Well, I agree with both of your opinions: I like it a lot too! It's one of my favourites. I chose it out of loads when I decided to put something on my pen drive to bring to pin up here.
To Amadeus: Well, you'll see in natural philosophy (physics, as it's called nowadays) that a lot of our understandings amalgamate into a single one. So far, we have generalised our understandings into two, and the race is on to unite the final two. Although, even that could be a partial thing in another united wisdom, as we learned in a very profound Math's lecture here at uni' yesterday. The conclusion of the lecture is that it's a never-ending story. Even in studies of infinity, we can come up with that there are infinite infinities, which would actually be consistent with hte absolute definition of infinity: endless in endless ways (and then that in endless ways and so on, so forth). Part of the problem in the uniting thing in Physics is that we are trying to mesh two different infinities together, now that I think about it. Oh, and, well, if you define confinement to be held inescapably within the same thing (collection, four walls, whatever), then, yes, get used to being confined within endlessness now.
LB: In short, there is no specific angle. It is entirely general. My thinking has gotten increasingly mathematical over the past year (I take my degree seriously, possibly spiritually, I am more or less a pantheist now, I beleive Christians limit the power of their God by definition), and well, you could say, I've stopped writing for one angle, say 45 degrees, but for all angles x degrees. Therefore, the philosophy is more profound and applies in infinitely more situations. I guess the structural and dictional improvement comes from appreciation of symmetry and logic. Glad you commented though!