Point of View
Perspectives are a great thing; they are what make each and every one of us different. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they result from each and every one of us BEING different - which would explain why mobs of sheep tend to think alike. Or at least act like they do.
The point of that little introductory paragraph is as follows: an event occurs. It is not a particularly pleasent event, at least from the point of view of whoever said event happened to. When telling the tale through the written word, however, others find said event humourous, and not in a menacing way; the victim of said event manages to forget how unpleasent it actually was, and just tells it as a funny story... with all of the nastier details blissfully omitted.
Now, a different viewer of said event could find it just as amusing... they would just find it amusing for the details that the other story teller happened to leave out, instead of the series of coincedences which led to an interesting adventure. This adventure would have been, coincidentally, partly the fault of this other viewer. So are the nasty bits, which said victim STILL does not find in the least bit amusing.
If this other viewer were to decide to tell said tale to a receptive audience which happens to include the victims younger sister... Hmm. Perhaps it just goes to show that this person, by the readers above, is not a sheep (Though they are, as they belong to a larger group of people; but, for the purpose of this particular entry, let us say that they do not.) because they do not agree with the victim's point of view. The reader (that would be YOU, by the way) would be a sheep, then, if they took the point of view of either of these two participents in said adventure, but in order to have a unique view point on the situation, then the reader (Again, that's you!) would have to have been there. Which is altogether impossible.
That having been said, I suppose that's it for the day. No, to all those who ask, I am not answering what said event is, or who it happened to. If you know, you'll know.
The point of that little introductory paragraph is as follows: an event occurs. It is not a particularly pleasent event, at least from the point of view of whoever said event happened to. When telling the tale through the written word, however, others find said event humourous, and not in a menacing way; the victim of said event manages to forget how unpleasent it actually was, and just tells it as a funny story... with all of the nastier details blissfully omitted.
Now, a different viewer of said event could find it just as amusing... they would just find it amusing for the details that the other story teller happened to leave out, instead of the series of coincedences which led to an interesting adventure. This adventure would have been, coincidentally, partly the fault of this other viewer. So are the nasty bits, which said victim STILL does not find in the least bit amusing.
If this other viewer were to decide to tell said tale to a receptive audience which happens to include the victims younger sister... Hmm. Perhaps it just goes to show that this person, by the readers above, is not a sheep (Though they are, as they belong to a larger group of people; but, for the purpose of this particular entry, let us say that they do not.) because they do not agree with the victim's point of view. The reader (that would be YOU, by the way) would be a sheep, then, if they took the point of view of either of these two participents in said adventure, but in order to have a unique view point on the situation, then the reader (Again, that's you!) would have to have been there. Which is altogether impossible.
That having been said, I suppose that's it for the day. No, to all those who ask, I am not answering what said event is, or who it happened to. If you know, you'll know.
posted by Opaxia: star-nosed mole extraordinary | 7:53 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home