someone (macro?) recently accused dear old walt of "complacency" on a particular matter. it was due to monez's paraphrasing of walt's quote "do i contradict myself? very well, then i contradict myself. (i am large. i contain multitudes)".
on no matter was walt complacent. in fact, in light of walt's far-reaching ideas (history, theology, science, all drop in regularly), i was astounded to learn yesterday that in the atomic structrue, the neutrons and protons don't in fact orbit around the nuceleus as we've often assumed. (sorry doc, i know my terminology is off here.) in fact, the latest research shows that the atomic level seems to operate on a whole other set of rules that we simply haven't got the imagination to understand. the neutrons and protons (the doc cringes here) don't orbit, as planets orbit the sun, but in fact appear and re-appear instantaneoulsy. as one scientist put it, they are everywhere and no where at once.
and so the universe sits back, puffs on its pipe, and says: "do i contradict myself? very well, then i contradict myself. i am large. i contain multitudes."
"Have you learned the lessons only of those who admired you, and were tender with you, and stood aside for you? Have you not learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against you, and disputed passage with you?" -- walt whitman
p.s. also, the latest science believes thusly: that there are literally billions of billions of galaxies in the universe, of which the milky way is one. in the milky way alone, it can be reasonaly assumed that there are several million million planets with the capability to sustain life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Yea, it's pretty crazy: electrons et cetera exist as clouds of probability and nothing really real per se. And it's only upon observation that they take on any discrete form.
In this sense, we observe ourselves into existence, otherwise mind produces reality.
Blessed be the thinking faith.
Too much, well then, let it contradict in its holy raging proportion.
:)
The question really is this:
How do we rationalise a system that at its very core is a contradiction?
It is and is not:
The unconnected hinge, or the the connected unhinged, does it all mean the same? Is this what Whitman was saying when he states that we should learn not from only those that complement us, but from those that challenge us.
Ah! The magical place where challenge is the right.
I love it! I love it all! I hate it! I hate it all!
Ah, the American transcendentalists! Gotta lov'em.
If you understand that our brightest scientists are missing key componenents in thier previously inarguable facts, it should come as no surprise how I might be led to say something about Mr.Whitman referring to "his APPARENT complacency in this reappearing motto". Like anyone, I don't know everything, nor have the time to go chasing obscure bits of text (that in this case wouldn't even exist, except in Carlos's comment). I had a feeling he wouldn't be throwing this one line around, substituting contradiction for pretention and what have you. I meant only to challenge Carlos who used the words and Lorne, who finds them so dear. Maybe I am one of the people "who braced themselves against you, and disputed passage with you". Anyhow, you have risen to this challenge most admirably, and brought about a new element to the discussion...
Those pretentious little electrons!
Post a Comment