The logic is a perverted logic...
From the little boy speaking,
there is a scene in the play where the little boy said that the duck is dead. And the heroine said it was alive, just afraid. It seems to me that the duck is indeed not dead. Then, to a certain extent, it can be concluded that the duck is normaly alive. But the little boy doesn't think so. He sees certain representations in animal behavior as death (the heroine says that the duck is scared, and I guess here that he treats the scared duck as a dead duck). So we can come to the conclusion that little boys have serious obstacles in distinguishing between life and death!
The logic of the little boy's burying of ducks may be like this. To be afraid is to die, and then to be buried. So in the end he buried it, and then proved that fear is death. The logic is messy? This logic often exists in real life, and we often use it. For example, the generation of probability, why do mathematicians study probability? Because they think physicists will use it. Why do physicists use probability? Because they think it is useful for mathematicians to study it. In the question of going to school, for example, why go to school? Because everyone else goes, why do everyone else go? Because going to school is useful, why is it useful...
alive and is live
are two concepts of being alive and being alive. Vegetatives are also alive, but obviously they have no vitality. And the little boy’s mother obviously has no vitality... In order to figure out what death is (again, I think the little boy can’t tell the inference between life and death), the little boy deliberately went to the funeral home. When he saw the dead body with makeup, He got the conclusion that the duck is dead (maybe it was unable to speak, and his slow movements were considered dead by him). Mothers play a vital role in the growth of human beings, so the cognitive errors of little boys are understandable. Someone said that the
little boy and eliot
did not give anything useful in this clue, but I don’t think so.
We don't know the process of eliot's growth, but we know the cognitive process of death in little boys, and little boys and eliot have certain similarities, little boys are a breakthrough in understanding eliot.
From the conversation between the little boy and Eliot, we know that the first person Eliot killed was his mother, and the little boy's mother was half-dead. In the process of the heroine's death, eliot used various methods to show a half-dead state. I hereby infer that eliot does not kill live people (the life of male pig's feet begins to wither due to the death of the heroine). So, Eliot's mother is similar to Xiao Nanhai's mother...
The growth of a little boy is a reflection of Eliot.
Anyway, the two are very similar (seems to be proved by that absurd logic)…………………………
Eliot did not kill.
In his opinion, he did not kill.
At the funeral, when Eliot saw the heroine for the first time, the heroine was not angry. Eliot thought the heroine was dead (later he said that he could see the corpse leaving, for this reason). Later, he became the heroine. After the car accident, Eliot has been trying to make the heroine think that she is dead, so that through the heroine's performance (cold body, mentality, etc.), it can be concluded that the heroine is dead (still the seemingly absurd logic, but unfortunately, this logic is It often appears in reality), and finally through burial (the person who is bought means death for Eliot and the little boy) to prove that the heroine died before. Eliot still gave the heroine a chance, but the heroine chose to give up. To some extent, she believed that she was dead, and to some extent did not dare to face it.
To Eliot, he was like a little boy, helping a dying person to die. In other words, killed a dead person. In other words, he didn't kill anyone... The
article can be over now, followed by some boring nagging about
life and vitality, death and lifelessness.
There are two kinds of stimuli. One is direct stimulus, and people do not need to respond to this stimulus. For example, simple horror movies (horror screens, horrible sounds, horrible content). The second type requires people to respond, such as appreciation of poetry, which requires people's thinking and participation. The first kind of stimulus is constant for people, and the second kind is always changing and never makes people feel tired. For example, when people read really good poems, they can read it many, many times, and they will have different experiences with the increase of people's experience knowledge, especially classical music. Such stimulation is always fresh.
People who are accustomed to the first kind of stimulus often lack creativity (reading poetry, listening to music, need their own participation, need to use their brains, the first kind of stimulation does not, such as pain). They have to be given to them as a driver. For example, if you watch a horror movie, you have to watch a new one to make you feel exciting, but you can watch it many times like Seanke’s Redemption. Such people tend to be bored with life in the subconscious (difficult to detect). Deep boredom can lead to serious mental illnesses such as destructiveness, abuse, torture, necrophilia, etc...
But that is to say, lifelessness and death, vitality and life have a certain connection...
Of course I am not proving eliot's point of view That's right...
ps: I've been thinking about what kind of excitement I should classify such programs as Tiantianxiang.
View more about After.Life reviews
