|
|
Post by astree on Mar 20, 2020 7:59:55 GMT -5
Seems the difference between Metaphorical and Literal is also whether anything can be confirmed. If literal, moreso. If Metaphorical- interpretations (and options) are basically endless since we each apply our own imaginations into it. But the key is to apply 'Forrest's' imagination to it......and that is why learning more about the man is so important... This is a great topic. Im not so sure how much getting insight into forrest (and In this case, his imagination) is going to help the searcher. Below are three examples which cover a spectrum of trying to understand something. The question is how much does it help the reader to understand the person(s) who wrote it? 1) to understand calculus, do we need to know much about newton and leibniz (who are credited with inventing it). Or, do we need to know about pythagoras to understand his theorem? 2) united states declaration of independence, it may help to understand something about the authors viewpoints and background 3) “Little Gidding” by elliot, or the Old and New Testament of the Bible. Where the authors background and culural setting snd references can provide insight into the writings there are probably better examples, but i think 1) aligns with searchers who are poem-centric, while 3) is more like those who want to learn all about forrest. |
|
|
|
Post by Jenny on Mar 20, 2020 9:33:24 GMT -5
Love the examples..... and great questions.
For me, Math is math...it's absolute...... However, I see a poem written and worked on for 15 years by a writer as being a bit different. We know Forrest feels 'umbilically attached' to the location, and so that suggests it would be difficult to not have some of 'him' seeping into the poem leading a searcher there.
Plus, he talks about himself in the poem, and asks us questions about himself-- why is it I must go? To answer that, it would seem we must learn a bit about him. It's true though, maybe that answer, or others, won't help us find the treasure. We need only follow the nine clues.
|
|
|
|
Post by thetreasurehunter on Apr 3, 2020 11:51:27 GMT -5
It's been mentioned previously, but goes along with this..... Forrest has told us what 'tarry scant' means and it is literal. He says it means just get out of there. He's also given his definition of a Blaze to be anything that stands out. That's pretty much literal. Once on the spot, the Blaze might be a bit creative, but will still 'stand out'. And he has answered a question about how to find the treasure.... we just have to look quickly down, right? He said yes. All those things are straightforward. It seems the 'directional clues' are straightforward and he doesn't mind saying so. However, it seems the 'locational/geographical clues' are more cryptic and require more imagination to decipher. These he are very protective on. For it is these that are the puzzle to Forrest. I think like goldilocks says...it's a mixture.... I agree. Forrest gives us answers to questions that won't compromise the Chase. It seemed obvious to him that the poem indicated the first clue was WWWH and tarry scant means don't hang around. He's said to simplify but many searchers still continue to make it more complicated than even he has said it is to solve. It is not the difficulty of the poem, IMO, but the abundance of options for the meanings to the clues that is hindering the final find. |
|
|
|
Post by Jenny on Apr 4, 2020 10:19:20 GMT -5
Funny....I just mentioned options and discussing them, to possibly discount them, if at all possible (which probably not totally).. But I think DaveBakedPotato had created a few threads in the past with pros and cons on different subjects. This might be helpful to do....
Maybe we should start with the State.....pros and cons for each.... and then it is each searcher's task to decide on what they feel is best...
|
|
