mc5 - AVMA Take 2

arrow_circle_left arrow_circle_up arrow_circle_right

AVMA Take 2

help

Yes, it's another round of that classic guessing game - Animal, Vegetable, Mineral, Abstract [or any combination thereof]. This effort - '03/'04 should address any queries, but then again, may just serve to confuse and baffle which some might say is the point of the game. Patience, integrity and a decent search engine may be useful ....

arrow_circle_up

RECAP

This thing is an ABSTRACT human construct. It is connected to philosophy but is not a philsophy per se. It is theoretical, but not a theory per se. It is connected with an attitude but is not an attitude per se. It is connected to a belief system, but is not a belief system per se. It is associated with two people, one of whom is fictional. The fictional character does not originate in the C20th. I originally said flatly that it was not connected to Science or Religion, but on further research, I find it is connected to both, tho not in a particularly famous way. Although it might be connected to many things (anarcho-syndicalists, for instance, might consider it connected to anarcho-syndicalism and gay rights campaigners might consider it connected to gay rights), it is not especially connected to mental health, sport or cults, is not an -ism, named after anyone or a law.

Oh, and it is an ideal.

Ooh, you've all gone quiet.

Does that mean I win? I'm off to Rome on Saturday, so hopefully someone will ask a breakthru question before then.

A field of study?

[Ig] Field of study? NO

To do with "rights", as opposed to specifics, such as "gay rights"?

[Phil] Rights? NOT IN PARTICULAR

Is the fictional character British?

[Phil] British? NO

Is the fictional character European?

Is the real person an actor? Playing the part of the non-fictional person?

[Ig] Character European? YES! *applause*
[Phil] Actor? NO (but think about it the other way around...)

I'm thinking, but nothing's happening :-(

Hamlet's soliloquy?

[Phil] Happiness is...? NO, but you're getting warmer.

Is the fictional person acfually mentioned in a work of fiction (as opposed to just being an imaginary person)?

Is the fictional character from Shakespeare?

[Phil] Person from a work of fiction? YES! *applause*
[Tuj] Bardish? NO

So, to clarify what I think I understand: the two associated people are (i) the author of a fictional work and (ii) a character in that work. However, the answer itself is neither the author, nor the character. Is that correct?

[CdM] The author? NO! *audience gasps*. A character? YES. The answer is neither? CORRECT.

I suppose you could associate it with the author, come to think of it, but I'm not sure that many people do. But I may be wrong in that, so if it helps you to consider that it's associated with three people, then plz do so...

Fiction from pre 1000AD/CE?

[Phil] Pre-1000CE? NO

Man and Superman

[INJ] Clark Kent and alter ego? NO

Pre 20th century fictional character?

[Phil] Pre-C20th, YES *applause*

Is anyone ready for a clue?

I think I'm about ready, as my train of thought seems to be stuck for eternity at Clapham.

a clue

By far the most significant fact about The Answer so far revealed is that it is "an ideal".

Oh drat - that's the fact that's confusing all my other thoughts. Better sleep on this one then.

Brave New World?

[CdM] Miranda Huxley? NO

PS. [Phil] Bear in mind that there is more than one meaning for the word "ideal"...

A Platonic ideal?

arrow_circle_down

Want to play? Online Crescenteering lives on at Discord