As colloquialisms go this is a fairly straightforward, albeit odd, expression often used to give reference to external temperatures that are seen as exceedingly and excruciatingly sweltering. The sentiment conjures a palpable connection between the environmental factors and, presumably, the human body, thus making the speaker more self-aware of things that affect daily life. For insomuch as man is able to discern his surroundings and pattern his existence through the formulaic learned skill of reason, no truth of understanding can be gleaned in that which is not, on some level, intimately related to sense of self. Thus the nature of man be inherently and infallibly linked to narcissism. However despite this need of understanding and tangibility in life, one must further question the odd choice, in this case particular, in which man allays his feeble reasoning.
For to make expression of externality as comparable, if not equal, to a condition which one has no control to an object which is forever linked with one’s self seems a bit pedantic. Notwithstanding, of course, is the inherent question of exactitude and precise meaning of such a phrase. While general knowledge and sensibility would place the locus of control and focus upon man intrinsic, there be, within the world proper, a vast plethoric range of generalized objects given over to the terminological nomenclature generically known as “balls.” In this way, the phrase in question then becomes a muddled non-sequitur. For even though the inference can be made to suggest that man is in himself finding reference, argument can be volleyed that such is not the case and thus does the phrasing find its’ first fault.
The logic implies that there be only one such thing referenced in existence that be deemed a ball. Such logic is fallacy, as a great many inanimate perceptions and incarnations be thusly dubbed also. In addition to this superficial augmentation of the phrasing, there be yet more nonsense inherent in the system. Most notably, that if man be making reference to personal rounded attributes, the terminology of “ball” be a far cry from verified veracity or veritas. For, as any learned scholar who is wise in the ways science of anatomical endeavor may attest, in truth that which is so callously and commonly referred to as balls be in actuality much more cylindrically attuned and more accurate reference be noted as oblong. And while there be further things of the world called balls which also have elongated axes, e.g. football, rugby ball, &c, these too be misnomers of actuality.
In final thought of the obtuse nature of such a phrase, how is the determination of temperate delineation formed? For to make reference to a temperature in relation to an inanimate or intimate object of creation is surely naught but narcissism taken to a magnificently gross scale. The comparison of one thing to another for purpose of relating information between man be naught but an invention of man himself, a notion and practice which is filled with the faulty absurdities man owns at his core. Nothing that man reasons can be pure, the underlying nature of human error is present always. And insomuch as it can be argued that man is capable of comparison, the comparison thus will be erroneous if for no other reason than that which man creates in his existence is of his own imagination, and the imagination of man cannot truly create any thing. Creation of ideas is based upon experiential occurrence, of which there are many, and as such all inventions of man serve only they whom are given credence as having been the inventor. Temperature is man’s invention to describe how something, either extrinsic or intrinsic, feels. Feelings are inventions based on emotional response to a given situational happening in which one is engrossed; anyone outside that exacting experience has not the same feeling or inclination. And so it follows that nothing can be so indeterminate as to fall across the broad spectrum of humanity as an existential plane. The imperfection of man be the greatest tool in his own destruction through fallacious reason.
Reason.
Desire in man to take into himself the task of deepening existential being through defense of action or thought as result of Logic.
Logic.
Man seeking enlightenment through means of superficial thought of his surroundings and experiences.
Whether there be a faculty such as reason is a debatable cogitation in which man seeks, in any number of ways, extradition of his menial thoughts from gray matter to substantiation through tangibility. That reason exists is not the contention, but that reason be meaningful. The process to reason is but little more than a complex addition and expansion of that which man calls logic. However, the bastardization of pure logic by man through erudite affectation leads only to the fallacy of reason free from any semblance of logic proper. In order that logic be pure, there be need of the thought and subjection to remain unaffected by man wherein the problem does occur. For without man, logic cannot exist; logic itself is but an invention of man given to garner understanding of the existence of self. But of inventions of man we have previously spoken. Hence where does logic exist?
Logic then exists within each man, insofar as man is capable to process the sensations of life; that logic is pure be fully dependent upon the man. Even if the man be most pure, that his logic be so also does not fully follow. There be no ideation of man, pure or not, in which the precedent for logic flow freely or solely without fallacy. For in order that logic be presently and concurrently correct implies that which is being called logical spans the vastness of all existence and humanity. No such logical confluences do or can exist as man is a solitary beast wherein even though he surround himself with others of the like, he need them not to complete his existence; man with men is but a hazard of the humanity thrust upon each when all want only that which will benefit the bearer. Therefore logic is inherent of flaws, for logic is naught but the thoughts of man about his surroundings, the formation of logic into discernable practices of life events fall victim to that which each person seeks to disprove in manner of narcissism. And narcissism then breeds inequality, that is to say, caste systems in humanity wherein each caste is identical in nature but through narcissism weakened where even inequality breeds; nature of humanity becomes each man’s caste of one against each other in existence, equality of solitude. This then is the end resulting in social confliction.
Equality.
Equality can be interpreted as the reason for social conflict, rather than the solution for social conflict.
– Thomas Hobbes
The above quote, taken from Hobbes’ Leviathan, is apropos of nothing save the succinct statement of the situation in which we currently find ourselves. For even though man be brilliantly attuned and adept in his growth of knowledge and skill, man cannot invent any thing that will then give pause to the iniquity of humanity as it exists solely unto each individual. In seeking equality and equity of the human condition, man can only seek to further involve himself in a cyclical confliction of man against his fellows.
Equality is the ideation of utopia; a unicorn in a forest of horses. For proof of this, man need only look back fondly upon the recent histories of his former man, by extension self. Over the past hundred years, give or take, there are instances in which man sought to create an equality of the brethren through social commonality, a sharing of the wealth (inclusive) of man. In so doing, the thought was that man is nothing without his contemporaries and thus all things that man created, possessed, or desired be split and squandered amongst all men who, on a similar level whether cognizant of the fact, desired the same things. This thinking pervaded and perverted the environment and grew in popularity.
The equality of man became such a desired idea that in order to achieve such equality, those who believed the flawed ideation grew riotous and incensed by those whom did not see life as such. And thus the desire for equality became the flame for confliction amongst the masses. In-fighting and petty squabbling gave way to more raucous warring as the desire to see all men as the same met with the nature of humanity in narcissistic beliefs. Therefore, in the example chosen, conflict of societal thought became the only and inevitable end for the perverted notion of logic by man that man was all inclusively equal in every way.
And of course, this abbreviated example then gives reason to heed the Hobbesian logic above. For even now, in the present day of man, there are those desiring equality of man and the effects of that are the same as before. Equality of skin tone, sexual orientation, women, religious thought, &c are the driving forces behind the conflicts inherently present in every region of the world. Why? In point of fact, equality cannot exist in a society so consumed by narcissistic thought and those that try and fight for such only drive the wedge of social inequality further down and create larger and larger cracks in the logic they purport to see enacted.
Man is a solitary beast forced to interact with his fellows because of his own desire to braggartism and the need to foster the narcissist within by outdoing his fellow man. Each man is at war with himself more so than he wars within the societal realm of Man for equality. The idea of equality harms Man as a whole because man is only ever seeking himself, which flaws and negates equality altogether.
Perry the pedantic pachyderm lived alone on a hill. There were petunias near his pond and Perry loved them. He would smell them daily and enjoyed reciting their classification Solanaceae Petunioideae as he drank his morning water.
Perry lived by himself because the other elephants hated him for being so smart and grew tired of his contsant need to show off his superior intellect. And though he got lonely sometimes, Perry never forgot that the others did not like him. Even though he was alone, Perry the pedantic pachyderm was happy.
One day, Perry was walking in the forest and came upon a rabid monkey in the trees. Because Perry had spent time alone, he had watched humans all his life. 
Perry convinced the sick monkey to trust him and that he could help make the monkey better. The monkey did not understand Perry the pedantic pachyderm as monkeys do not speak elephant language.
Even though Perry was as knowledgeable as any other creature, he was still an elephant. On the trip home, Perry the pedantic pachyderm began to daydream about the other elephants and how they would be jealous of him, and praise him for being so intelligent.
