zodiac6 Jul 2004

Before I tell you (clue: and it's not as fearsome and 'reality-shattering' as you think!) I want to ask you something: Why are you so excited about using some bit of science you admittedly don't know very much about in a poem? Considering that all of the science-poem lovers on this site have long ago admitted to finding science bunk and a really piss-poor way of looking at 'reality' (or 'realities'), does it not strike you that you're in the middle of a giant contradiction? I see two possible explanations:

1) That you think science needs to be shot down, tied to the back of a pickup truck, and dragged through town for its narrow-minded hubris; and the best way you can think of doing this is by using the language of science against it; or

2) That science-words give your poem a credibility and appearance of depth which other words don't, even though you don't personally know much about science or think it's necessary to know much about science other than it's bad.

And can't you see that both of these ideas are first-rate crap? For one thing, nobody even remotely connected with science on this site has said anything like you imagine scientists (on, say, "The Hulk") saying. They don't believe their current ideas about 'reality' are correct and infallible. They don't cling to some disproven notion, or discount the possibility of other models for things. In short, they don't cackle madly, mutter myopically over beakers in basement labs, oblivious to the 'reality' going on around them, or anything of the sort, except in the guff daydreams of silly young poets. Besides, since practically no one on this site can manage to use a science-word coherently in a sentence, and since a scientist is likely to consider incoherent babble rather meaningless, then it's not like you're going to hurt them, nor anyone else who believes in science, reason, or anything except floundering guff-talking.

As for possibility 2 - well, clearly they don't, since science poems, like this poem, are almost always obviously wrong. Wouldn't it work a lot better, seem deeper, etc., if you simply used language and concepts you were familiar with instead of the foreign language of science? You're asking about a dust-particlee being observed in two places at once - Can you not think of A SINGLE EXAMPLE of something similar in your everyday life? (Hint: I can!) Why don't you just use that instead?!!?!