One once thought to oneself
(or liked to think that it did)
that therefore it was—
and that seemed for the best.
Others found this thought impressive,
and likewise found themselves,
until manyone neverywhere
unanimously disagreed
that blessed were they
who thought they should be.
And as to think is to know
is to know what to do,
so, with wavering uncertainty,
every none of them did
(or did unto one another)
exactly as none
would have done unto one self.
All righteous might for smiting
comes with foresight for writing wrongs,
therefore other cheeks were turned
when the right ones were smitten.
Thus the eyes and teeth of ancients
were always taken one for one,
in equal measure with the Words
that they saw fit to call the Truth.
Ours is a fascinating tale;
each time it's told the details differ.
Perhaps a moral lies beyond them,
and that's why empires rise and fall:
Upon a number of times,
just as many onces,
[characters]
[setting]
[plot]
(the part before)
THE END
And nothing continues to happen ever after.
Author notes
I think one of our great faults as a species is our arrogance, and that it is incumbent upon us to just admit that there are things we cannot know. Without that kind of humility, everyone "knows" something different, and separate groups of people with conflicting unquestionable truths wind up killing each other in huge numbers for thousands of years while others look askance and learn nothing. Sound familiar?
I like the idea that what is real is touchable in part, but in general beyond our comprehension. If we really could truly, entirely know real things, then wouldn't we all agree about the basic, important stuff? This poem tells of the misfortune that continually befalls us as we seek to define truth authoritatively: ignorance + pride + disagreement = war.
Don't like being called ignorant? I think we are by definition. Some would have it that Science will ultimately allow us to know everything. I disagree. Here, essentially, is the Scientific method:
1. Observe nature with your human senses, and notice stuff about what you think you see.
2. Describe ("measure") that stuff in some human-friendly way, such that when other humans observe nature like you did, they will notice similar stuff (i.e. "collect data"). Do this a lot.
3. Think really hard, and come up with a human idea that can a] explain the stuff you noticed, and b] predict the stuff you'll notice next time.
4. Allow other humans to try really, really hard to prove that the idea is wrong, based on logical disagreement with ideas humans say are true.
5. If the other humans fail for a really long time, win the Nobel Prize.
Where in there do we have an opportunity to find absolute truth? Seems to me that Science is predicated on the assumption that the best we can hope for is to come up with a few human ideas (i.e. linguistic abstractions - not entirely unlike this poem or the Tale of Icarus, if you really think about it) that none of us can prove is obviously wrong in convenient human terms. But can human terms truly characterize reality in the first place? If you are convinced they can, consider the following:
Humans are animals. We are here because nothing beyond our control has wiped us out yet. Language is a practical convenience - a natural defense. We were physically small, slow, weak (or possibly frozen) food for sabertooth tigers until we developed the ability to keep each other alive by communicating useful patterns we associate with our remembered sensory experiences. Those patterns are NOT equivalent to the fundamental truth about a universe that just might consist of more than what can be seen, touched, heard, tasted and smelled using sensory organs that only need to be sharp enough to identify three things: (1) food, (2) other humans, and (3) common, potentially avoidable, mortal dangers.
Factors beyond our control have not wiped us out yet because so far we have been very good at mitigating those. It stands to reason that when uncontrollable, natural mortal dangers go away, what's left is the controllable, man-made kind. At what point do we become our own greatest danger? We have survived by coordinating our efforts to manipulate our surroundings through language. With neither a past history of escaping annihilation at our own hands to draw on, nor a historically compelling reason to resist exerting our will on our surroundings, which of our adaptive natural defenses got assigned to the task of alerting us when we're about to overplay our hand? If we were teetering on the brink, would there be any obvious warning flags at all?
"Don't worry about global warming. If we can split the atom, travel faster than the speed of sound, move whole mountains, walk on the moon and communicate silently with each other through thin air from opposite sides of the world at the speed of light whenever we want to while simultaneously surviving all the tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, tidal waves, volcanic eruptions, droughts and plagues that come our way every so often, maybe Nature has nothing left to throw at us."
Maybe some humility? Who shall inherit the earth? According to a certain oft-quoted rabbi, the meek will. What does that mean in the context of Man vs. Nature? If you ask me (and you didn't), it means humanity's best bet for living long enough to reproduce is to accept our humble place in the grand scheme of things and entertain the idea that no matter how useful the words we've written in books for thousands of years have historically been, our capacity to "know" and "understand" has always been, is now, and will ever be very limited.
In a list
A contest entry
- Last Contest - Give Me Your Best by Nam.
7100 points, ended December 17, 2007, 44 entries
Silver trophy winner
• next poem in this contest,
remove from contest
- Sounds in Words by JM Kenyon.
525 points, ended December 25, 2007, 8 entries
Gold trophy winner
• next poem in this contest,
remove from contest
- “Philosophy is the science which considers truth” by xbyebyebeauty.
386 points, ended January 11, 2008, 8 entries
Gold trophy winner
• next poem in this contest,
remove from contest
Comments
1 - 28 of 28
1 - 28 of 28
Adding your comment:
Ohhh, cummings would pawn even his most beloved dog to steal these lines from you, I do believe. I agree with your author's notes, too. Humility should be a prerequisite for us all, yet many seem to study the depths of sheer arrogance instead. Bravo, Scribe. 
This has all the elements that I was looking for as well as technique beyond just those of sound. Excellence.
s and best wishes always... ~Genie~
