What is happening to time? I used to be able to think, to consider, to dream. The beat of my own drummer paced me, graced me. Now I am driven by outside drums. They drown that inner beat, Ever louder, ever more insistent, ever quicker. Oh, for the grace of a quiet place, Where I can hear my own drum, And think, and consider, and dream.
Peace
25 comments:
No kidding, and especially toward the end of the semester!
Merry Christmas.
Kirby—
Yeah. End of the quarter for me—10th week. I have two finals on Monday. It wouldn't be so bad, but one is a new class (no text, I'm making it up as I go), and I have two Ph.D. students, a couple of post-docs I meet with regularly, etc. Great folk, smart, energetic. They deserve more than they've been getting from me.
I really feel as though I've been through the wringer. Here's hoping that light isn't another train!
It's gotten so bad that even basic syntax seems to be escaping me. I look back on my comments on your blog, and there are missing words, homophone substitutions, etc. A couple more weeks like this, and I'd have been reduced to a repertoire of three or four basic grunts. Ah, well. By Wednesday of next week, I should be done with grading, and a freer man until January.
Peace. And a very merry Christmas to you, too.
if you can sqeeze out a poem from the chaos of your inner life you can't be doing too badly
the fact that you are aware of the drum is hopeful
some folks call it a headache and take pills
smile at the sky pal
jh
jh—
One of the blessings of my life is, perversely enough, that I commute to work, and as such, spend about about an hour each day walking, from home to train, from train to office, from office to train, and from train back home, 15 minutes per leg. These walks allow me a little time for contemplation, and it's been during these walks that I've been given the seeds for my poems.
smile at the sky pal
I do, especially now that they're open, blue, and cold. Much better than the dreary grays of the past month. Maybe, once things calm down, I'll pull out my telescope again, and contemplate some of the more distant and grand parts of creation.
Peace
I'm curious if as you and other mathematicians walk you do sums in your head for fun. Maybe you can do 344445555 plus 63636789 without blinking, but could you also multiply or divide such enormous numbers without needing a paper or a calculator? Are there mathematicians who can do that kind of thing without blinking and just provide a number? Is this also related to CREATIVITY in mathematics?
Kirby—
I suppose I could develop the ability to do such large sums in my head, but it's not my habit, nor do I think it is a particularly useful skill. I have colleagues who will calculate digits of pi, much as you might doodle, but it's no more than that. It is certainly not germane to the creative aspect of mathematical research.
Are there folks who can do amazing calculations in their heads? Of course, read about mathematical savants, but this ability is hardly indicative of the ability to do creative mathematics.
Yes, it might be akin to being able to memorize huge tracts of Shakespeare. It doesn't mean you can write like Shakespeare, or anywhere close.
Right?
I don't know if they would be negative indicators, though.
I remember that famous Indian mathematician found almost every number to have a personality and a flavor of its own.
I would think that poets would be excited by individual words and their histories and feelings in similar ways.
Kirby—
Yes, it might be akin to being able to memorize huge tracts of Shakespeare.
I was actually thinking that the ability to do large calculations in your head (multiplication is much more interesting than addition, because it requires more memory) is kind of like being a championship speller—not just in English, but in Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit too. It's not useless, but it's not as if having that ability would make you a great writer.
Yes, it might be akin to being able to memorize huge tracts of Shakespeare.
But the Shakespeare analogy isn't bad either. The difference to me is that I'd like to think that memorizing huge tracts of Shakespeare would begin to shape your ability to express yourself in favorable ways. But being eloquent, and having something to say, are quite different things. This is true in Mathematics too.
I remember that famous Indian mathematician found almost every number to have a personality and a flavor of its own.
Ramanujan. His insight into number theory was extraordinary, but it did not come from the place of ordinary mathematics. His insights were converted into theorems, mostly by Hardy. It's usually hard to judge between the insight and the theorem, but Ramanujan has a special place. His ideas came from mathematical left-field.
I would think that poets would be excited by individual words and their histories and feelings in similar ways.
Some. Probably not all.
Well, marching to Kirby Klown's klezmer--oom pah pah beat does not seem too godly, Stu-ster (nor rational).
Wolves in sheep's clothing, or rather Bozo in sheep's clothes: that be the fraud aka KIRBY. He should have stuck to like accounting or maybe joined the Army.
J—
I like the Bogart picture. Nice.
I am, however, disappointed that you seem to still be trying—for reasons I can't comprehend—to tie Kirby to Judaism (cf., your Klezmer remark).
And I don't see anything ungodly about choosing to remain engaged in conversation with Kirby. He and I don't agree, but I do like him, and have found him to be an interesting (and challenging) correspondent.
he who point one finger
point three back at himself
and tongue begins to fork
hmmmhph!
jh
Kirb's in the wrong bidness. He should have been like a methodist preacher in dixie, or rent-a-cop or shoe-salesman, or something.
And his religiousity as bogus as his poesy.
If you evah meet the midnight rambler...
J—
I catch you, I'll smash in yr septum, basura, fraud, trash
I assume here the "you" here is Kirby. J, I don't get you at all. Where is this anger coming from? What do you believe you're accomplishing? How is Kirby threatening you? By believing things you don't?!
I don't recall Kirby threatening anyone. It's just not his personality. Yeah, he believes that Christian belief entails all sorts of things that I reject, based on a different understanding of the same faith. So I engage him in dialog, winning a few points of the many in contention. I certainly consider Kirby worth the effort!
It happens that you reject many of things things that I reject too, but from a less religiously contextualized moral sense. That speaks well of you.
But in addition to rejecting some of what Kirby believes, I'm willing to make positive assertions about what I think Christian faith requires. In particular, I believe that Christian Faith requires loving the people we encounter. I'll note here that "requires" is an unfortunate word, because it suggests a demand to do something we otherwise would not do. In truth, I find that loving the people I encounter is a great joy. If I retain anger, it eats away at my soul, so I don't do that any more. I'm no great saint, but I've tried to give up sins that are so self-evidently self-destructive.
Nope. You, Mr Stu, simply don't understand blasphemy, not to say anti-rationalism, tastelessness and idiocy when you see it.
And I meant smash, legally, of course. IN a ring, say. I will knock the punk down in a matter of seconds.
j
i wonder what orthodoxy is in your mind
that someone would run afoul of such an exalted set of principles and merit the appellation -
blasphemer
the buddhist wisdom would suggest and i tend to concur that to view with hatred the aspects of another who offends you is to be looking in the mirror - in selfhatred
jh
I'm not a buddhist. My religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are not the issue.
Kirby's a punk, a sneak, and a scab --not to say a supporter of BushCo, Fox news, Sarah Palin. He and his cronies don't rationally discuss issues, or debate various points : he insists, and manipulates, makes snide remarks, insults, etc. I don't love the Demos, btw, but asserting the Democrats are marxists, communists, etc. is simply ludicrous.
Pop.
J—
You, Mr Stu, simply don't understand blasphemy, not to say anti-rationalism, tastelessness and idiocy when you see it.
Blasphemy I've not seen from Kirby. Anti-rationalism is arguable, Kirby is sometimes a bit of a Luddite, and he holds his resentments against the left pretty strongly. Tastelessness is in the beholder, but I think that Kirby does like to rile people up, as do you, and he's willing to be tasteless to get a reaction. Same with idiocy. I think Kirby's smart enough—he does have a Ph.D from a reputable place, and the last time I checked, they weren't giving them away. I'll admit that a Ph.D. is no guarantee that a person is talking sense, but it does make it more likely than not that they had a working brain at some point.
And I meant smash, legally, of course. IN a ring, say. I will knock the punk down in a matter of seconds.
I think you'll be in the ring alone, as I don't sense in Kirby anything like a desire to fight. JADL is a different story. He's older, but I think would fight. I wonder if (to some extent) you're conflating the two.
Kirby's a punk, a sneak, and a scab
Count me as doubting these. He did temp, so he might have scabbed at some point, but I don't recall him saying so.
not to say a supporter of BushCo, Fox news, Sarah Palin.
He's all of these... And yeah, there's certainly an argument for anti-rationalism there, and if not personal idiocy, a willingness to be entertained by idiocy.
He and his cronies don't rationally discuss issues, or debate various points: he insists, and manipulates, makes snide remarks, insults, etc.
I've seen Kirby debate rationally, as well as insisting, manipulating, and making snide remarks. Insults? Maybe, but not to a remarkable degree. Again, JADL slings them about fairly freely (and is hyper-sensitive when he believes he's been insulted). That said, there are aspects of JADL that I find worthy of respect and even admiration.
but asserting the Democrats are marxists, communists, etc. is simply ludicrous.
No argument there. I routinely excoriate him over this. But he tends, like you, to see the world in overly polar terms.
j
i am givng in to the temptation to say
read ed dorn
and halt thy verbiage
jh
I had a somewhat different thought. The posting that initiated this thread of comments was basically a lament about the insanity that the world confronts us with, moving to a petition for sanctuary.
I understand that J has issues with Kirby, even if I don't fully understand those issues, but it seems to me to be something of a perversion of this thread to turn it into something that is so unlike a sanctuary, by confronting us with anger.
I'm happy to engage J, and hopeful that he'll find peace and purpose in life. I see much good to build on. But I do believe that if you want peace, you need to begin by practicing peace. This doesn't mean that you can't confront evil, or that you have to accept everything that anyone says unchallenged, but it does put context-senstive limits on how you do so.
I think it is fair to say that the issue that Kirby has with J is that J is not respectful of those limits in the context of his blog. I am not willing to elevate this to "an issue" where I "have concerns," but I do wish for his own peace and happiness, as well as everyone else's, that J would learn to respect the limits of venue, and not to let the occasional violations of those limits by other parties become a justification in his mind for still more egregious violations on his part.
Practice peace. Practice peace. Practice peace.
hey i just thought of it
nothing can ever happen to time
time cannot bend or change
although
when i say
those were different times
i am alluding to sometning that is true
or am i
it really is all just very subjective my perception of time changes and nothing else
jh
it really is all just very subjective my perception of time changes and nothing else
Exactly right, but at an experiential level, what else do we have but our subjective perception?
I find your blessing of K-O and his crew of belle-lettrists somewhat amusing, Mr. Stu, given your rationalism and professional interest in logic and mathematics (--then, logic and Lutheranism don't seem too sympatico, really).
While I grant there is something like poetic beauty, that is the exception rather than the rule. Even the greatest or most sublime poetry--say Dante, Shakespeare, or Shelley, or Frost,e tc--does not offer true statements, does it (ie verifiable, or analytically valid); and for that matter most literary products tend to be "ancien regime" (not to say....somewhat decadent). The positivists were aware of this issue; aesthetic statements, or expressions are not verifiable (and thus meaningless, at least to the Carnapian school). As was Bertrand Russell, who reminded us never to mistake Shakespeare's Hamlet for ...Napoleon. One is merely a literary artifice; the other was...a real living human. I contend the vast majority of poetasters and scribes (and hollywood producers for that matter) do mistake Hamlet for Napoleon; what's more they sell their visions to millions of people (well, not in the case of beatniks like Kirby & Co...).
Let's not forget the greeks were no lovers of literary artifice. Aristotle allowed only for serious plays based on historical themes; Plato wanted poetry banned from his ideal state. Those old pagan rationalists were aware of the deceit of poesy, preferring euclid and pythagoras to the ancient homeric chestnuts.
J—
I like Kirby, just as I like you. I agree with each of you on some things, and disagree with each of you on others. That's life.
I do have a professional interest in mathematics and logic, but that's hardly the sum total of my being. I'm also a Christian. There are certain questions that can only be approached through mathematics and logic, some that can only be approached through faith, and a few where both sides of my intellect can contribute. In any event, to the extent the "left-brain/right-brain" pop psychology has reality, it does not exclude the possibility that a person might have both.
And while I agree that there is a distinction between truth (which can be arrived at by reason together with experiment) and aesthetics, I think it is both unjustifiable and high-handed to affirm the reality of one, and deny the reality of the other.
What is your attitude towards astrophysics? One of my colleagues calls them "the theologians of the division," as so much of what they hypothesize is not testable at present. How are we to judge astrophysical assertions? Are they merely aesthetic statements for now, mere pro-science until they can be tested?
And indeed if poetry can't be verified, it is still a viable means of communication. This thread began with a posting that I consider to be poetic in structure. It was intended to communicate the way the increased tempo of my life has affected my perceptions. Do you consider it unreasonable to attempt to communicate such sentiments? Is poetry an inappropriate vehicle for doing so?
getting back to the original post--
i like this poem
it rings so true
Post a Comment