailing one's thoughts and giving her or him a short break from an otherwise relatively predictable day.
So, just out of curiosity, does that put me in the ‘touchy-feely’ sphere, or the ‘prickly’ box?
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,374
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
1 members (A C Bowden),
233
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
