Do I know that the last paragraph is all that
matters? Yes. But do I rather that you read the whole thing? Also yes.
To get things straight, this whole thing
you’re reading came from me taking a wild tangent on the classification of
rabbit holes. Now rabbit holes; amazing, aren’t they? Well, maybe just me. Now I’m talking about the figurative rabbit
hole, the one that wise people encourage you not to go down; not the literal
one (sorry rabbit fans). My whole life, I’ve believed that
“You
shall go down a rabbit hole;
but
make sure you’ll have bunny stew for
dinner.”
(sorry again,
rabbit fans)
The other day, I was thinking about this (for no apparent reason, of course), and was fascinated by the possibility of there being a rabbit hole classification. What if there are two kinds of rabbit holes? The ones that you should go down, and the ones you might wanna take a hard pass on. Let me be the Linnaeus of rabbit holes for the next few minutes.
If you’ve made it this far, you’re entitled to this ‘more serious’ note. The reason I believe firmly in what I’ve put above in extravagantly fancy script is that there are great treasures to be found asking questions that no others ask, and in daring to take paths that no others do. But then there is always the grim prospect of a dead end, on hitting which, all around you, you’ll be faced with extreme criticism; for not being “normal”, and then paying the price. This is why I consider it of prime importance to know what kind of situation you’re getting yourself into, and to make an educated decision (or at least, an educated guess). So, I present to you, the grand scheme of rabbit hole classification (into two).
You see, as I’ve already made clear, the whole point of going down a rabbit hole is to find the bunny, and the whole point not to is the fact that the bunny is in the hole. Or is it? For a seemingly unenthusiastic cavity to be a rabbit hole, it is not necessary to have a bunny currently in it. Since we are in it for the rabbit stew, it is pointless to waste time on a hole with no rabbit in it.
As far as I’m concerned, the trick is to sniff out whether your endeavour has a fruit at the end before you make a move. Bunnies, being the bunnies they are, always tend to show their presence. For example, if you take a mathematical axiom and try asking why is it so, you have successfully earned yourself a rabbit hole. But that is what I would call ‘a hole with the bunny long left’. On the other hand, if you’re a physicist trying to find a theory of everything, though you’re in one of the freakiest rabbit holes in the business, you’re bound to succeed. Even if you cannot see the fluffy at the end of the tunnel, you know there he is, because you see the effect of his workings as the order and discipline with which all the fundamental forces of physics behave and interact. So there definitely is a bunny, but we haven’t got to it, yet.
As an added piece of advice, if you find yourself in a ‘currently operational’ rabbit hole, remember to always see the fluffy at the end of the tunnel (or light; you could focus on the light at the end of the tunnel too. But this being a hole leading down, and fluffy bunnies being cuter, I would prefer them). And once you do find what you’re after, for the sake of all rabbit lovers, please do not make a stew out of the theory of everything.
Comments
Post a Comment