Friday, September 14, 2007
An Epitaph In Progress
The latest contender for the epitaph for my tombstone (no, I don't know something that you don't about the sudden necessity for such a thing, although I do have a major surgical "event" upcoming): "Wherever I've gone, there I am."
That is a variation on one of my old editors' favorite lines: "Remember, wherever you go, there you are!" I've added a bit of a metaphysical twist to it (which my editor wouldn't have appreciated, since he was a strict Lutheran and was sure where he was headed -- if so, he's there now).
Of course, this latest one replaces my original idea: "Heaven must be a true paradise -- no editors!"
We'll see if the new one has any staying power (and if I do). Details at 11.
That is a variation on one of my old editors' favorite lines: "Remember, wherever you go, there you are!" I've added a bit of a metaphysical twist to it (which my editor wouldn't have appreciated, since he was a strict Lutheran and was sure where he was headed -- if so, he's there now).
Of course, this latest one replaces my original idea: "Heaven must be a true paradise -- no editors!"
We'll see if the new one has any staying power (and if I do). Details at 11.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
God Vs. Darwin Vs. Keats
I have a friend who is a pretty nice fellow, even for a computer geek. His one startling flaw is that he believes that the theory (if it can even be called that, rather than just a rehash of creationism) of intelligent design is, well, intelligent.
We have had several vigorous, yet civil, debates on the subject. Lovers of irony can appreciate how bizarre it must seem, the computer science major arguing for intelligent design and the English/journalism major arguing for evolution (or at least seeming to).
I startled both my friend and myself the last time we had occasion to brain-wrestle with the topic, basically when he questioned why I trusted science more than religion, since both are merely speculations on the explanations of how the world works, how it came to be, etc.
I blurted out -- and most truths are blurted, not spoken rationally and thoughtfully, like "Eurekas" of sudden enlightenment -- "I don't trust science any more than I trust religion, particularly when scientists get the misguided idea that science is equivalent to God.
"As far as I'm concerned, there are always three choices of whom to listen to on matters of truth, not just the usual two. You can listen to the religionists, you can listen to the scientists, or you can listen to the poets.
"I have always preferred to listen to the poets. They have the inside track to truth, as I see it."
I cannot provide a very rational explanation for that position of mine. All I can do is cite Keats, among others. Keats last line of "Ode on a Grecian Urn" says it all: "Beauty is truth, truth beauty -- that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
If that doesn't tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth about human existence, I don't know what does. Certainly nothing the religionists or scientists have to say about the matter.
You can do a lot worse than turning your ear toward the poets, that much I'm sure of. And it is much easier on both your ears and your nerves.
We have had several vigorous, yet civil, debates on the subject. Lovers of irony can appreciate how bizarre it must seem, the computer science major arguing for intelligent design and the English/journalism major arguing for evolution (or at least seeming to).
I startled both my friend and myself the last time we had occasion to brain-wrestle with the topic, basically when he questioned why I trusted science more than religion, since both are merely speculations on the explanations of how the world works, how it came to be, etc.
I blurted out -- and most truths are blurted, not spoken rationally and thoughtfully, like "Eurekas" of sudden enlightenment -- "I don't trust science any more than I trust religion, particularly when scientists get the misguided idea that science is equivalent to God.
"As far as I'm concerned, there are always three choices of whom to listen to on matters of truth, not just the usual two. You can listen to the religionists, you can listen to the scientists, or you can listen to the poets.
"I have always preferred to listen to the poets. They have the inside track to truth, as I see it."
I cannot provide a very rational explanation for that position of mine. All I can do is cite Keats, among others. Keats last line of "Ode on a Grecian Urn" says it all: "Beauty is truth, truth beauty -- that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
If that doesn't tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth about human existence, I don't know what does. Certainly nothing the religionists or scientists have to say about the matter.
You can do a lot worse than turning your ear toward the poets, that much I'm sure of. And it is much easier on both your ears and your nerves.
