07-31-2015, 01:29 AM
Hi, 71,
What intrigued me about this is the interesting dichotomy you've set up. In the modern frenetic world, time takes all we have - there's never enough.
But, the dichotomy fails because it's not mutually exclusive: time goes on forever so there's plenty of it. Why are we then short of time?
Don't know if you planned it like that, but it works for me. Deep, yet simple and succinct.
What intrigued me about this is the interesting dichotomy you've set up. In the modern frenetic world, time takes all we have - there's never enough.
But, the dichotomy fails because it's not mutually exclusive: time goes on forever so there's plenty of it. Why are we then short of time?
Don't know if you planned it like that, but it works for me. Deep, yet simple and succinct.
(07-29-2015, 06:15 AM)71degrees Wrote: Who has time for time?
It takes everything we have
just to catch our breath
A poet who can't make the language sing doesn't start. Hence the shortage of real poems amongst the global planktonic field of duds. - Clive James.