At first there were the deities
who moved heaven and earth
and filled the firmament
with metaphysical meanings
as affirmed by ‘group think’.
Everything for a purpose
Then came the scientific method
with purpose translated into process
and meaning into verification
all within a material reality
as affirmed by ‘brain think’.
Is everything a fact of science?
Do scientific necessities tell us all there is to know
or is there more to knowledge than science can explain?
Can a “Theory of Everything” be more than a theory
or a scientific understanding amount to an omniscience?
Indeed, is science the only reality making us realistic
or is it really a philosophy that doesn’t recognise itself?
Is order the slave of chaos?
Is entropy the sole measure of change?
Or is there evidence
pointing in another direction
– an “open channel”
into dimensions of being
– conscious and meaningful
adumbrating the cosmic dust
in the atoms alone?
What is this thing called death
– the presence of an absence
knowable by what it isn’t
– a nothingness to carry us away
into some ‘non-place’ of ‘not being’?
Ask yourself, is death as real as life is real?
Are they complete opposites
in a reality that exceeds language
in which life has yet to be explained?
Then how is death comprehensible
as a final return to nothing
when a greater truth has already cancelled nothingness?
I think I am thinking
but am “I” superfluous?
Is my brain the actual thinker
– objectively speaking?
Then is “my” brain the real me
– or am I deluding myself?
Yet, isn’t it the thought that counts,
and without a subjective aura
there would be no question to ask
and no answer to find
by looking somewhere else
in ways the brain alone cannot?
Just because we’re alive, it doesn’t entitle us to know what life’s all about.
Just because we are made entirely of stardust, it doesn’t prove that there’s nothing more to us.
Just because we have explanations for the way thing are, it doesn’t mean that we have explained them.
Just because we can talk about reality, it doesn’t mean we can talk ourselves into it.
Just because we can see that effects depend on causes, it doesn’t mean that either the cause or the effect explains the difference.
Just because we can equate one thing to another, it doesn’t make them the same.
Just because we use logic to understand nature, it doesn’t mean that nature is logical.
Just because the stars in the sky are ‘there’ doesn’t mean they are really there.
Just because we know reality as we know it, it doesn’t mean that we really know it.
Just because life is ‘uploaded’ from what ‘is’ already (qua physical necessity), it doesn’t mean that it is not also ‘downloaded’ from what ‘isn’t’ – ‘impossibilities’ becoming possible (qua unrealised potentials).
Just because we haven’t solved the meaning of life, it doesn’t mean that life is necessarily meaningless: it could be that there is more to life and meaning than our narrow version of it – that even the ‘meaningless expanse’ of the universe is a line-of-sight effect – a figment of a narrowed view of what is there to be seen of what can be.
Just because we know what we mean, it doesn’t mean that we know how to say it.
What can we say
about what we say?
Do the limits of our language
delimit our world,
Must a certain meaning
preclude its opposite
– to avoid contradiction
and place logic in charge
Is it nature’s way
to augment itself
– creation recreated?
vivified with digital spirit
impeccable cold logic
untouchable synthetic heart
– exquisitely non-human?