• cAUzapNEAGLb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Many of our words are the same, but you asked a question and I provided an interpreted answer.

      • cAUzapNEAGLb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        The issue is that you called it dumb because you interpret it as “only children” are enlightened enough to see the tree as a tree.

        But I don’t believe that is the intent of the comic, instead, they simply drew a child as a shorthand representation for the concept of enlightenment.

        I believe any person can be so enlightened to see something as it is, and not what it could be made into if they wanted to.

        Therefore, I don’t think the comic is dumb as you stated. I think the comic is attempting to motivate people to see things as they are and be enlightened.

        Also there was a little humor in the misspelling of a common word when calling something dumb, in the way of “kettle calling the pot black”

        • stoy@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          I can see how me using the word dumb in that context could cause a disagreement, especially as I misspelled beauty, I could have used shallow instead.

        • Maeve@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Something about looking and not seeing. Or those who have eyes to see…I wonder if this is our mythical third eye, the ability to imagine, extrapolate eg child/inner child, in this instance.