I think you answered your own questions. That answer in my opinion is the best. Congratulations. Have a great day.
2006-07-03 14:43:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by firestarter 6
·
0⤊
3⤋
I pretty much agree with your philosophy, with the exception of being "reborn." I would just consider it "transferred" or "extended." It is the same flame transferred or extended to a new "life" or a new "home" or a new "energy source" or whatever you'd like to call it. Since it's the same flame, I don't think it dies until there is no flame left. Even if you blow the flame out from candle #1, the flame still lives on, or exists, on candle #2. In fact, the flame even exists in 2 different places at the same time for a nano-second or so. It's more like an extension of life. It wouldn't be a separate flame (or a new life) unless it was lit by a different source, such as a new match.
2006-07-03 21:47:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by monkeymom 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I find that an excellent question and my answer to you would be No that flame is not the same as the first and yet at the same time it is. It helps not to think of the flame as a separate thing, the candle, the flame, the air which fuels the flame along with every other thing in creation is connected, it is only One's perception that separates one from the other .......not sure if this helps but it is the only answer I have
2006-07-03 22:06:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by Big_Dummy 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Um, somehow I don't think the flame is the same... I mean, when something burns, the flame given off, is in part if you will, the residue or product of, that which is burning... Since no two wicks are exactly the same, (even if made from the same substance), the resulting flame, has to be at least, slightly different... And I haven't even mentioned the variable of wind currents based on the candles slightly different positions... So no, I don't think they are the same...
2006-07-03 21:53:29
·
answer #4
·
answered by RIBMASTER 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sorry that you had such a hard time with this question,, I guess this question is like that flame, eh?
Okay, so a part of the flame is continued and roots itself while the flame that is left on each original stick is ended. therefore, the last flame, while it was off sprung from that first flame, it is not the first flame; it is the tenth flame. this flame has a different foundation on a different candle in a different time and in a different place. like people, we may be made of the same molecules, but we are not the same people.
2006-07-04 00:19:11
·
answer #5
·
answered by oneclassicmaiden 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
the flame should be the same as that in the first one, actually all the flames would have been the same as they had been lit for exactly the same time. but yes, philosophically speaking it is the same flame that had been cariied throughtout which means some part of it did reach the last flame, so it is a new entity which was formed from the transformation of the first flames several times.its like families(humans/animals) where people die and thier charecteristics continue to live amongst their future generations thats all i could get from it, hope this helps :-)
2006-07-03 21:46:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by ŜΛήĵΣΣυ 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would say the last flame carried with it a part of each of the flames in the candles before it...much like rain drops on a window. Two are making their way down the window when they combine to make one. They share part of the other one. They then split up again carrying with it still the other part and both combine with yet another drop and so on and so on until the mixture of all of the different drops together is with the final drop...the same goes with your candles.
2006-07-04 00:11:21
·
answer #7
·
answered by A.I.Disguise 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe that even if you didn't transfer the flame from candle to candle, the flame would change from moment to moment. Fire isn't an entity, it's energy. It's dynamic... It stops being the same flame with every passing moment. The 10th candle represents a change in location in which the constant changing of the flame takes place.
2006-07-03 21:54:41
·
answer #8
·
answered by HoneyB 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I dunno...it reminds me a bit of that kids game Telephone...where one person starts with a phrase, then by passing it along, it transforms and becomes something completely different. Obviously, this doesnt really apply in this case, since candles are much more similar than individual children, but as such they still have individual characteristics. Same as passing on information, or love, or anything. Reminiscent also of that movie Pay it Forward. It is an action which alters the state of what it touches, but does not destroy it.
2006-07-03 22:17:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by Jadeba12 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Another way to look at it, it is like spreading love. The first flame is your love to share, and can lite as many candles as you can. When you pass on, you've given that love to your next generation. So, in essence it is their love, but lit by yours. They can lite as many candles as they want, but I guess that's not really part of the question. So, it shows me the journey from the first to the last that love is consistent, as the flame is, even though shared and extinguished.
2006-07-03 21:53:01
·
answer #10
·
answered by scottyxlr8r 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
dude, your'e talking about a phoenix almost sounds like. light all the candles and have some more fire! never mind running around in spandex shorts to light some olympic torch. . scoot them next to the bed and light some more flames ;) Fire is fire so long as it's got fuel source to live and multiply just like roaches.
2006-07-03 21:39:40
·
answer #11
·
answered by noirsolaris 2
·
0⤊
0⤋