Here's something to ponder--
The Law of the Excluded Middle
I've taken copious notes on logic over the years, mostly because of Forrest's wish to "be in the middle" again.
The Law of the Excluded Middle states that either a proposition is true or it's negation is true. There is no "middle ground."
There is a negation in the poem. It's the word, "not."
So, two contradictory propositions are in the line, "Not far, but too far to walk."
It has a comma that separates the two parts, or segments. The Spanish word "gajo" comes to mind. It means "segment, cluster," or "point, spur."
Anyway, the period marks the end of the proposition. So, either the distance is "not far" or "too far." Only one can be true, right? Maybe... OR, perhaps we need to do what they say can't be done. Maybe the "excluded middle" is the truth we need to find, like Forrest was trying to demonstrate in his discourse with the jerk attorney.
Not the yes or no, not the black or white, but that gray area in the middle. I like that better. The excluded middle, the marrying of the black and white, the melding of the yes and no, where all becomes compatible.
I can definitely see how toponymy won't help anyone solve the poem. I think I touched on that with a little bit of humor in an old Fenn Hot Spot post. The one where I imagined the early explorers giving the same name to multiple mountains.
Ole Jed: Hey, KitKat, that there mountain yonder looks red. We gonna call it Red Mountain.
KitKat: Yeah, yeah, that's good. But wasn't that what you named that mountain we passed a day back?
Ole Jed: Yep, but this one is the red one here. And that one was the red one back there.
KitKat: (scratching his chin) That makes sense. Then that there mountain to the right of Red is green, so we'll call that one "Green Mountain," cause it reminds me of the four or five other ones we named Green.
And that's why Forrest says we have to marry the clues to the map. We have to find the right name to match the location in the context of the poem. Or, we have to find the right number to match a place to a map.
"Marry" is an interesting word. It's synonymous with "meld," another word Forrest likes to use. He used meld in a vignette titled, The Wooden Maiden.
"Her original color tones and tints have gently faded through the years to form a pleasing meld."
Sorta reminds me of another word, "patina." And reminds me of different places where Forrest has said or referenced the results of the repeated touching of an object, such as the pages of a book, over time. The oils from our fingers leave lasting effects on an object we love. We create our own patinas in life, don't we? Some may not be immediately visible, but they're there all the same.
It reminds me of an old Persian rug:
One of the past featured questions on MW was:
"You had mentioned that melding iron and bronze is difficult to do. Would you explain a bit of the process on how it can be done and what makes them hard to marry?" (emphasis added)
Here is part of F's answer:
"The laws of physics insinuate that joining a ferrous metal to a non-ferrous metal is difficult, but may be accomplished with the use of a heliarc, which uses an inert gas that keeps oxygen away from the joining process. When heated to a high temperature iron will start to oxidize before it melts, where bronze will not.
So the secret to marrying the two metals is to keep the iron from oxidizing, thus making the two compatible. The inert gas does that. That’s my story and it always worked for me when I had a foundry, although some guys who are smarter than I am said I couldn’t do it. f"
So, there F goes again, doing something people smarter than him said he couldn't do.
Anyway, the melding of the colors on the Indian happened when the contrasting colors all faded so that they became compatible.
The melding of bronze and iron happens when an inert (or noble) gas, such as nitrogen prevents an unwanted chemical change (oxidization), and the two objects become compatible, and marry. A marriage happens between two compatible people or things.
Forrest would find a way to make these two compatible:
So, melding a clue to a map might mean that we take two (or more) seemingly incompatible words, and make them compatible. Toponymy may not help much in that process; however, solving a clue to get the correct place name may be needed. And the answer to a clue may be "Laundry" or "Washington." But Ole Jed and KitKat and other old explorers like Z.P. and A.P. made things difficult by giving multiple places the same name.
To solve the clue, you might have to combine two seemingly contrasting words in such a way to make them compatible. That's the melding, or dichotomy, Forrest may be referring to. A long time ago, I gave the example of wise and found the blaze. Both wise and blaze can be used to define the word, "brilliant."
When all become compatible, then you can marry them to a map.
Then, you can confidently go to the right geographical location.
And I must admit, I have been wrong so many times that it's pretty funny. I'm okay with that, though. If each failure brings you closer to success, then I'm on the verge of being an omniscient guru. Lol.
Failing is a part of life. And anyone that says they've been 100% right throughout the duration of the chase (and I can only think of one, and it's not me), they're fooling themselves. Like Forrest, we all reserve the right to be wrong once in a while, because we're human, and not perfect.
That's why ridicule is so incredibly foolish. It used to sorta bother me, but I've grown a lot since I started this chase. I've learned a lot about human nature, and some of it's disturbing. I realize as long as I take the high road, then I'm okay, and and me being okay is what I need to concentrate on.
And as Forrest says, eventually things will smooth themselves out.
Anyway, although logic might be useful in solving the poem, it's not all you need to solve the poem. A healthy dose of imagination is required as well. And I've got plenty of that. Lol.
Oh yeah, I had my eye checkup yesterday, and my eyes are pretty much 100% now, I only lost a tiny bit of vision from my recent scare. My prescription for my right eye went from -3.00 to -3.25, so I'm not even close to being blind yet. Phew! We're also trying "monovision," which is supposed to cut down my need to use "cheaters." The theory is that by using a stronger prescription for my right eye and a not so strong one for my left, it'll allow me to see good both far away and close up. But so far, it's not really working. I still need the cheaters. Rats. Next week, I have one last appointment for adjustments, so maybe a little stronger or little weaker prescription for my left eye will do the trick.
Have a great day...it's almost Friday!
Awesome post...Go forth!! ✨