I don't deny that it's an extremely important distinction, and perhaps I should have gone to greater lengths to clarify as much.
At the same time, I feel that the article set up a bit of a false dichotomy by focusing too heavily on the extreme end of the "passion" spectrum. It's not a black-and-white choice between "mildly interested in" and "slaveringly obsessed with." There is a pretty broad spectrum in between those points. "Into" was probably a casually bad word choice on my part, but again, I'd really suggest that we stay away from a semantics debate here.
To re-clarify: I agree, more or less, with a great deal of the article and its broad analysis. At times, however, the author gets too bogged down in a dissection of the semantics and usage of the word "passion," leading him astray.
Comments
I don't deny that it's an extremely important distinction, and perhaps I should have gone to greater lengths to clarify as much.
At the same time, I feel that the article set up a bit of a false dichotomy by focusing too heavily on the extreme end of the "passion" spectrum. It's not a black-and-white choice between "mildly interested in" and "slaveringly obsessed with." There is a pretty broad spectrum in between those points. "Into" was probably a casually bad word choice on my part, but again, I'd really suggest that we stay away from a semantics debate here.
To re-clarify: I agree, more or less, with a great deal of the article and its broad analysis. At times, however, the author gets too bogged down in a dissection of the semantics and usage of the word "passion," leading him astray.