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.
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 shouldn't we be able to communicate them, too? Wouldn't we all agree about the important stuff then? This poem tells of the misfortune that continually befalls us as we seek to define truth authoritatively: ignorance + pride + disagreement = war.
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 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.
At the very best, then, through Science, perhaps we will one day come to the point where we fail to prove our own human ideas wrong in convenient human terms. I submit that there is a huge difference between the absolute truth about reality and abstractions that are not obviously false in simplified, human terms. What justification is there for the assertion that human terms can successfully describe reality in the first place?
We are a clever species of primate. Language is a convenience that we developed by necessity. We use it to relate our experiences and what we take away from them. Perhaps it wouldn't cause problems if we accepted our humble place in the grand scheme of things, and entertained the idea that our capacity to "know" and "understand" is quite limited.
Silver trophy winner
Gold trophy winner
Adding your comment:
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~
