...kill the dream, but not the dreamer?

which makes more sense?

this deadly question brought to you by The B00b Maintenance Guy™

Kill the dreamer, but not the dream
that makes much more sense. Cuz if you're being philosophical about it, if you kill the dream of a dreamer, you are just killing the dreamer afterall. How could a dreamer live without a dream? Make sense?

___________________
Until next time, this is Matt saying turn up the bass...and listen up

i think i get what you mean:
if you kill the dream, the dreamer cannot dream anymore, so it's not a dreamer anymore . Even when you didn't kill the dreamer, he's not a dreamer anymore.

And if you kill the dreamer, the dream is not being dreamed, so you're without dream nor dreamer.

You can't take just one. You gotta wag both or none.

___________________
20031115 Creamfields @ Buenos Aires !!

/me is crazy enough to study japanese (and proud of it)
Blog (spanish): here

are we talking, i was asleep and had a dream, or MLK "I have a dream"? if we are talking sleep dreams, it doesnt matter wich one you kill. kill the dream, and hes no longer a dreamer. kill the dreamer and he wont dream anymore. now if we are talking about a Martin Luther King type dream, you can only kill the dreamer, because the dream will never die.

I hope this is a rhetorical question, it's too early in the morning to be thinking of such things.

** Posted at 1:51pm **

___________________