Gutterkitty's poem "Rebecca" (posted May 20th, 2008) inspired me to write something about science. In particular, there was a day when I came out of the lab after counting bacterial colonies all day on petri dishes, looked up at the moon and stars and thought "ooh, one large colony and lots of little ones".
FRAME OF REFERENCE
Outside the lab on a December night
I am startled by the moon's attendant stars,
the random scatter of their sun-bright nodes;
colonies of bacteria displayed
on a dark ground, under my microscope.
And I deduce that human minds evolved
to frame a world no higher than the trees
no lower than the soil, no longer than
a lifetime's span. Beyond that bordered view
all else is chaos, random, unexplained
provoking in our brains a primal awe.
Already there are wars, rumours of wars,
it feels like the last days, when the Big Crunch
reverses the momentum of Big Bang.
To us, they look the same, away from time,
like darkness on the face of the deep.
|
Humbling . . .
Written by Katanga (1537 comments posted) 26th May 2008 |
. . . and awe-provoking! A lot to contemplate here, and a lot of depth (forgive the pun) in your superb last line.
Cheers!
John |
Written by NathanRoberts (277 comments posted) 26th May 2008 |
I really like this V. Of course, everything is seen through a frame of reference, a context, but you've highlighted the fact that the mind seems to be positioned roughly in the centre of the overall frame of reference, from quantum mystery to the unfathomable immensity of the universe.
'Beyond that bordered view
all else is chaos, random, unexplained
provoking in our brains a primal awe.'
But, science has extended our frame of reference to the macro and micro levels...you'd just spent all day looking at microscopic colonies...and haven't we evolved (in terms of consciousness expanding to a new worldview) to a higher more inclusive level as a result?
I'd also question your deduction that minds do not transcend a lifetime's span...based on what evidence?
As far as I know, the juries still out on that one (at least amongst the undogmatic) and there's some interesting contemporary scientific research (though it tends to get ignored) that suggests the final boundary is not quite so final. |
Written by Phil (7001 comments posted) 26th May 2008 |
Just the sense of scale and awe of the first few lines make this worth reading. There are issues - philosophical and spiritual - that this raises, but I'd rather read it for what I take it to be - reflection upon a moment.
Like very much.
Phil |
Written by Brett (1001 comments posted) 26th May 2008 |
Poetry and philosophy! I like this very much.
Lines 6 - 9 I found very strong - no jury out for me.
As always a great punch in the finish.
Cheers |
Written by mia_ms_kim (1057 comments posted) 26th May 2008 |
It is very interesting and refreshing to get a glimpse into the world view of a scientist. It seems like a humble piece that acknowledges how little we really know and our sad limitation, and that admission coming from a scientist, makes it extra thought-provoking.
It is especially interesting to see the microscopic world being superimposed on the macroscopic one, the world of germs upon the cosmos. Maybe they are all clusters of colonies in their own way.
The last stanza seemed to be saying more than just about the reversal of Big Bang and how we being so small, can't tell the difference between the two because they are so much larger than us. It seems to speak of the dark clouds hanging over the fate of human race today, that might finish us off before the Big Crunch.
I'd love to read more poems from Veronica the Scientist. It's fascinating!
Mia  |
Written by francoise (129 comments posted) 26th May 2008 |
| like Brett, lines 6-9 were my favourite just for the way in which they really made me visualise my life and everything I'm able to percieve within it. |
V. the Scientist!
Written by Katanga (1537 comments posted) 26th May 2008 |
I heartlly agree with Mia.
More 'symbiosis' (?) between poetry and science is what we need - we could / should all shuffle off this mortal coil of 'form' and 'romance' and get down to exploring 'real life'.
V. - please get your poetic microscope out . . .
Ho! But I mean it . . .
Cheers!
John X |
small window
Written by bwoz (125 comments posted) 26th May 2008 |
I like that the view point here is intentionally narrow -- or at least the scientific equivalent, whatever that would be called. In statistical terms it would be called a hypothethis - and I think you kept it in that vein very well. You make me (us) wonder whose microsope we are sitting under; and how we only understand that which we can put under a microscope -- all else evaporates.
Oh yes, we landed on Mars this past week. Now who is watching?
very good poem
BW |
The Jury thing...
Written by NathanRoberts (277 comments posted) 27th May 2008 |
BRETT: no jury out for me.
I didn't really make my point clearly. I wasn't referring to personal belief..there are plenty of theistic scientists, agnostic scientists and athiest scientists that will all subscribe to the scientific consensus (the worldview) that, for example, the earth revolves around the sun. A logical and rational deduction built on substantial peer reviewed evidence, a testable hypothesis.
What I was saying is that there is no broad scientific consensus regarding the after-life. What I was questioning was the possible implication that any deduction can be made regarding survival of consciousness after death from the broad consensus on evolution. Again, plenty of highly respected scientists, who believe in evolution also believe in an after-life. There isn't even a broad consensus on the nature of consciousness let alone whether it survives death.
I guess what I was objecting to was the Dawkins trick. Let people know you're a scientist, talk about scientifically proven things then drop in a dogmatic assertion (based on faith not evidence) mid-sentence.
Unlike Dawkins, I don't think V was doing this consciously. |
Written by Veronica_Milvus (768 comments posted) 27th May 2008 |
Are you accusing me of Dawkinsism, Nathan?
"there is no broad scientific consensus regarding the after-life". That's because science deals with evidence, and there is no believable evidence of an after life. Let's eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow, we die.
Evolution is unrelated to the afterlife, there is no link between the two debates that I know of. |
Here! Here!
Written by Katanga (1537 comments posted) 27th May 2008 |
to your comment above, V. - Very interesting discussion above, but I feel there's a danger of muddled thinking entering the debate?
However, I do hope that tomorrow I personally shall carry on eating, drinking and being merry!
John |
Written by ainsel (68 comments posted) 28th May 2008 |
I like this - it has a gentle sort of meditative rhythm which suits the subject very well. Reads aloud beautifully!
ainsel |
Written by Veronica_Milvus (768 comments posted) 29th May 2008 |
Thank you very much for your thoughtful reviews. I will have to see what other scientific moments I can dredge up. Science, like poetry, has its creative moments.
Interesting to think that a small observation about small observations can lead to such philosophy from the readers, although you would need a quantum physicist rather than a biochemist to go any further down that path.
And thank you Ainsel, for reading aloud! |
Only registered users can rate and write comments.
Please login or register.
Previous item
