The line should be parsed “the first man that held a stick” rather than “the first man, which held a stick”. Though breaking the line after “man” does invite the reader to imagine an overall first man.
It was a metaphor that felt natural. There probably wasn’t one person who invented cave paintings, any more than there was a literal ‘first man’, but it makes sense to (to me) to use it in a poem, as a metaphor, because it makes a more concrete image than trying to be literal. Also, I guess I assumed that on lesswrong, no one would interpret ‘the first man’ in the Christian sense.
The line should be parsed “the first man that held a stick” rather than “the first man, which held a stick”. Though breaking the line after “man” does invite the reader to imagine an overall first man.
I perceived it as “the first man that held a stick” and didn’t notice the other way of seeing it.
It was a metaphor that felt natural. There probably wasn’t one person who invented cave paintings, any more than there was a literal ‘first man’, but it makes sense to (to me) to use it in a poem, as a metaphor, because it makes a more concrete image than trying to be literal. Also, I guess I assumed that on lesswrong, no one would interpret ‘the first man’ in the Christian sense.
I was referring to the fourth line in the fourth stanza. It seems the first line didn’t jump out to me.