Skip to main content

Eating pizza on the high dive in the rain

 




In a syndicated cartoon recently, two teen aged characters were eating pizza on a high diving board as a sprinkling came down from the sky. 

One character says to the other that it is too bad they have outgrown random spontaneity. The other says, "dude, we're literally eating pizza on a high dive in the rain."

And gets this morose response: "Yes, but we're using napkins." 

Was that quoting something? The phrase "pizza on a high dive in the rain" is not merely a  vivid image, it is metrically regular. 

PIZ - za on a HIGH dive in the RAIN.

It sounds like it might have been used in someone's song as a metaphor for, yes, a spontaneous live-for-the-moment life.   

Either the cartoonist had a moment of genius, or he borrowed from a source that escapes me now. 

MSN

Comments

  1. We hear an abundance of superfluous language flying about. Those who are, or were, doing something say they are (or were) literally doing it. Very curious. For, if the act of doing is/was figurative, it never happened in the first place, did it? Or maybe, it did happen, somewhere other than in the real world. That is speculative. Anyhow, the abundance of superfluous utterances must be evidence of some circumstances shifting as contingencies surface. An intellectual surge? Or just incipient boredom?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The most annoying one for me is "going forward," as in "We should do such and such going forward." If we dropped "going forward," no one would think that we meant going backwards or sideways. And then there is "close proximity." There is no other kind of proximity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah. That's what I'm talking about. Sorta like: our #1priority is...

    ReplyDelete
  4. One can have a #2 priority. One of the definitions of "priority" in my dictionary is "highest or higher in importance, rank, privilege, etc.: 'a priority task.'"

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak