....of Poets & Scientists
“…..of Poets & Scientists”
Never trust a novelist, or a poet, unless they’re talking about art. Should they begin to talk about math or science, they fall into the category of superstitious and feeling kinds of thinkers. Give them an inch, and the next thing you know, they’re engaging in witchcraft.
It is seldom, however, that one finds witches amongst astrophysicists. But, among poets, anything goes, leading inexorably to witches. In other words, Feeling is the lifeblood of the artist, but anathema to the biologist or true economist.
As an example, here is a poem was written by an evolutionary biologist:
“A tree is a tree.
A tree is not a monkey or a jackrabbit.
A plant is a tree.
We can safely say, then, it is not a monkey.”
As you can see, this is terrible poetry, compelling the poet to try and burn the scientist, turned poet, as a witch.
A mathematician may find poetry in math, just as a scientist may find poetry in the laws of physics or Darwinian theory. Here is the difference, though, one cannot round off a bank account to the nearest million, (unless you’re a liberal, of course.) Nor can you say “E = Mc2 is true....sort of. Not without wreaking havoc with Einstein’s theory.
Nonetheless, the poet will attempt to do this by using flowery sounding words to muddy the water. Because a clever use of words is the stock and trade of both the poet/liberal and the con-man. Only because we willfully suspend disbelief in favor our druthers, though.
It should be obvious, then, that an individual's druthers are not—at their best—a measure of truth.
"But what is Truth?"
Is a tree Truth?
Is seven billion dollars in the bank Truth?
“You betcha!”
As you can see, I almost slipped into a metaphor but caught myself at the last moment. Damned good, too. Lest I was forced to burn myself as a witch.
I hope this helps when distinguishing between poets as truth seekers—who will forever seek—but never find. And, the real truth seekers, who are Scientists.
As stated previously, this does not apply to liberals, who are held to no standard greater than their own feelings.
For the rest of humanity, it’s as ironclad as it gets.
Lord Byron
Never trust a novelist, or a poet, unless they’re talking about art. Should they begin to talk about math or science, they fall into the category of superstitious and feeling kinds of thinkers. Give them an inch, and the next thing you know, they’re engaging in witchcraft.
It is seldom, however, that one finds witches amongst astrophysicists. But, among poets, anything goes, leading inexorably to witches. In other words, Feeling is the lifeblood of the artist, but anathema to the biologist or true economist.
As an example, here is a poem was written by an evolutionary biologist:
“A tree is a tree.
A tree is not a monkey or a jackrabbit.
A plant is a tree.
We can safely say, then, it is not a monkey.”
As you can see, this is terrible poetry, compelling the poet to try and burn the scientist, turned poet, as a witch.
A mathematician may find poetry in math, just as a scientist may find poetry in the laws of physics or Darwinian theory. Here is the difference, though, one cannot round off a bank account to the nearest million, (unless you’re a liberal, of course.) Nor can you say “E = Mc2 is true....sort of. Not without wreaking havoc with Einstein’s theory.
Nonetheless, the poet will attempt to do this by using flowery sounding words to muddy the water. Because a clever use of words is the stock and trade of both the poet/liberal and the con-man. Only because we willfully suspend disbelief in favor our druthers, though.
It should be obvious, then, that an individual's druthers are not—at their best—a measure of truth.
"But what is Truth?"
Is a tree Truth?
Is seven billion dollars in the bank Truth?
“You betcha!”
As you can see, I almost slipped into a metaphor but caught myself at the last moment. Damned good, too. Lest I was forced to burn myself as a witch.
I hope this helps when distinguishing between poets as truth seekers—who will forever seek—but never find. And, the real truth seekers, who are Scientists.
As stated previously, this does not apply to liberals, who are held to no standard greater than their own feelings.
For the rest of humanity, it’s as ironclad as it gets.
Lord Byron