(Q - ??: As this is my first vocal, I want to monopolize the floor and I would like to introduce you to a subject Michel, a little more literary, on circular references. Me
, what I notice when I think a little about hunting, is that I go through the book, even if we said what at one point, we had to put it aside, we have, how should I say
, lexical fields with certain words which, we manage to create a kind of bubble where it goes in circles, then other bubbles and other bubbles. Would these be more bags to unload for the future?
Or is it interesting to think about links or intersections that could lead us to see the trigger or things like that?)
MB: Do you have an example? I'm asking you this because otherwise the answer will be interpretable. So, I would like to try to be specific. Go ahead.
(Q - ??: Let's do the exercise and make sure it's an interesting exercise. We have, for example, B, we have colors, Newton, wavelengths... there you go, it's a certain domain. We have another domain with music, musicians... The keys, C clef, treble clef. That's a bit of little bundles of vocabulary which are interesting and which are sometimes useful. discover, which are not necessarily obvious. Is it just small packets placed like that or in fact, if we mixed everything in a large blender, we would obtain an interesting magic potion?)< /u>
MB: Well, no, just mix everything in a large mixer, that's what has been done for 30 years, eh. So the magic potion is the potion that makes the game last. The more you mix, the less you find.
My answer is categorical on this. In fact, these are enigmas which are, in quotes, we know that there are some interferences, at least on 2 of them, I have already said it. But, these are puzzles that are breakable, like tablets. We can place them side by side, we are not at all obliged to connect them in a systematic way. It's always something to find. There is a sequence, there is a logic, there is a teaching, that’s certain. But the Gloubi-boulga that you can make by mixing everything, certainly not what. The language of birds, everything complicated you can imagine around that, that's tossed in the trash, basically. There's none of that in the puzzles, but nothing at all.
MB: Do you have an example? I'm asking you this because otherwise the answer will be interpretable. So, I would like to try to be specific. Go ahead.
(Q - ??: Let's do the exercise and make sure it's an interesting exercise. We have, for example, B, we have colors, Newton, wavelengths... there you go, it's a certain domain. We have another domain with music, musicians... The keys, C clef, treble clef. That's a bit of little bundles of vocabulary which are interesting and which are sometimes useful. discover, which are not necessarily obvious. Is it just small packets placed like that or in fact, if we mixed everything in a large blender, we would obtain an interesting magic potion?)< /u>
MB: Well, no, just mix everything in a large mixer, that's what has been done for 30 years, eh. So the magic potion is the potion that makes the game last. The more you mix, the less you find.
My answer is categorical on this. In fact, these are enigmas which are, in quotes, we know that there are some interferences, at least on 2 of them, I have already said it. But, these are puzzles that are breakable, like tablets. We can place them side by side, we are not at all obliged to connect them in a systematic way. It's always something to find. There is a sequence, there is a logic, there is a teaching, that’s certain. But the Gloubi-boulga that you can make by mixing everything, certainly not what. The language of birds, everything complicated you can imagine around that, that's tossed in the trash, basically. There's none of that in the puzzles, but nothing at all.