Is "labyrinth" synonymous with "maze"?

greek root of labyrinth refers specifically to a building, whereas a maze can be outdoors. it's a lot easier to maker them out of hedges i guess.

It was largely outdoors, wasn't it? I think it should have been called 'maze', too.

A modern labyrinth (as a noun) does have intersecting paths.
Maze and labyrinth are now synonymous, but one could argue that labyrinth is a slightly more pleasing word, when spoken, and labyrinthine is more pleasing than mazelike.

The Minotaur's Labyrinth was built by Icarus' father, and appears to have been mazelike, because, of course, it was meant to be confusing. Given this, I couldn't rightly say if an ancient labyrinth was exclusively one-way to the centre, or could also be mazelike.

Language changes with use.

It's the same reason "benign" is commonly used now in all cases, and "benignant" is seldom heard.

And, unfortunately, "situation" is no longer used to describe employment. I say unfortunately, because I think of work as being very much a situation.

If I were inclined to be pernickety, I would point out that benign and benignant do have different uses. Such as: he was a benignant king, who offered benign patronage.

If I were to describe a confusing set of backstreets, I could, in all fairness, call them equally mazelike or labyrinthine.

Therefore, I give you that, although you are correct in saying that they do describe different things, the words have now become interchangeable in every usage.

As far as I can tell, these two words didn't originally mean the same thing and it's the historians who are pushing for the classic usages of the two. And they aren't "subgroups" of some overarching word, because there are actually four or five different distinct types of mazes and labyrinths respectively. I think "maze" and "labyrinth" are then the overarching generalized terms.

I guess none of this can really apply to modern day life because one would probably only use these terms, as Daisy pointed out, in adjectival form. And I'm okay with that, as there aren't mazes and labyrinths just anywhere.

But if someone tries to force me to walk through a labyrinth and it's actually a maze, I'm going to scream "bullshit!" when I exit the fucking thing.

And they aren't "subgroups" of some overarching word, because there are actually four or five different distinct types of mazes and labyrinths respectively. I think "maze" and "labyrinth" are then the overarching generalized terms.

As if this is proving anything.

I can barely see straight. And I fear I've already lost.

On the upside I did download some John Foxx (it's actually newer stuff with some dude named Louis Gordon) and he totally sounds like Bowie in this song and it's awesome. Although, to be fair, some of it is shit. But only like 20 pecent of it.

If there's one thing that can ruin a psychedelic experience, it's getting hung up on etymologies. Good luck and Godspeed, space cadet.

Yeah, don't take mushrooms and watch a movie. Total waste of a trip.

You are all incorrect!

I've tried watching other movies on mushrooms and they are all impossible to watch. They become either too creepy or too boring or too annoying to pay attention to.

I'm going to argue that there are only about five movies in existence that provide decent tripping material.

I'm also going to argue that there is no set formula for what works, and these five movies are all probably determined on an individual basis anyway.

For example, I've found that The Dark Crystal, another visually interesting Henson flick, is annoying and creepy and boring all at the same time.

Also, anything with much of a plot whatsoever does not work. If it has a fairly complex plot but is visually interesting to the point that it could be watched on mute with musical accompaniment, it may be worthwhile. It should be noted that the concept of "visually interesting" means something else to the hallucinating mind. Textures! It's all about weird textures! Which, I think, is possibly why movies set in totally artificial environments, that have characters that are mostly non-humans, work the best.

The thing is I don't want to sit and waste trips trying out bad movies, as I've spent too much time doing this already.

But, yes, it's all about textures which is why immersing oneself in nature is always great. Sex doesn't seem like a fun idea tripping. It's not as if it's necessarily a bad idea in theory, but thinking about hysterically laughing at my penis for looking like a small, mutated woodland animal and at whomever I'm having sex with for looking like a duck, does nothing to boost my sex drive.

But thank Jesus for YouTube, that looks like eye candy!

I will revise my requirements and scrap the hair-brain idea of "artificial environments" working best. Natural or artificial environments are equally intriguing, but environments must take precedence over characters ... unless the characters themselves are visually striking ... and probably not in a CG way. Organic! Textures!

Man.

I still haven't seen it all the way through. I hope it aids Greg's fungal psychonautry though. Did you know the biggest fungus in the world is in some grotto in Malheur Co., OR? I was just there recently but I did not see the fungus.

This thread is on the verge of becoming a Jack Chick tract.

Not a mushroom in sight.

Heavens, that is gorgeous.

Since you see fit to dis another man's ride I can only assume you drive something really fuckin' cool, like an '80 IH Scout II with the Nissan turbodiesel.

THE VISITOR should have been called SPACE DEVIL PONG.

... has nothing to do with the landscape or the truck. What is with all the GASOLINE in the truck bed?

!!!

Go to the Shell station, man! They're on every corner everywhere.

Aren't they!?

looooooooooooooool.

No. Seriously. Brain. Fart.

I immediately thought about the cleansing properties of fire.

I'd have to weather snide remarks about my shovel, my pickaxe, and my bolt cutters.

I wasn't dissing your truck, my good man. I just said it wasn't gorgeous.
Trucks, by definition, are not gorgeous. Motorcycles, maybe. Trucks, no.
And it is an '82 FJ40, for the record.

It is true.
I also have a 64 Dodge Dart.
I have a serious problem.
A Scout would be righteous, but man oh man that would be quite the project.
Don't do it. Stick with the functioning truck and the fashionable hog.