still life life still

STANDARD MODEL

So summer, Susanna, slowly, slowly

decelerates, among the weeds

& celery, the radish seeds.

&, painted into a corner, quietly

arrives full stop.  Like Peto

still life.  Or Adagietto

seeping on the Lido.

Gradually.  More things, Horatio,

than are dreamt of...  Plumb pleroma

if you can, Hobo –

speak what we feel we know,

somehow.  Premonitions (like a

wind-blown pennant toppling

at Little Big Horn).

Do not compare, Son

of the Morning Star (glass tippling);

you are the only one of a kind

Wakan Tanka.  To come

back from the grave... some

stretch, Hermione.  Out of your mind?

The Blue Morpho of Vladimir

eludes his abstract net –

yet he’ll catch a Hazel.

Bet.  Meet your double in a mirror

(is good luck, not bad).  The way

a doubting Peter folds

a king of hearts, & holds

the diamond.  One homing ray

                *

unlocks the elephant casket (gold-

lined interior, with keys

to inside story)

figured by Jonah, Susanna – double

coracles conveying chronicles

to Finland, now, for you.

Finis.  He’s us, too.

With eyes like Mirror Lakes

in Mendelssohn, down Arthur Street

(the once & future thing).

Two heavy charms, making

an up-quark reddish baryon, Snoopy –

hiccups of a Higgs bison, maybe?

Concerns which we cannot

discern at CERN, just yet.

Professor Nyet beside the Neva...

– Knock it off, Nobby.  That Large

Hadron won’t bunt the Standard

Model for 1000 millionths of

a billionth of a second, pard.  No, Sarge.

I was just napping by the meteor,

that’s all.  It rolled away

(under the elements, maybe).

Not Hobo, not Pope... Columbus, neither.

Those deep brown hazel eyes absorb

Persephone-phenomena...

monarchs on milkweed... ah,

she weeps.  Who spans her glistening orb?

7.7.17

I'm getting toward the conclusion of Lee Smolin's book (Trouble with Physics). This is a very engaging, exciting book. I'm in the chapter where he contrasts "seers" and "craftspeople", the philosophical deep-thought approach of early 20th-cent. (European, mostly) physics, with the latter-day (American) pragmatic-technician attitude, which has paradoxically led to a sociological "groupthink" impasse in the academy. Smolin underlines contemporary physics' dire need for seers.

Led me to pick up Arthur Eddington's 1935 relativity classic Space, Time and Gravity (1935) (which I happened to have on my shelf!). Gratified to discover that his famous astronomy experiment (in Brazil & elsewhere) of 1919 - which was able to determine (by way of a solar eclipse) that light rays are bent near stars to a degree that supports Einstein's theory - took place on May 29th (my birthday). That annual date is the best for such observations, since the sun is passing through a background region of very bright stars.

Just for fun I'm going to exercise my rights as a card-carrying (non-science, non-math, non-physics) dillettante, and play seer for a minute (stolen from work). Smolin discusses great unsolved problems & conundrums in relativity & quantum theory. Here's my very seeeerious contribution to their solution :

Henry's 5/29 Cosmology Sketch (or, The Eureka-2 Theory, or, The C-C (Cosmic-Ceramic) Rider Theory)

1. The simplest way to describe the universe : mass (or matter) set in motion (at very high speed).

2. The universe is composed of mass in its simplest and most efficient 3-d geometrical form - the sphere. Spherical bodies + motion = direction + spin.

3. Gravity, at its simplest, is an effect of the acceleration of spherical masses. Gravity rays and fields are thus an effect of matter in motion.

4. Light and electromagnetic rays are complementary (similar) effects resulting from specific types of matter. In other words, the energy-effects of both gravity and electromagnetism stem from the more basic force, which we will call the motion-force or spin-force.

5. Atomic and sub-atomic energies are manifestations of this same force on a minuscule scale. The smaller the mass the greater the effect of spin-energy. Thus quantum (sub-sub-atomic) effects - such as quanta-leaps (discrete energy packets) and "non-location" (the uncertainty principle applied to quark-level particles) are simply observation effects of spin-energy on very minute quantities of mass. Quantum leaps are so tiny & so fast that we are unable to observe the actual movements from here to there.

6. Relativity theory is substantially correct but incomplete. This is because the 20th-century effort to solve the observed contradictions of Newton's classical physics (the laws of our familiar local environment) over-simplified the spacetime geometry of matter in motion.

7. The problem of "dark" matter and energy on the cosmic scale is a result of said theoretical incompleteness. The incompleteness of the theory relates to unexplored aspects of cosmic equilibrium or "states of rest". Einstein's brilliant simplification (relativity theory) did not take sufficient account of this threefold relation : matter-speed-rest. In relativity, motion and rest are equivalent. But what is not understood is the state we might call "permanent-motion-and-rest", or "resting-in-motion" (TS Eliot's chinese vase, in Four Quartets). A motion/rest complementarity or duality, that is, rather than a simple equivalence.

8. Local environments of equilibrium and rest (such as our complexity-manifesting and life-supporting planet) are developmental or teleological, in Aristotle's sense. In other words, planetary ecologies, for example, have a developmental teleology comparable to that of biological forms (seed to full-grown plant, lamb to full-grown sheep, etc.).

9. Thus we should further characterize the primal motion-force or spin-force as the teleology-force. The as-yet unaccountable combination of high accelerations on the rim of the universe with the holding power of dark energy/matter is a function of the same teleology-force : local planetary equilibria are symmetrical (ie. pervasive) on a cosmic scale.

10. "Arguments from design" or "anthropic principle" theories are tautological, non-scientific descriptions of effects, not scientific explanations of causes. Such descriptions are certainly within the range of philosophy, and perhaps even logic; but they don't offer scientific avenues for hypothesis or proof.

11. The resolution of the conundrums in relativity, gravity, and quantum theory will not stem so much from research in particle physics or string theory, but from the investigation of this teleology force. For example, the action of this t-force may provide a real "background geometry", which will have to modify relativity theory (which disallows any such unified background spatial geometry - and which disallowance has led to all the baroque mathematical extremes of string theory).

12. Think of the "t-force" as primarily conceptual (for the moment). For example, consider the contrast between Euclidean geometry and Einstein's non-Euclidean timespace - the geometry of bent light-waves. Euclidean geometry is rooted not so much in points, lines and shapes, as (more fundamentally) in equalities. An "equation" is a complex "equality". A square is an equality of lengths. A parallel is an equality of distances.

The conceptual structure of Euclidean geometry is not negated or invalidated by the non-Euclidean effect of the material spacetime universe : it is only limited in some of its applications. Euclid is a kind of abstraction (in the form of geometrical laws) of our familiar, local (classical, Newtonian) environment. The equalities represented in Euclid are what we might call metaphors for states of local rest.

Think of the teleology of the t-force as utilizing non-Euclidean, relativistic effects in a developmental process which results in the Euclid-like geometries of our local world. In other words, the state of Rest (with a capital R) which preceded the "Big Bang" is reiterated in the equilibrium (the state of rest - of seeming-equilibrium - happening at actually tremendous cosmic speeds). Thus the (restful) origin of the universe is replicated, in miniature, in local environmental states of equilibria (as Einstein himself emphasized, steady motion is equivalent to rest). "In my beginning is my end". The spherical revolutions of matter are the most basic and pervasive image of the time-sphericity (or cosmic circularity) represented in the developmental history of the universe.

Reading more in Lee Smolin's book (Trouble with Physics). Vast (not quite infinite) expense of intellect and academic resources on sometimes fantastic & surreal by-roads of (mostly unverifiable) string theory.

Can one make a very stretched analogy to the realm of American poetry? Experimental tests and logical rigor might be compared with the poet's effort to find an authentic rhetoric (or is that a double oxymoron? "all poets are liars...").

Formerly paraphrased as the now muchly-derided "finding your voice".

Just as string theory blithely proposed multiple dimensions, with only the most tenuous connection to testable reality, so postmodern poetry dismissed voice, levels of diction, all the problems of rhetorical address... since these elements are seen as epiphenomena of "personality" or "the author" or "individualism"...

- and so the unreadable productions pile up, in the departmental building just down the street from the one with the untestable physics theories. Vanity Babel.

(I admit I couldn't get past the first 4-5 lines of Jorie Graham's poem in this week's New Yorker. So it's not fair to judge, but I'm going to anyway... it struck me as hair-raisingly pretentious. The voice of some fantastic Poetry Establishment - which, having invested everything in a mandarin, hyper-refined stylistics, has no funds left for this problem of rhetorical address - the physics of making statements having some faint relation to ordinary speech among theoretical "equals". I know there is a complementary - and equally large - problem with "popular" styles : but I'm more put off by what you might call "establishment exceptionalism". In this sense, Ron Silliman, for example, is a spokeperson for the status quo. Shadow-boxing with mediocre traditionalist poetry is a way of angling for special credit : because this deep problem of rhetorical address - voice, style - is the intractable, unavoidable challenge for every poet.)

(p.s. but I will go back & read the Graham poem all the way through. I might change my mind.)

Fontegaia, onward, underward...

18

 
Under alp-bank in Switzerland, scientists
mole through superdimensional cheese,
carve expansive titanium race-
course for unknown particles

 
(Higgs hobos - shifty-eyey - elusive).
Junior Einsteins carry oversize
branes across antimatter (sideways)
toward theoretical, onion-beehive

 
Domesday - can they count every bee?
We seem to be alone in the multiverse.
A saddle-shaped cosmos.  Our hearse
or hers (Bootes up backward)?  Maybe.

 
He's the oldest son of the youngest 
paisan.  Prodigal scrabble-player,
dense brown dwarf (WIMP).  Here
and gone, we hardly nothingested

 
his talent for tunneling (with pencil)
athwart our own plain planet.  Maimed,
drawn (with quarters in the subway) -
shame on her, was he, dense exile,

 
doodlemeister.  Sand Franciscan
on rocky road, indeed!  Heartbreak
of the Protons on TV - let's make
Caesar salad spread veinous marzipan!

 
HOBO RAY MIRRORS HOMO-YEAR
crows crazed witless Addition (EZ-
duz-it) - REASON? SLEPT IN BREEZE-
WAY OVERNIGHT chortlez Shanty Choir.

Reading the wonderfully clear & accessible critique of string theory, The Trouble with Physics, by Lee Smolin. An education in scientific method.

I'm in the 1st chapter. Discussing how scientists seek to explain diverse phenomena through unification in a comprehensive theory.

What would a "theory" of American poetry look like? It would have to be grounded in a particular idea of the nature of poetry in general, and in a good grasp of the literary history.

Probably some such set of principles (defined or implicit) is part of the equipment of every good critic.

The idea would be to unify one's judgement of the various approaches and styles based on such a "theory" (or set of principles) - & thus offer a persuasive interpretation of the jostling tribes.

Re-reading Swinburne's thesis, I do what comes naturally, which is play devil's advocate. This is simply a way of testing arguments, I guess.

Swinburne proposes that there are three options : scientific explanation, personal explanation, or no explanation at all. Science is limited in that it cannot explain why things exist, or why they are so coincidentally ordered & unified. As he goes on to show, personal explanation - extrapolated to a supreme being - provides (amazingly) a pretty strong explanation for the nature of the universe.

But what has been playing in the back of my mind is a notion, perhaps akin to that of Eastern religion : that there might be another mode of explanation, which we could call the impersonal.

What if the ultimate characteristic of the universe of objects and things is, indeed, not chaos, but order? What if the artificial ordered creations that conscious beings (humans) produce - works of art, technology, etc. - are not so much analogous to the acts of a divine Maker, but rather simply acts of alignment, on a smaller scale, with the original, universal Order? "Conforming with the Tao", so to speak?

This also seems akin to some recent physics theory (I can't remember the name of the author) about the "algorithmic" nature of reality. The universe shuttling automatically into new formal formations.

One might then expect the philosophical alternative to a "new theism" would be a counter-movement - toward a "new Taoism", or something like that.

I don't happen to agree with this view, but I can see its appeal. I think that, aside from the "cosmological" or "design" arguments for theism, the evidence from consciousness and "personhood" weighs the scale on the side of theism, as opposed to this sort of spiritualized materialism or impersonal Way. (I do believe in "the Way", or universal law : but I also believe in the Person as its original and ultimate expression.)

(Between the unknowing of the intellect faced with God, and the following of the everlasting Way, there is probably a lot of complimentary common ground. But they are not the same. The belief that the ultimate ground of reality is impersonal is... rather impersonal, I guess.)

p.s. & I wouldn't be surprised if somebody like Swinburne could look more closely at the evidentiary logic of chaotic things and events, vs. the vast prevalence of order, and suggest that my "impersonal" explanation is simply the same as the "no explanation" option. What is the probability of a universe self-ordering itself, by chance (because if it is not by chance, then you have to accept a motivation of some kind - which brings God back into the picture)? In fact, the analogy, between conscious intention producing small-scale forms of order, on the one hand, with cosmic intentionality, on the other - ie. small-scale ordering acts as examples or replications of a universal-metaphysical act - remains pretty persuasive to me...

Reading some interesting books on Kurt Godel, the mathematician/philosopher. Happens he gave his last public lecture at American Math Society, here in Providence - hope I can find a copy of that somewhere.

You think poets are crazy... just read some of these math biographies!

I'm not saying KG was crazy, however. (Though extremely paranoid & eccentric toward the end - died in Princeton of "inanition" due to lack of food. His wife, & Albert Einstein, were just about his only friends, and things went downhill after they died.) He was brilliant. A few pithy pages changed the course of mathematics, & possibly philosophy too.

I can barely follow the math, logic, physics. Good brain exercise, though. Gets me thinking about what sets poetry apart from philosophy, etc.

Cosmipoetics. From an article in Tuesday's NY Times science section:

As they try to figure out how this strange behavior could be happening to 
the universe today, astronomers say the ultimate prize from all the new observing
projects could be as simple as a single number.
      That number, known as w, is the ratio between the pressure and density of
dark energy. . .

You could say that Stubborn Grew (or at least Bluejay's presence in) is about the pressure and density of dark energy. Here's Bluejay, intimating to unknowing Henry what he's about:

Hey!  C'mon Bluejay!  Live ain't over yet!  Let's go -
up to the Terrace!  There's old Roger himself, up there!
Bluejay turned SE to see.  Yeah, I see the ol bear.
He got up and shook himself - blood to flow

 
into his phosphoric, porous feet and hands -
and said:  you know what you doin, Henry m'man?
You know you zigshaggin?  Raven an zigshaggin
a sweetblack rizebury W, man - donch U?  Unnerstan?

 
A what?  Sho.

& then the letter "W" takes on a multivalent quality in many sections of the poem : a shorthand for Whitman or William Blackstone, a reflection of "M" (both Mandelstam & Dante's stellar icon for Justice in the Paradiso), & other things. Here's something toward the end of Forth of July as a whole:

         1


  
         We are coming to the end of Henry
 Navigator's long voyage, Elena –
 circling around an elephant ear (Abul
 Abaz, or Barnum's Jumbo) – see

  
         how everything grows simpler,
 more harsh, more true.  Still
 the well is always there (and will
 be) – like the man standing here

  
         beside it in the dark courtyard
 (strange blooming out-of-season
 almond branch).  A stone,
 a star, a well.  A cup of water

  
         from a rainbarrel (or Tartar
 wine).  A circling dragon-boat
 or scrap of origami writ
 folded to float so lightly... there.

  
         You fold Andromeda into a W,
 a mountain range back into M.
 You cup them in your palm
 to make a diamond, or double-

  
         diamond – cat's eyes, Pushkinian.
 Delicate Blue Morpho wings
 woven with microscopic strings
 of quipu thread (gentian-

  
         gentle, violet, and red).  A knit
 crossroad, then – red, white –
 streams into Cassiopeia's
 mother-night (at last).

      
                               5.22.2000

(Cassiopeia being a constellation in the form of a "W", and linked mythologically with Ethiopia - another thread in the poem - source of Nile, "dark energy", Ark of Covenant legends, etc.).