| Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments |
|
The Golden Rule (Free verse) by Quarton Painstakingly, the omnipotent one
kneaded and shaped each figure,
pausing on occasion to admire His work;
fingers deftly molding the eternal clay
into a reflection of self, in His likeness,
perfect image embodied and aware.
His creations multiplied and were many
though he also engendered illusion
and in a singular, enigmatic way,
part of Himself became alone and afraid.
Unaware we are God's perfect image,
with dualism perceived as reality;
what purpose life's bumpy road,
why was temporal from eternal made?
Should we then give thanks to our God,
never questioning life's many absurdities?
Repeating over and over ad nauseum,
how He works in mysterious ways?
A mother cradles her precious child,
the essence of unconditional love.
But what of God and His children;
is His love for them somehow less?
For if magically given His powers,
who amongst us would not intercede;
to end all life's pain and sorrow,
do we not deserve the same?
Perhaps an answer in point
to this paradox not easily solved;
is to fairly do unto others
as you would have others do unto you.
With that thought firmly in place,
I sense hypocrisy from Heaven's gate
and am inclined to respectfully inquire;
"why not follow your own golden rule?"
Up the ladder:
Solitude
Down the ladder:
picture loops
Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
Arithmetic Mean: 5.25
Posted: January 14, 2003 9:22 PM PST; Last modified: January 14, 2003 9:22 PM PSTWeighted score: 5.029801 Overall Rank: 7251 Comments:
I especially liked the second stanza(the best one in my mind).The concluding question proper enough.I liked the Epic Tone of the poem.well-written.and I don't see what a poem is to be condemned beacuse of some mind's deterministic(restrained)attitudes!9
Thank you, vulcan. Religion is not an easy subject to write about though I try on occasion. When speaking to the strange quantum world, logic and reason are totally inadequate and we are left without rational explanations for such concepts as a ten dimensional space/time.(String theory) Very esoteric stuff and I don't pretend to have an answer to.
What are you talking about? Logic doesn't change or become inadequate. It's still the case in quantum mechanics that A-> ~(~A). Notions such as that a thing can only be in one place at once are what are inadequate.
Are you a dualist?
Definitely not a dualist. I would say more of a monist in that I perceive duality to be a finite concept that is non-existant at the infinite level. Of course, there may be no such state of being and oblivion might be our eventual fate. In that regard, I am a deist but really don't have a clue nor does anyone else beyond blind belief which I personlly believe is a cop-out.
And in quantum mechanics, a basic oneness seems more likely. A systems view that recognizes autonomous parts as manifestations of the whole.
I'm a property dualist lol asl (not a substance dualist).
Well, I must respectfully disagree. Is it not illogical for a photon to be both a particle and a wave simultaneously? I recall Aristotle and the law of contradiction, (A cannot be both A and not A) From a quantum perspective, a photon cannot be both a particle and not a particle but it is.
Light isn't a wave. Light isn't a particle. Light is light. It is simply useful to model it as a wave under certain conditions, and as a particle under certain other conditions. Do you see? In my experience, a 'photon' is the term used to describe a particle of light when we choose to model light as a beam of particles. When we model light as a wave, we do not consider light to consist of photons. Your idea that logic becomes wrong just because light interacts differently under different circumstances is sheer arrogance!
I did not say logic is wrong because of light's interactions. What I am saying is in quantum terms, we are dealing with a nonsensory experience of reality, a state where logic and reason no longer apply. Your statement that "light is light" seems rather obvious, (what is, is) However, light is or assumes the characteristics of both a particle and a wave. Particle is wave...wave is particle. The fact that light can be both a particle and, at the same time, a wave is central to quantum mechanics and again, defies logic and reason as we perceive them to be. I would be happy to recommend several books on the subject but, bottom line, you are wrong in saying these concepts are not beyond logical capabilities.
I present the Bertrand G. Wronglotion Quantum Challenge 2003:
Derive from observational statements about particle behaviour two statements of the form 'A' and '~A'. Please do recommend some books on the subject.
Got me! I don't have a clue.... Perhaps my favorite book on
quantum mechanics is by an experimental physicist, Leon Lederman. The title is "The God Particle"and the guy really knows his physics. It is quite long and very funny in parts. You have surely read Hawking and his, "Black Holes and Baby Universes", is excellent. Also, "Stephen Hawking's Universe", a fairly small book, is outstanding. There are many others but the above are my favorites. If you like far out type books, try either Capra, "The Tao of Physics" or Zukhov, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters."
So you concede defeat?
Your books sound rubbish. If you want to read about the conflict between logic and quantum physics, I recommend Hilary Putnam's article 'The Logic of Quantum Mechanics', which can be found in Volume 1 of his Philosophical Papers; and Michael Dummett's response also titled 'Is Logic Empirical?' which I believe is in 'Truth and Other Enigmas'.
Talk about arrogant! You give the word new meaning. So my books are rubbish, are they? Stephen Hawking is widely regarded as the most accomplished experimental physicist since Einstein. The Chicago Tribune stated, "The story of a remarkable man, Destined to rank with Galileo, Newton and Einstein." Only one of many accolades for this incredible man who has suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis since 1962. Neither Putman nor Dummett could hold his jockstrap. "Light is light" is it. Your logic is quite overwhelming. Thus far, you have said nothing that even vaguely supports your misguided perceptions regarding the dual characteristics of light. My books may sound like rubbish to you but such a statememt is typical of those who disparage a person or thing out of ignorance and a closed mind. So, fuck off, turkey.
Logic is, prima facie, obviously right. Therefore the burden of argument is on you. I have described what you need to show in order to make your case, and you have admitted you cannot do so.
I know who Stephen Hawking is, he lives next door to me. However, his work is entirely irrelevant to the debate we are currently having. Putnam and Dummett have written on precisely our topic.
First, I apologize for the harsh words. They are very atypical and uncalled for in a debate such as ours. That said, yes, logic is indeed prima facie but you offer no prima facie evidence to substantiate your premise. Again, how can you claim the dual nature of say, a photon being both a particle and a wave. This dualism completely negates Aristotelian logic as a means to resolve the paradox. Logic is a tool used to understand our perceived realities by valid inference. So, please explain to me logically how there can be a nine dimensional space as postulated in string theory. In speaking to such a state, logic is useless in resolving or understanding it. Even the physicists who diabolically conjure up such concepts admit they cannot be understood intellectually or logically. So again, logic has its place but is useless in some instances such as string theory and yes, the dual nature of photons.
"Prima facie" just means "on the face of it". I said that logic, on the face of it, is correct. You agree with that. How can you then ask for "prica facie evidence?" If we agree that logic is, prima facie, correct, then by definition of "prima facie", the burden of evidence is on you.
Photons are not both particles and waves. "Photon" is just a term used in a particular model of light; one that models light as a particle. In fact light is neither a particle nor a wave; in some models we model it as a particle and in some models we model it as a wave. There is no contradiction here. And even if it were true that light was both a particle and a wave, you have not shown that there is a contradiction in "X is a particle and X is a wave". You are overestimating what logic is supposed to be. Logic (or a logic) is just a set of rules for manipulating symbols. I doubt it is "a tool used to understand our perceived realities by valid inference". I do not see how there is anything illogical about there being a nine-dimensional space. To show that there is something illogical, you will have to derive "A & ~A" from some necessary premise of there being a nine-dimensional space. Your move, creep.
I go back to your earlier statement that logic does not change or become inadequate. In fact, it does both when dealing with the quantum world and that is all I am saying. Understand that I am talking about classical logic and not quantum logic. Bell's theorem and quantum logic have much in common. The most exciting in my opinion is together, they show a reality where all parts of the universe are connected in a very real and immediate way.
Such concepts are where my interests lie and I am tired of arguing with you. Light has a dual nature, (particle and wave) and it is beyond the capabilities of ordinary logic to understand. (remember the law of contradiction?) So enough is enough. Have a nice day, dipshit:)
Talking of Stephen Hawking, I watched Gangs of New York with him this evening. He thought it was ace. Which just goes to show that he doesn't know everything about everything. If you are as famous as he is, with the reputation he has, it is not surprising that people ask him questions that don't really have any relation to his work. The general consensus, as far as I can see, is that he has done some good research into black holes but is not some sort of mystical prophet or something. The main reason for his fame is that he is in a wheel chair, speaks with that electronic voice and keeps saying
"AS WE MOVE INTO THE FUTURE, THE MYSTERIES OF THE U-I-NI-VERSE WILL BE WITHIN THE GRASP OF MODERN SCIENCE" etc. You are apparently still clinging to your idea that light is both a particle and a wave. It is not. Anyone with a degree in physics will tell you this. We *model* light as a wave sometimes, and as a particle sometimes. The business of physics is creating models, not pronouncing deep facts about the world. You do not seem to have grasped this. Perhaps they do not teach that in A-level physics. I can't remember, because I am so elderly and wise. As for the Law of Contradiction, it is simply ~(A&~A). The Bertrand G. Wronglotion Quantum Challenge 2003 is thus to derive statements which counter this law. You have as yet failed to do this. I believe you will continue to fail. 'We could not -say- of an "unlogical" world how it would look.'
You're telling me you watched "Gangs of New York" with Stephen Hawking? Right!!!And I'm the Tooth Fairy. And you are dead wrong in saying his fame is a result of being in a wheel chair. I have idolized him for years and his work in theoretical physics far transcends his physical problems. Simply put, I believe him to be one of the truly great thinkers of all time. And this with a disease that would have long since buried any normal man.
Oj yeah, tell stephen I said hello.
Come on, Quarton. Stop kidding yourself. Stephen Hawking is the most famous scientist in the world. He does ADVERTISEMENTS on TELEVISION. He is constantly parodied. People are obsessed with him. And why is that? Do you really think it's because he's such a good physicist? Fuck no. 90% of people who recognise Stephen Hawking probably couldn't even tell you he's a physicst, let alone anything about his work.
It's because he lives in a talking, flying wheelchair. He has a robotic voice that is simultaneously comical and terrifying. His face is grossly distorted, and the glimmer of life in his expressions are as hideous as they are reassuring that the wheelchair doesn't control the talking machine. Do you think "A Brief History of Time" sold so well because it was a good book? Of course not. Most people who have it gave up halfway through. IT SOLD BECAUSE IT HAD A PICTURE OF A DEFORMED, GRIMACING PHYSICIST IN A WHEELCHAIR WITH A ROBOTIC VOICE. Now I am not saying that he is somehow a bad physicist, although you are hellbent on putting those words in my mouth. All I am saying is that his opinion is respected more than it should be in certain areas of physics. Surely you can see that this would be true. It's common sense. You can go on about his work "transcending" his physical problems, and for all I know that's true, because it sounds pretty magical and great, but it has little to do with why he's so famous or influential. And I did watch "Gangs of New York" with him last night. And I shan't be telling him you said hello.
Perhaps you might tell him he is, in your opinion, over-rated as a physicist. I am sure that would make his day. And though I admire his tenacity and courage in coping with his debilitating disease, I admire his work even more.
And "The God Particle" by Leon Lederman is not rubbish. One quote concerning his book, "The book proves that a monumental intellect, complete with requisite mussed white hair and A NOBEL PRIZE, can relate theory and experimentation without being a monumental bore..." Also, it is one of the funniest books I have ever read and for pure wit, it is quite engaging. I bet if you read it, you would be laughing out loud. So don't be a sourpuss, you could use a good laugh and might even learn something.
1. One quote concerning the film 'Independence Day', 'One of the best movies ever! It rarely happens when I find a movie that is so great, however, Independence Day is a movie I love so much. I have seen way over 50 complete times (literally) and I can't wait to see it again. There is such a great combination of acting talent and plot, which makes this a great movie.'
2. I asked you to recommend me some books in order to find out which books you would recommend. If your experience with the subject is limited to such 'Isn't the quantum world really weird, it defies all logic, my God it's both a particle AND a wave, AND IT KNOWS WHETHER WE'RE WATCHING IT!' popular science potboilers, then no wonder you're arguing as you are. 3. I see you've given up on the Bertrand G. Wronglotion Challenge.
Well, I admit that my knowledge of quantum mechanics
is conceptual and not formal or involving mathematics. I leave that to the physicists. And regarding the "quantum world", I realize many writers and reviews on the subject tend towards hyperbole and misinterpretation. I also become weary of all the pseudo science and mystical posturing that is so prevalent. I recall Stephen Hawking mentioned this in one of his books, distancing himself from the crowd you have previously mentioned. Personally, cosmology is the most profound and interesting subject I have encountered over the years and, like you, hate to see it cheapened by supposed experts who senationalize the field with a lot of nonsense in order to appeal to the many simple-minded and uninformed readers who believe such claptrap. But, perhaps they gain some insight into the quantum world and that is probably better than being totally ignorant on the subject. Then again, who was that who said a little knowledge can be dangerous? I thought you might like a little limerick I wrote recently: There once was a theorist named Einstein, the universe he sought to redefine. He wrote of relativity while hiding his proclivity for reading his astrological sign.
Stephen Hawking came by my house last night. We drank boilermakers and smoked some weed. After I beat him at Scrabble and Trivial Pursuit I helped him finalize plans for a titanium exoskeleton that will enable him to fly as well as walk. The next time he's in Seattle will be for my brother's bachelor party.
Bull fucking shit. I was taking him up the ass last night. He tried to cry out for help but I came before he could finish typing it.
189 view(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Cautiously, the zebra wanders across the plain
Playfully, the giraffes dance and play in the water
Determinedly, the cheetah seeks his prey."
AAAHHHHH
Not to say this poem is horrid, it is just all about god this and not god that and after awhile the spiritual quest or the finding of comfort in the lack of spiritual quest is tiresome. Of course, every writer goes through it at some point. It was just the starting sentence, the adverbial clause, reminding me of that horrid book where the clauses fill each page, and the pictures cannot ease the pain of hearing my voice read those sentences. The horror. Sorry. Carry on.