Skip to main content

Does a retinal sieve filter myopic slop?

This questioned has intrigued me for quite some time. I decided to take a look at it today.

First lets look at the definitions of the words:
Retinal: Of or relating to the retina of the eye.
Sieve: A utensil for separating the finer and coarser parts of a pulverized or granulated substance from each other. It consist of a vessel, usually shallow, with the bottom perforated, or made of hair, wire, or the like, woven in meshes. See also cribiform cells.
Myopic: 1. unable to see distant objects clearly [syn: nearsighted] [ant: farsighted] 2. lacking foresight or scope;
Slop: 1. Spilled or splashed liquid. 2 Soft mud or slush. 3 Unappetizing watery food or soup.

Okay, so another way of saying Retinal Sieve is perhaps, "an eye that filters finer and coarser parts," and another way of saying Myopic Slop is, "near objects that look like mud," or "muddy objects that are nearsighted."

I am assuming that when sieving something, one would want to separate unwanted substances from wanted substances, so one would prefer to not retain the slop (or myopic slop: nearsighted junk), and keep the farsighted stuff that is clear.

Or maybe the retinal sieve is filtering out the slop of the world characterized by lacking foresight, and prefering the more clear substances, that can plan ahead, think before they talk, etc.

So, I don't think this really answered the initial question, but why should I solve this in ten minutes. No. I should continue to think this over for years. YEARS!

(A prize to the individual(s) who can name where Retinal Sieve and Myopic Slop came from.)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What do you make of this "Intelligent Design"

With all the press lately about "Intelligent Design", I thought I would comment a bit on it. A) Don't teach it in schools. It isn't scientific, it is just a point of view. If parents want their kids to know about this idea, they can teach them themselves. B) It isn't scientific, it is just ideas. You can't witness any proof, nor use evidence or tests to disprove it. C) God wouldn't use supernatural means to create a natural earth. D) Science and Religion don't clash, so quit trying to exclusively embrace one and reject the other. They are both about discovering the truth, and I believe they shouldn't contradict each other. Where they meet is where we say "I don't know." Here is an interesting article about it too. This article defines Intelligent Design as "the theory that life on earth has developed by a series of supernatural miracles performed by the God of the Christian Bible, for which it is pointless to seek any natur...

The Cephalopod and I

Silently the cephalopod somehow started shuddering as something somewhere suffering screamed out from someones sin. And strangely, when I saw the sin I also started struggling so, to stifle my sensation of a strangling sort of sound. I, descending south and circling, seeking, Swam to save the screaming something. I searched, the sound was sickening; Uncertain, stopped I, listening. The source I sought. The cephalopod, still shaking, swerved and suddenly just stopped and swooned, I ascertained The sound had ceased. I sobbed. Sadly, solemnly, the squid and I, together, side by side, swam home.