It seems to me that the four attempts I mentioned all let the fish
slip out of the net while still doing something useful. They are
also, to my view, rather reductionistic. Is this coincidence?
Or is "boring" nothing more than a statement about "human
nature"--borrowing from an old tale I sometimes tell about
Bhairavananda:
(po) (animal) if it doesn't elicit terror (might eat me!) or joy
(it might taste/feel really good!), it's boring.
Tastes can become more reified, if not more refined, until humans
can even find football games interesting. Or so I'm told by others who
seem human. :)
MMB, at but not for OCC