PDA

View Full Version : Reply to Blake


Peter Kirby
04-20-2008, 08:34 PM
William Blake wrote a few centuries ago, as follows:

Mock on, mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau:
Mock on, mock on: ‘tis all in vain!
You throw the sand against the wind,
And the wind blows it back again.

And every sand becomes a Gem,
Reflected in the beam divine;
Blown back they blind the mocking Eye,
But still in Israel’s paths they shine.

The Atoms of Democritus
And the Newton’s Particles of Light
Are sands upon the Red Sea shore,
Where Israel’s tents do shine so bright.

My reply to Blake has no particular literary merit, but is of personal importance. I have been carrying this poem around in my memory for some time now, and it is a curious bit of writing to commit to memory, is it not? Almost an ode to mysticism over science; is it any wonder that my brain has at times gone funny? With the idea of fighting fire with fire, I decided to write my own poem to counter Blake.

"Reply to Blake"

Rock on, rock on, Einstein, Darwin,
Rock on, rock on, ride out the tide.
Each wave of thought comes crashing in
And smooths out more sand with each slide.

Reaction force always does spin
To meet another wave's collide.
The youth love this eternal din,
Debate of where coastlines abide.

The depths of Moses's lore
And Plato's heights of insight
Are old waves for a California shore,
Where silicon hums to our delight.

This poem was penned on Sunday, April 20, 2008, in the afternoon at the Pacific ocean.

Peter Kirby
04-26-2008, 12:19 AM
I've written a first draft of some song lyrics based on some of the same.

Rock Science

Rock ON Rock ON, Einstein, Darwin!
Mock ON Mock On, Voltaire, Rousseau!
You throw the sand against the wind,
And the wind takes it where it blow!
And every grain becomes a gem
Reflected in the beam divine...
They germinate our next of kin,
And illuminate that higher mind.

Rock ON Rock ON, Einstein, Darwin!
Mock ON Mock ON, Voltaire, Rousseu!
You rise above the eternal din,
Of I was right and I told you so!
But still we fear the revolution,
The end of life, an undergrowth,
Any kind of solution,
A change to what it is we know!

Rock ON Rock ON, Einstein, Darwin!
Mock ON Mock ON, Voltaire, Rousseau!
You contribute to evolution,
They protest on the radio...
Of corruption of the children,
A slippery slope to hell below!
Which is Bronze Age ammunition,
Memetics from an age long ago!

Rock ON Rock ON, Einstein, Darwin!
Mock ON Mock ON, Voltaire, Rousseau!
There is a fight, it is within
The mind of the first world ego
Against the universal id,
Which supports the corporate logo,
Two car garage and point 4 kid,
A nuclear cell to keep change low!

Rock ON Rock ON, Einstein, Darwin!
Mock ON Mock ON, Voltaire, Rousseau!
In the good book the very first sin
Was not to name the animal,
It was to speak of Should-have-been's,
To know what it is to do evil!
We repeat this first perdition
If we make Creation science equal!

Rock ON Rock ON, Einstein, Darwin!
Rock ON Rock ON, Einstein, Darwin!
Rock ON Rock ON, Einstein... Darwin!

Glass*Soul
04-26-2008, 09:40 AM
You're a poet and a philosopher! :)

Are you a musician too? If not maybe we can get Dan to perform it.

I do have a question for you. On another board I've been having a discussion with a member who is holding forth that the faith we grant things that are self-evident is the same in quality as the faith we grant things that are invisible (to all the senses). He bemoaned the fact that theology is no longer considerfed the queen of the sciences. How would you reply?

Peter Kirby
05-01-2008, 08:12 PM
I'm trying to understand what is meant by faith in the self-evident, and unravelling that would start with an understanding of what self-evident might mean.

I don't grant the status of truth to the classical Aristotelian premises in the domain of logic, any more than I grant the status of truth to the classical Euclidean premises in the domain of geometry. Interesting logics (sometimes called paralogics) and interesting geometries (non-Euclidean) result from an elimination of premises, sometimes accompanied by the introduction of others.

The only thing that strikes me as being, to some degree, "self-evident" is the step of reasoning itself, viz.:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is in the set of all men.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

I don't see anything self-evident in either of the first two premises, but the conclusion (statement #3) as following from the first two seems self-evident in the sense that it grabs the intuition and does not seem to be capable of being sensibly denied.

David Gould
05-02-2008, 12:14 AM
Things that are self-evident rarely seem to me to be true.

To me, the laws of logic are necessary for thinking. For example, non-contradiction, A=A and so on must be at least accepted as true, as rejecting them involves accepting them, because to think coherently about them one must hold concepts and these concepts must be non-contadictory and agree with A=A in order to you reject non-contradiction and A = A.

David Gould
05-02-2008, 12:15 AM
Apart from that, I am unsure what else would be self-evident.