The greatest expression of the ultimate timeless civilisation of mankind, is the embodiment of unfeigned, absolute, active altruistic reverence for the universal equality, dignity and sanctity of humanity; the inability to perceive the declivity from behind an acclivity, or rather, the proclivity to infer the depth of a river from its breath is, no less, the antithesis, for verisimilitude isn’t proof, but verisimilitude. To be or not to be then, being is but a metaphysical idiom with a being, whose interpretation bears no physical traits that bears not a being, much the same as the paradoxical question of visual disability: a metaphysical idiom with a physical configuration that is, however, open to misconstruction; by which misconstruction merely a scratch of the surface to whose bottom can be at the bottom of its sophistication; upon which sophistication its decipherment is bound to bring man to labour under a misapprehension; a misapprehension from which only appreciating the objective for the objective and the subjective for the subjective, can deliver us; a deliverance that can howsoever, never be granted by sweeping the objective under the subjective carpet; under which selfsame carpet the efficacious spearheads for the reclamation of the birthright of persons with visual disability lies ensnared, grimed with the ignorance, intolerance and indifference of man. Better be it that one be one’s own worst enemy than to bear a lifelong imputation to elsewhere; by which reason I am not to draw in my horns from meeting head-on the reality; the reality I believe, forasmuch as there is no land that is no-man’s-land, its disclosure will be worth the weight of persons with visual disability in gold.
Expounding, then, the metaphysical correlation between the variant sociological and psychological make-up of human societies and the individuals of the societies respectively, vis-а-vis the idiosyncratic perceptions and conceptions on the relative universal identity and equality of humanity, hence the ideological heterogeneity or otherwise incongruity in relation to the nitty-gritty of visual disability, is a sine qua non inasmuch as it is obligatorily imperative for the explicit crystallisation of a clear-cut, utilitarian and epoch-making expedient, well geared towards the universal transpiration of a modernistic, cosmopolitan ideology apropos of visual disability, well-tailored for the far-reaching amelioration of the status quo anent the plight of persons with visual disability, and well-defined for the effective harmonisation of the relative social standing of visually handicapped persons, pursuant to the universally veritable social, cultural and economic well-being of humanity. In virtue of this a fortiori virtue of necessity, it is a profound ethical suasion and a sound social obligation for me to enlighten in my expatiatory, a posteriori exposition – the Philosophy of Visual Disability.
The Philosophy:
Behind any course that we may pursue in quest of our bequeathed legacy, are enchanted lands – uncharted, and futile wastelands beyond – unforeseen; an unnerving fateful pursuit that, long since, begets, disconcertingly, a confounding impasse, crestfallen men of yore lethargically learnt to rationalise dogmatically in a lead balloon as nothing, but a wild-goose chase. Yet, hitherto, we still fail, warped within the obscurity of the absurdity of this twilit ground, to realise that: by giving in our insight ignorantly to that which visually we do perceive, or intolerantly to that which insularly we do conceive, verily, we lose virtually all that which we were to, but definitely will not see elementally. So much the better if we can think twice and strive to read between the lines, having a single-track mind and conscientiousness of a funambulist, only can our percipience transcend our primitive purview and descry from beyond the back of beyond, the unveiled philosophies of being, so plain as a pikestaff, along with the merged fragments of one of the segments of the assembled jigsaw puzzle of being engraved: “Denounce only the paradox of my disability to renounce umpteen blessings of humanity.”
The ideal art of mankind, though subtly je ne sais quoi, is graphically modelled by man’s spontaneous, continuous impulsion to interpret his conscious, continuous sensual experiences; thence by an inherent compulsion to be sentient of the essence of his personal world’s continuous physical experiences relative to the external world within which he abides, as a prescriptive requisite towards the imperative consolidation of a mutually interactive correlation. The intrinsic existence of, particularly, a visual sensory entity – the eye – a biological decoder that actively deciphers the dimensional chromatic information world into a systematic dimensionless information world (visible to the mind) – which is the elemental medium of sight – the pro-informative faculty, act or instance of the (spontaneous ocular) capturing of the extrinsic dimensional and chromatic configuration of the objective world; wielded by the hypostatically inherent, integral virtual vision framework of cognitively coordinated, integrated dimensionless configurations of the very same dimensional and chromatic objective world – that is, the sense of sight; emphatically substantiates, implicitly, the authenticity of the afore-professed hypothesis: a seeming obligation for man to perceive, and an oblique compulsion by man to conceive. Irrespective of the natural complexity of the continuous optical catalysis of dimensional chromatic information into dimensionless data – inclusively involving: the spontaneous accommodation mechanics; the involuntary integration of the continuous, invariably 2-D visual sensory data from the screen of the retina (isochronously along with the synchronous, continuous tactual, lingual, aural and nasal sensory nerve impulses) by the thalamus; the ensuing unconscious registration of the integrated sensations, the subsequent subjective resolution of solidity and profundity entailing the cognitive realisation of a virtual 3-D impression of the dimensional objective world, the cognitive appreciation and assimilation of the dimensionless data, and the consequent initiation of voluntary muscular activity towards the dimensional world, a well-nigh split-second’s activity - all in the celebral cortex; the spontaneous muscular coordination by the cerebellum and brainstem; and the relative evocation of emotions by the limbic system; which is, all-inclusively, a sequentially consolidated macrocosm of the phenomenon of sight, the twain to which the invariable mechanics of the eye, per se, are a microcosm of - the eye, howsoever, retains its sole raison d’etre as the liaising interface of the twain: dimensional and dimensionless, objective and subjective worlds; wherefore the extrinsic configuration of the eye elementally lies beyond the purview of the eye itself!
In the nature of the vicissitudes of being, the physical, chemical, mechanical, biochemical and biological (inc. genetic and pathological) vitiation of visual acuity – the intrinsic relative ease of ocular appreciation of the extrinsic objective configurations – which culminates to the involuntary (and oft-unbidden) detriment of the liaison between the objective and cognitive worlds, that is visual disability, predicates the latter, visual disability, as a physically, chemically, mechanically, genetically, biochemically and pathologically effected condition or situation of the relative ocular miscarriage of relative absolute reciprocity between the ever-active dimensionally expressive, chromatic objective world and the then quasi-passive dimensionless visual sensory cognitive world – nothing more, nothing less; a contingent natural phenomenon whose ultimate incidence, nevertheless, neither cuts a swath through one’s sense of sight, nor does it present insuperable barricades towards one’s inherent cognitive capacity to appreciate the configurations of the objective world, but only calls for the complementary substitution or harmonisation of the impaired ocular liaison by dint of the transcendent consolidation of the tremendous abilities of the complementary senses, particularly, the tactile, olfactory and auditory senses.
Everyone has no less than two strings to one’s bow. What though the ocular string be slacken, one can nevertheless strike out on one’s own. The shoe pinches not on the miss of the optical arrow fired from the ocular string, but on the ease of the cognitive intelligibility of the dimensions of the chromatic target; the selfsame optical target whereunto cognitively propelled (and technologically steered) tactual and auditory arrows, let fly from the complementary tactile and aural strings, will still strike. Cognitive sight having precedence over ocular sight, it stands to reason beyond a shadow of doubt that it is not because of one’s blindness to the wider society that one is blind, but the wider society’s blindness to the striking shadow cast at length by the be-all and end-all dried-in-grain sense of sight of persons with visual disability, for we see not with the eyes, but the mind; our eyes – the elemental leverage of optical sensation, much the same as an oarlock, at most, puts a premium on the rowing of the mind’s eye within the invariable expanse of dimensions; in the default of which nothing can defy one from having recourse to paddling, yet effectuating the very effect: the cognitive appreciation and assimilation of the acquired dimensionless information which, otherwise, effectuates the propulsion of motive/impulse driven impetus/stimuli towards the dimensional world.
This universal ability of any person to paddle one’s own canoe, subversively insinuates the semantic obliquity, hence the vacuity of the terms blind/blindness, conventionally adopted in popular parlance as naturalistic fallacies of the homologous, but subtly non-homogeneous terms: vision or visual disability/ handicap/ impairment, which, prima facie, shades an illusive nuance of the irreconcilability of the objective and cognitive worlds; intimating, ipso facto, that the former terms are, literally speaking, monstrous misnomers and hence are of nominal import only. Thereupon, the deliberate, inveterate, arbitrary, colloquial, or rather, the conscious or unconscious usage of the terms blind/blindness, ignorantly, indifferently, intolerantly, otherwise unless upon the foundation of literal specification or bona fide emphasis, is, off the grounds of euphemism, grotesque solecism, objectionable, deplorable, an implicit debasement of the dignity of humanity, and to crown it all, explicitly betokens one’s own intrinsic blindness. All and above, the cultural and/or religious astringent manipulation of visual disability as an instrument of, inter alia, stigmatisation, discrimination, social stratification and occultism, is profoundly eloquent of objectivistically and dogmatically bridled cold feet dragging along a yellow streak towards reaching out for universal, modernistic, complementary (technological) frontiers.
Constituting visual disability is, essentially, the surmountable dimensional-dimensionless information divide and, trivially, the comparative pluckable thorn that, as likely as not, impales through one’s flesh. The former, a recondite verity, is a virtual chasm that can be spanned integrally by the systematic harmonisation of physiological sensory substitution systems along with adaptive/assistive electronic and communication systems; and the later, a microcosm of the former, is a dispensable sensation that can extensively be suppressed following psychological recuperation through effective psychological rehabilitation – if need be. If then the dimensional configuration of the objective chromatic world can take shape cognitively through this potent line of least resistance – technology – which, to all intents and purposes, redresses the balance and thus answers the purpose as the crow flies, what can preclude one from being entitled the king of the Jungle, if one can evince the heart of a lion? All roads lead to Rome! On what grounds can one stand and impugn this verity? The end specifies not the means; it anyhow justifies the means, regardless of how mean the means might be, for just as the innate buoyancy of driftwood, devoid of all conceivable will, and seemingly of no great shakes on the face of it, all the same wafts it ashore!
Apt to be riveted by the heterogeneity of the fashions of sensation, we are prone to be distracted from perceiving the homogeneity nature of perception – the cognitive conscious appreciation of the objective sensual impressions. To see is to perceive and to perceive is to see! No one is thus, literally speaking, blind, for we all are capable of perceiving; the means, justified by the perception, is what masquerades boldly without wings as a verisimilitude of dissimilitude, when, in actual fact, the similitude of the ultimate perception starkly stares us in the face. The ‘Night Writing System’, from which the conventional ‘Braille System’ was innovated, never was dreamt up with persons with visual disability in mind. Why would the soldiers opt then to adopt this system extensively, yet beyond the shadow of this brain child, were capable of perceiving with the eyes? Think it over! What lies behind the keen perception of nocturnal mammals or the practical phenomenon of dead reckoning? Ocular sensation, an elemental species of perception, is, thus, not such significant nor is it streets ahead of auditory, olfactory, tactual or lingual sensations, elemental species of perception as well, that it should draw a veil over the equal capacities of the latter, irrespective of its elemental capacity to ride runs round the latter in relation to the perception of the dimensional and chromatic configurations of the objective world, insomuch as the supplementary coordination of the latter can equally substitute it.
It only costs a rather supplementary refinement of man’s logic, and a transcendental situational scrutiny upon a non-objectivistic, impartial coign of vantage for man to dawn upon the fact that: “ Blindness exists not in man’s very eyes, but in the veriest eyes of ignorance”; the very eyes of ignorance that, in virtue of man’s partiality towards objectivism; man’s propensity towards needlessly depicting himself in effigy; man’s frivolity towards being diverted by the widow’s peak for the head of hair; and man’s proclivity towards underlining what extrinsically he can perceive for what intrinsically he cannot conceive, undermines the impalpable innate attributes inherent in the profundities of the intrinsic being: the intrinsic being that, nonetheless, fashions the extrinsic being and pro-actively influences the mutuality between the extrinsic being and the extrinsic objective world. A nigger in the woodpile then it is, that befogs the woods for the trees; a bed of quicksand so it seems, that like a whirlpool, swallows up whole the chrysalises for the cocoons; and with the acute ‘identity crisis’ of a homing pigeon, divested of its wild life to assume, in servility, the sway of man, so is the fundamental nature of the blindness of man’s ignorance that, despite it being disparate from the putative blindness of the eyes of man, sophistically assumes a feigned appearance as the fundamental nature of visual disability.
Iridescent then; visual disability isn’t what we do perceive it as being that it is what it is, but that which we do conceive it as being that it is what it seems; insomuch as the sociological form of the social matrix within which we do culturally and socially fabricate visual disability to be, so is the psychological form of which visual disability does sentimentally manifests to one as being; wherefore the flaw of human sentiment is with impunity and substantial ethical immunity to the detriment of the de facto and de jure dignity and sanctity of persons with visual disability. In line with this last straw that breaks the camel’s back, is the existence of innumerable societies of man, whose rationale for the relative characteristic attitudes within the societies towards persons with disabilities are variant and significantly incoherent. By virtue of the ease of one to conform with, and adhere to the (time-honoured) customs and/or the (orthodox) beliefs of one’s culture/religion respectively, it is, therefore, not uncommon that one is disposed to ignorantly give credence to bigoted customs and beliefs as regards persons with visual disability, so customary is it that one is inclined to contemplate one’s navel apropos of visual disability; no wonder, in oblivion to our liability for the so reputed realities underlying visual disability and our accountability for the desecration of the sanctity of humanity, we fail to realise… As a complement to the debt of nature, every man is born to be great, endowed with equitable talents and abilities, along with the inalienable faculties of will and consciousness. This greatness, however, blossoms to culmination if one can realise one’s abilities and wield one’s will with diligence, patience, persistence and perseverance within an enabling and an empowering sociological milieu, and a psychological climate of unbounded self-assurance and unrestrained self-motivation, A needle in a haystack, as it might be to the benighted; idealism, as it might sound to the sceptics and cynics who may, as well, take this axiom with a pinch of salt, it is, empirically, a fiat of fate that ultimately vindicates the absolute dispensability of the question of visual disability – a sociologically induced, psychological virtual scarecrow simulation on the threshold of one’s excellence and eminence – amid one’s pursuit of excellence and/or one’s quest of eminence , if only one, in one’s realism, can be conscious of existentialism and resolutely exercise one’s will-power and one’s staying power collaterally by valiantly bearing the patience to persist and persevere with one’s diligence over one’s abilities, within a socially, culturally and economically inclusive society - thereby treading triumphantly upon the scarecrow.
Nevertheless, swathed in oblivion beneath the inexorable shrouding murk of man’s very ignorance, lies a priceless treasure trove of multifarious untapped superlative latent talents and abilities, above rubies, under the faзade of visual disability, bursting at the seams of dreams unborn, borne with prodigies, geniuses and virtuosi – unrecognised; untold Keplers, Goethes and Aristotles – unsung; one great hope fountain of white hopes – unhoped-for, oft-brought to nought down the drain, to hope against hope in dire strangulation betwixt the stifling stiff jaws of a mummified ogre, wrought of prejudices, myths and fallacies; intolerantly enshrined, with indifference, within a consecrated frigid abyss of objectivism, fraught with stereotypes and inundated with a deluge of discrimination and marginalisation; one great pedigree of entitled legatees whose bequeathed legacy, hitherto, lies at stake on the verge of a stereotyped precipice, imminently to the prejudice of their rosy morrow in the wake of a recondite cause – the ‘disability of the societies’
In full view of this disability of the societies, in the least, the inability of able societies to be universally socio-economically inclusive, the subsequent inability of any individual within any society to implicitly cherish visual disability as, ironically, a crystal-clear paradigm of the essence of an ideogram, or explicitly as one of the greatest nature’s finest ironies, inductively authenticates that visual disability is, to outward seeming, a phenomenal, delusive skin-deep verisimilitude of the objective visual sensory world’s irreconcilability with the subjective visual sensation world; the universal psychological and sociological cradle of the wider society’s monstrous impressions of the relative inability and relative inferiority of persons with visual disability, actively fortifying the involuntary impairment of one’s proclivity towards the crystallisation of one’s latent abilities, the actualisation of one’s utmost capacity and the consolidation of one’s de facto integrity; consequently effectuating, more often than not, the pro-active inhibition of the extensive recognition of one’s de jure dignity, relative equality, social mobility, and the full realisation, thereof, by the wider society.
Translucent! Being a psychological legacy of objectivism, impregnated within the imagination through comparative perception, fostered by the wider society’s nescience of the ironical essence of existence and callously immolated in its infancy as an oblation to cultural and religious intolerance, the run-of-the-mill prima facie impression of visual disability – an a priori arrant travesty of the capacity of persons with disabilities, en masse, bears a substratum of grotesque ideological grave misrepresentations of the destiny of persons with visual disability – the root cause of unfavourable presuppositions and unbefitting predispositions by the wider society towards visually handicapped persons which relatively rubs salt in their wound insofar as taking the wind out of their sails.
These sophistic, erroneous ex parte impressions and implications of visual disability are but mirage phenomena diffracted at the cognitive interface of the physical and the metaphysical, that by virtue of the wider society’s susceptibility to the pervasive influence of the withering cultural and religious indoctrination, absurdly predicated upon mere conjectural speculation and/or upon the materialisation of self-fulfilling prophesies, artfully sculptured and principally fostered into transpiration, particularly, in consequence of the ideological apotheosis of an idealised extrinsic being (as the basis of, inter alia, the societies’ individualistic ideologies), hence otherwise by the upholding and cushioning of the spirituality of disability, en bloc, {which ultimately papers over the cracks and upon which the spacious convictions that attributes the phenomenon of disability as of supernatural causality, that is, inter alia, as manifesting an imprecation, infliction or a repercussion for some past (lineal) transgression(s) }; simulates a semblance of intricacy and delicacy, and thus broods a hoodwinking mentality of the inscrutability of the question of visual disability that belies its insuperability, effectually spurring the indiscriminate and indelicate assimilation of superficial, larger-than-life non sequiturs refutable by reductio ad absurdum; thence engendering a nodding acquaintance which eventually conduces to the proliferation and ossification of hives of abysmal ignorance that resonates cognitive dissonance upon the wider society’s revelation to the nitty-gritty of visual disability.
Though we cannot wave aside the possible relative contributory ignorance and/or pessimism by the individual, this cumulative preponderance of the disability of the societies over the faзade of visual disability makes it rather insignificant, hence making the contributory social, cultural and religious ignorance, intolerance and indifference too far-fetched an extraneous nuisance value to be overlooked. Not to put too fine a point on it, the pith of disability underlying the predominant idйe recue anent visual disability is, substantially, psychological and is substantially psychological and sociological in nature, rather than being, practically, a physical or physiological condition. That is, it has a psychological and sociological foundation and not just is it of biological, physical chemical or mechanical causality. It is notably a cognitive phenomenon, (the Cognitive Theory of Virtual Disability – Gary Ngara), that is, however, ignorantly generalised sweepingly as being an objective phenomenon, (the Objective Theory of Literal Disability – Gary Ngara). The latter, literal visual disability, (oft-passive), which is the apparent disability as perceived by the wider society, entails the former, virtual disability, (oft-active), which encompasses the subjective acquiescence by one to intra-psychological frustrations in virtue of one’s literal visual disability – (Intrinsic Impairment of one’s Competence) – which, for the most part, is an upshot of the influence of the sociological generation, implantation/instillation and fortification of the fallacious and delusive sense of the relative incompetence of persons with disabilities, en bloc, by virtue of the society’s culture(s) and religion(s) – (Extrinsic Impairment of one’s Competence). In the nature of the case, the synergy of the mutually inclusive – literal and virtual disability – gives rise to an abstract phenomenon of infused literal disability – (the Abstract theory of Conjugate Disability – Gary Ngara) – the nub of the question of disability; hence, the absence of only a dual-pronged approach towards the twain phenomena in brazening out the question of visual disability, accounts for its ostensible complexity and formidability, (the Fundamental theory of the Duality of Disability – Gary Ngara).
Virtual disability – a sociological taint and a psychological trait governing human misery – refers to the voluntary or involuntary, conscious or unconscious inability of one to avail oneself of one’s abilities. Thus, anyone can disable oneself or can extrinsically be disabled, consciously or unconsciously by being, voluntarily or involuntarily unable to actualise oneself with what one is capable of, or by being, voluntarily or involuntarily, unable to effectively utilise one’s abilities; to wit, the failure of one to apply oneself to one’s abilities, or the deflection of one from capitalising on one’s abilities, voluntarily or involuntarily, consciously or unconsciously, is manifestly symptomatic of virtual disability. Virtual disability, which is out of all proportion to literal disability, is a universal trait, common to every human being, for as long as our societies shall not epitomise Utopia.
As a species of self-efficacy, it is mercurial and hence a continuous variable, whose degree is fostered or repressed both by the social environment within which one is enculturated, physically and cognitively develops; and by oneself, owing to the extent of one’s self-assurance and self-motivation. However, although the degree of virtual disability is somewhat inappreciable in most individuals of the society, owing, in the main to the sociological flexibility of the compensation psychological defence mechanism, its impact is rather more pronounced in situations where the sense of relative deprivation prevails; those governed, chiefly, by the wider society’s ignorance, indifference and intolerance; those characterised by, inter alia, stigmatisation, marginalisation and hence discrimination – which is largely attributed to the underprivileged vulnerable groups within the societies viz. persons with literal disabilities, women, children, the minority groups and the destitute.
This virtual disability, a phenomenon wrapped in mystery, is, principally, the essence of ‘’infused literal disability’’, that accentuates as good as it distorts the prima facie perception of literal and hence visual disability, by which same brush the wider society tars visual disability. The stigmatisation by the wider society which follows and, on the whole, reflects upon and decries the relative competence of persons with literal visual disability, thereby defying the unsnarling of the resultant Gordian knot, fuels their stratification, more often than not, to the lower social strata, where they are prone to sustain undue privations, in particular, the deprivation of de facto social recognition and acceptance. This sociological catalysis of the psychological metamorphosis of the fundamental conviction of the sublimity of the abilities of persons with literal visual disability into the absurd impression or supposition of their mediocrity effectually sparks intra-psychological approach-avoidance conflicts – one’s feelings of ambivalence towards one’s ability to avail oneself of one’s abilities – and thus triggers off a psychological warfare between the "need for achievement" and the "fear of success", which, ultimately, can leave one who knows not to shrink from succumbing to the compelling sociological sterilisations and demoralisations, on the brink of the jeopardy of the crystallisation and/or realisation of one’s (latent) abilities, hence also the fruition of one’s self-actualisation, ipso facto, intensifying one’s virtual disability, and thus one’s infused literal disability.
Buttressed by the extrinsic impairment of one’s competence, it paradoxically follows therefore syllogistically that: one’s abstract disability ain’t a matter of one’s literal visual disability, neither is it of one’s virtual disability, but the disabilities of one’s society – the inability of an able society to be universally inclusive; its reluctance to facilitate the social mobility of persons with literal disabilities; its imperviousness to their cries and grievances; its insensitiveness to sympathise and empathise with their plight; its unawareness to the superb latent abilities endowed to persons with literal disabilities; and its unconsciousness to the power of empowerment and equal-status interaction as the efficacious antidotes for the repression of virtual disability, dissolution of the significance of literal disability and the obliteration of its own disability.
Nevertheless, it is a moral certainty that visual disability is not the last extremity on humanity for it never predestines the futility of the fertility of one’s latent abilities. Lo and behold, notwithstanding his blindness, the quintessence of fortitude, Eric Weihenmayer, made it to the top of the world by climbing to the summit of the world’s topmost mountain – Mt. Everest (8848) – a phenomenal expedition dreaded by many: accomplished by a few; the awe-inspiring Kent Cullers (PhD), a physicist and an astronomer, is going strong; Dean Du Plessis is an international cricket analyst; Peter Torpey (PhD) is an engineering physicist; Amy Bower (PhD) is a research oceanographer; David Hartman (PhD) is a psychiatrist; the charismatic chemist, Judy Summers-Gates, is specialising in colour analysis; the inspirational Hein Wagner, is a motorist; the astrophysicist, David Mehringer (PhD) writes astronomical software; Joseph Monks, is a movie director; Pete Eckert, is a photographer; Michael Borgonia (Dr) is a medical transcriptionist.
There are economists, advocates, mathematicians, to mention but just a few of the very many self-willed paragons of excellence from all walks of life, who never hitched their wagons to the stars, but under the moral courage of their solemn convictions, extricated themselves from the dragnet of stereotypes; valiantly stood up, head over heels, to the scourge of swimming with the stream against their better judgement; feeling their way clear, put their best foot forward and took in their stride, straining every nerve shoreward; high-flyingly going great guns with a stiff upper lip from strength to strength in the wind’s eye, but on the scent, and made their way into the world to their hearts’ content ,only to be attestations to the fact that: visual disability, per se, is by no manner of means an impediment to one’s self-actualisation; on no account does it govern one’s level of intelligence; not in the slightest does it guarantee the curtailment of the ultimate degree of one’s competence; and thus therefore, in no wise does visual disability encumber one from attaining one’s beau ideal, or rather, ne plus ultra excellence – but the disabilities of one’s society.
Born visually impaired with only two percent (2%) sight, an exceptional electronic engineer of eminent ingenuity who blossomed out to be the father of, inter alia, the Galarneau Braille Computer and Printer – Ronald Galarneau (Engr.)(Canada); the kindered spirits, uncrowned Queens of determination, twin incarnations of tenacity and sagacity, famed poets, writers and lecturers who all died in the last ditch striking blows for the ultimate inclusion of persons with literal disabilities – Tilly Aston (Australia) and Helen Adams Keller (PhD)(US); Zimbabwe’s very own unprecedented touchstone who set the Thames on fire as the first Zimbabwean visually disabled advocate, lecturer and, among other things, professor (of Law) – Pearson Nherere (Prof.); the legendary Louis Braille (France); Bob Artkinson (US); Robert Irwin (US), and many others beyond mention, godsend, set no one on their pedestal, but with the will of their own, squared up to winning their spurs up their solid resolution: never to stop short of taking the (reputed) bull by the horns, and of course, on a winning streak, as anticipated, found a niche for themselves in the temple of fame, coming into prominence as icons of the cardinal virtues – truly, idols of an era, today’s era and the untold eras to come!
Although they lived as visually handicapped, they are today ’living lighthouses’. Some enlightened upon issues that, for long, had been held in obscurity; others dazzled the entire world with their second-to-none capacity; others blazed the trails and set the trend, which the forthcoming generations shall still follow. The selfsame spirit is still existent and shall forever be, since everyone is destined to flourish in one-way or the other, profitable to one’s society and the world at large. Thus, the indifference and intolerance by the wider society towards persons with visual disability on the strength of adhering to the ethos of one’s society, or under the banner of cultural fundamentalism or religious conformism, is not braced by rationalism, pragmatism or utilitarianism; neither is it logically vindicable, nor is it ethically creditable, but a grave act of undermining the tower of strength for the progressive sustainable, social, cultural, economic and political reformation of our societies into Utopia!
We need, then not to culturally standardise humanity unless otherwise we standardise the cultures of humanity. In other words, that standard which best stands up for the standards of each and everyone as individuals is the best standard that stands out best. Subservient to the ultimate realisation of this standard – individualism, if only we can learn to dignify and sanctify mankind veritably with a common resonant heart of impartiality and benignity, and consensually strike a blow for the intensive adoption of the principle of egalitarianism, that seeks to, inter alia, give prominence to the de facto and de jure respect for, observance of, protection and promotion of the fundamental rights, freedoms and privileges of persons with visual disability; profusely staff the pro-social behaviour cushion of the norms of altruism and humanitarianism (inc. social responsibility); supplant any obscurantist feelings of pessimism or negativism by subversively inculcating the reality of the very same relative great potential of visually handicapped persons, viva voce and by actively advocating for equal-status contact; stipulate for the streamlining of their independence and self-help socio-economic endeavours by dint of the mobilisation of sufficient efficient (assistive and adaptive) technical resources; and fully integrate persons with visual disability into the mainstream of the society’s social, cultural, economic and political activities seeing to it that the contact between the wider society and persons with visual disability is on a fifty-fifty footing, in whatsoever situation and under whatsoever circumstances…
… Definitely, persons with visual disabilities will arise, en bloc, by leaps and bonds from their misconceptualised level of mediocrity with the ethereal effulgence of unfathomable self-efficacy, ultimately immune from any dissuasions and disparagements, overwhelmingly shining with an empyrean resplendence to excellence, eminence and prominence as the diadem of their societies, never to be eclipsed again by the disability of the societies – if ever it shall be prevailing. It is not a prophecy, but philosophy. The incredible is to the incredulous, but it shall never be too late to mend.
It is an ill wind that blows no good. Verily, there is more in persons with visual disability than meets the eye. A modicum of sight that man may recognise in visual disability is but a tip of the iceberg, the thin end of a wedge, and a drop in the ocean of sight that lies behind the eyes. Verisimilitude is no proof, but verisimilitude. The only proof of the pudding lies in the eating. Why then prejudge one’s paces if we are capable of putting one through one’s paces?
The so purported ‘able-bodied’ are not the only pebbles on the beach. There is absolutely nothing to choose between man, neither is there a logical ground upon which we should make a difference between man. For how long, then, shall we keep on rubbernecking relentlessly to the warbles of winchers on the wing, hither and tether, yet deliberately impervious to the whimper of that wincing within the clutch of our very hands? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!
Visual disability is not what it is!
вторник, 13 мај 2008 г.
Creation and Evolution
Since the 19th century, biologists have questioned the origin of life, asking the question “How did life first begin?” To answer that question, they have come up with two contradicting yet plausible theories, Creation and Evolution. The theory of Creation states that an intelligent being designed each organism. On the other hand, the theory of Evolution states that some form of stimuli sparked one of the earliest forms of life and that every single organism living today evolved from it. Starting with the evidence and the criticism for the theory of Evolution, this paper will provide the main arguments and criticism for both theories and explain why Creation is the true explanation for the origin of the world.
One argument used to support the idea of Evolution that some form of stimuli sparked one of the earliest forms of life is “The Miller-Urey experiment.” In this experiment, which was performed in the 1950s, an American graduate student Stanly Miller, and his PhD. Advisor, Harold Urey succeeded in producing some of the chemical building blocks of life by sending an electric spark through a mixture of gases they thought simulated the Earth’s primitive Atmosphere (Wells 11). They postulated a strongly reducing gas, or gas that lacks oxygen. This is reasonable because people thought that the Earth was made out of interstellar gas (13), which is primarily made out of hydrogen, not oxygen. Anyways, seeing that lightning could produce the basic building blocks of life, evolutionists claimed that this is how life first originated!
In addition to the statement above, whether oxygen was prevalent or not prevalent back then is crucial to understanding the result of this experiment because a living cell could not have emerged from a place abundant of oxygen. This is because the same oxygen that is obligatory for respiration is often fatal to organic synthesis (12), which is the process by which the first organism has been created (if it ever was). Therefore, if oxygen existed at the site where life emerged, there would have been an explosion instead of a creation! However, because Stanley and Miller postulated an oxygen-lacking atmosphere, which was reasonable as discussed earlier, their experiment is widely used as evidence for evolution.
Another argument used to support the idea of Evolution that living things evolved from a primordial organism is natural selection. This idea, proposed by Charles Darwin, simply states that only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and pass genetic characteristics to their offspring (Williams). It also states that these genetic characteristics affect the organism’s fitness (Williams).
For example, Charles Darwin observed thirteen species of finches in the Galapagos Islands (Wells 159). They were very similar to each other, except that their beaks were different in shape and that they lived in different environments, which provided them with various types of food sources. After careful recordings and observations, he concluded that all thirteen finches had a common ancestor and that their beaks were modified (162), in a way that made them suitable to the environment they were in, over time. For example, the beak of the large ground finch, Geospiza magnirostris, is suited to cracking the seeds that compose the bird’s diet (Feldkamp 286). Another type of finch, the woodpecker finch Camarynchus pallidus has a beak that is specialized for capturing insects (286).
Logically, if natural selection takes place for ages, populations will eventually differ. And as the hour hand of a clock spins around, there is eventually going to be a lot of change in the fitness of an organism (Williams). Thus, many people reason that evolution did occur and that it is still occurring through natural selection.
Another widely used piece of evidence for supporting Evolution is that apes and humans have the same ancestry. Inevitably, there are evidences that suggest this idea. For example, Thomas Henry Huxley, the author of “Evidence as to Man’s Place in Nature,” compared the skeletons of apes and humans, and found out that they have similar bone structures (Wells 214). Having observed that, he concluded that the only way for them to have similar bone structures is through evolution; for evolution is thought to result in similar organisms, which would have similar bone structures. Thus he concluded that humans and apes have the same ancestry.
A British paleontologist named Charles Dawson also provided evidence by discovering some pieces of human skull with an ape-like lower jaw with two teeth, now known as the Piltdown Skull because it was found in Piltdown, Britain (217). Many people concluded that this is the missing link between humans and apes. With these remarkable findings, evolutionists claim that humans and apes have evolved from a common ancestor and thus, they concluded that evolution does/in fact occur.
Albeit evidences for Evolution may seem tenable against criticism as of now, evolutionists are actually posed with arguments that if true, would prove evolution wrong. “The Miller-Urey experiment” will be discussed firstly. This experiment was actually a failure because it as discovered that Miller’s postulation about the primitive atmosphere was wrong! As discussed earlier, Miller’s postulation was that it lacked oxygen. However, people now acknowledge that it actually consisted quite a bit of oxygen. According to Princeton University geochemist Heinrich Holland and Carnegie Institution geophysicist Philip Abelson, the earth’s primitive atmosphere was not derived from interstellar gas clouds, but from gases released by the Earth’s own volcanoes, which also release various substances including water vapor. (14-15).
These water vapors would then produce oxygen through a process called photodissociation. In this process, water vapor in the upper atmosphere contact with the ultraviolet rays from the space (15, 17). When contacted, water vapor is separated into hydrogen and oxygen. Because hydrogen is too light, it leaves the atmosphere to space. However, oxygen remains (15, 17). Thus, if Holland and Abelson’s assumption is correct, there must have been at least some amount of oxygen in the primitive atmosphere. Hence, there could not have been the building blocks of life forming.
Another criticism for the experiment is biogenesis, which states “all living things come from other living things.” (Feldkamp 261) For instance, pick up a soccer ball. Then kick it, punch it, worship it, talk to it, and wash it. Leaving it on the ground for few hundred years would also be a good idea. Now, are there any living creatures crawling out of the ball? If there are, it should be a worm from the ground that climbed up the ball. As such, any stimulus to a non living thing can not produce a living thing! Burning it with fire may result in ashes, which would be a chemical reaction. This occurs in both non living things and in living things. Thus, it is possible to conclude that the result of the experiment is merely a chemical reaction.
Although the experiment produced some interesting results, they are invalid because the experiment failed to simulate the correct atmosphere. And even if the primitive atmosphere was actually oxygen lacking, the result of the experiment still does not hint to us how life originated. The reason this is still uncertain is because biochemists can mix all the building blocks of life and still not create an organism (Wells 24). It is true that it produced some building blocks of life, but scientists of today have proved that life cannot be formed by mixing building blocks of life. With these reasons, “The Miller-Urey experiment” was proven incorrect.
Secondly, the criticism for natural selection will be discussed. According to natural selection, complex organisms have evolved from simple organisms. Because this is a slow process, there should have been a time when an intermediate organism, neither completely complex nor completely simple, roamed the earth. This process is just like how an elevator works. If an elevator is at the sixth floor, it must have had a time when it passed the second, third, fourth, and the fifth floor. Thus, there must be fossils of those intermediate organisms. However, the problem is that archaeologists have never found such fossils (Kathleen! This suggests no other conclusion, but that natural selection does not bring about evolution!
To add on to that, natural selection is a tautologous concept, or in other words, it is circular reasoning. This is because it simply requires the fittest organisms to leave the most offspring and at the same time it identifies the fittest organisms as those that leave the most offspring (Duane IV). This is just like saying ‘You are ugly because I think you are ugly. I think you are ugly because you are ugly.’ As such, natural selection is circular reasoning. And it is something people must avoid when trying to prove something. Hence, it can not be used as evidence for evolution.
Thirdly, the criticism for the statement that apes and humans have the same ancestry will be discussed. This statement has been proven to be incorrect by Joseph Weiner, Kenneth Oakley, and Wilfred Le Gros Clark. After careful inspection, it was discovered that the Piltdown skull belongs to a modern human and that the jaw has been chemically treated to make it look like a fossil and that the teeth had been deliberately filed down to make them look human. With all due respect, Charles Dawson’s discovery has been declared as a forgery! Thus, the discovery can not be used as evidence for the statement, which leaves it without any evidence. Hence, the statement is still invalid and thus can not be used to support evolution.
Similar to the theory of Evolution, the theory of Creation also has both evidence and criticism. One substantial piece of evidence for creation is that there are no intermediate fossils (The Fossil…). Of the hundreds of millions of fossils, not a single one of them suggests the existence of an organism, such as a half-fish and a half-amphibian organism (Sonnichsen 3). And those that were once considered to be intermediate fossils were discovered as forgeries (Wells 123, 217).
The absence of intermediate fossils indicates that organisms did not evolve into other organisms. When you know that one of two side roads will lead you to your destination and that the one on the right leads to a garbage can, you automatically know that you should take the one on the left. It applies same for this controversy. If you know that organisms do not evolve into other organisms, then you also know that they must have been created.
The fossil records also provide people with another piece of evidence for creation. It is an absolute fact that life appears abruptly, that it appears in complex forms and that gaps appear systematically between various living kinds in the fossils (Duane II). This suggests that life was obviously created, not coming about through evolution.
Another evidence is manifest in the Earth’s magnetic field. “Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the Earth’s magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate. (Baugh), demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1400 years.” In application, the Earth’s strength about 20,000 years ago would be similar to that of a magnet star. And under this condition, many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form (Baugh). Thus, some intelligent being must have created organisms.
Even the famous British evolutionists paleontologist Derek V. Ager states, “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil records in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find – over and over again – not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another (The Fossil…).” Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki explains, “A major problem in providing the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God (The Fossil…).” As such, the existence of an intelligent being is obligatory to understand the devoid of transitional fossils.
Along with evidence, creation faces some criticism. The one criticism that I have about creation is this: “All people acknowledge that non-living things do not perform any kinds of actions unless an outside force is exerted and that all religions that believe in some type of creator do not state that their creator is a non-living thing.” Thus, the intelligent being must have the six characteristics of life because he is also a living thing.
To pick on one specific religion, I have picked Christianity. The bible states that humans were created in the image of God. Thus, God must have had lungs. Therefore, in order for him to survive, there must have been oxygen around him. Also, he must have had to consume food. Thus, there must have been creatures which he consumed. But where did the oxygen and the creatures originate in the first place?
Following the theory of creation, there must be another intelligent being above God who created God, oxygen, and the creatures. And there would be another intelligent being that created the latter. Hence, there would be numerous intelligent beings. However, this fact contradicts the biblical belief that there is only on God. Thus, there is a discrepancy within the religion. Because it is hard to prove something using evidence with a discrepancy, creation logically does not seem to be a legitimate reason for this topic.
Despite its criticism, the theory of Creation seems to be the true explanation for the origin of organisms. This is because none of the evidence for evolution answers how life first originated. Thus, I am convinced that there existed some kind of an intelligent being and that he created organisms through a supernatural process which I am not able to apprehend, just like the fifteen dimensional world.
One argument used to support the idea of Evolution that some form of stimuli sparked one of the earliest forms of life is “The Miller-Urey experiment.” In this experiment, which was performed in the 1950s, an American graduate student Stanly Miller, and his PhD. Advisor, Harold Urey succeeded in producing some of the chemical building blocks of life by sending an electric spark through a mixture of gases they thought simulated the Earth’s primitive Atmosphere (Wells 11). They postulated a strongly reducing gas, or gas that lacks oxygen. This is reasonable because people thought that the Earth was made out of interstellar gas (13), which is primarily made out of hydrogen, not oxygen. Anyways, seeing that lightning could produce the basic building blocks of life, evolutionists claimed that this is how life first originated!
In addition to the statement above, whether oxygen was prevalent or not prevalent back then is crucial to understanding the result of this experiment because a living cell could not have emerged from a place abundant of oxygen. This is because the same oxygen that is obligatory for respiration is often fatal to organic synthesis (12), which is the process by which the first organism has been created (if it ever was). Therefore, if oxygen existed at the site where life emerged, there would have been an explosion instead of a creation! However, because Stanley and Miller postulated an oxygen-lacking atmosphere, which was reasonable as discussed earlier, their experiment is widely used as evidence for evolution.
Another argument used to support the idea of Evolution that living things evolved from a primordial organism is natural selection. This idea, proposed by Charles Darwin, simply states that only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and pass genetic characteristics to their offspring (Williams). It also states that these genetic characteristics affect the organism’s fitness (Williams).
For example, Charles Darwin observed thirteen species of finches in the Galapagos Islands (Wells 159). They were very similar to each other, except that their beaks were different in shape and that they lived in different environments, which provided them with various types of food sources. After careful recordings and observations, he concluded that all thirteen finches had a common ancestor and that their beaks were modified (162), in a way that made them suitable to the environment they were in, over time. For example, the beak of the large ground finch, Geospiza magnirostris, is suited to cracking the seeds that compose the bird’s diet (Feldkamp 286). Another type of finch, the woodpecker finch Camarynchus pallidus has a beak that is specialized for capturing insects (286).
Logically, if natural selection takes place for ages, populations will eventually differ. And as the hour hand of a clock spins around, there is eventually going to be a lot of change in the fitness of an organism (Williams). Thus, many people reason that evolution did occur and that it is still occurring through natural selection.
Another widely used piece of evidence for supporting Evolution is that apes and humans have the same ancestry. Inevitably, there are evidences that suggest this idea. For example, Thomas Henry Huxley, the author of “Evidence as to Man’s Place in Nature,” compared the skeletons of apes and humans, and found out that they have similar bone structures (Wells 214). Having observed that, he concluded that the only way for them to have similar bone structures is through evolution; for evolution is thought to result in similar organisms, which would have similar bone structures. Thus he concluded that humans and apes have the same ancestry.
A British paleontologist named Charles Dawson also provided evidence by discovering some pieces of human skull with an ape-like lower jaw with two teeth, now known as the Piltdown Skull because it was found in Piltdown, Britain (217). Many people concluded that this is the missing link between humans and apes. With these remarkable findings, evolutionists claim that humans and apes have evolved from a common ancestor and thus, they concluded that evolution does/in fact occur.
Albeit evidences for Evolution may seem tenable against criticism as of now, evolutionists are actually posed with arguments that if true, would prove evolution wrong. “The Miller-Urey experiment” will be discussed firstly. This experiment was actually a failure because it as discovered that Miller’s postulation about the primitive atmosphere was wrong! As discussed earlier, Miller’s postulation was that it lacked oxygen. However, people now acknowledge that it actually consisted quite a bit of oxygen. According to Princeton University geochemist Heinrich Holland and Carnegie Institution geophysicist Philip Abelson, the earth’s primitive atmosphere was not derived from interstellar gas clouds, but from gases released by the Earth’s own volcanoes, which also release various substances including water vapor. (14-15).
These water vapors would then produce oxygen through a process called photodissociation. In this process, water vapor in the upper atmosphere contact with the ultraviolet rays from the space (15, 17). When contacted, water vapor is separated into hydrogen and oxygen. Because hydrogen is too light, it leaves the atmosphere to space. However, oxygen remains (15, 17). Thus, if Holland and Abelson’s assumption is correct, there must have been at least some amount of oxygen in the primitive atmosphere. Hence, there could not have been the building blocks of life forming.
Another criticism for the experiment is biogenesis, which states “all living things come from other living things.” (Feldkamp 261) For instance, pick up a soccer ball. Then kick it, punch it, worship it, talk to it, and wash it. Leaving it on the ground for few hundred years would also be a good idea. Now, are there any living creatures crawling out of the ball? If there are, it should be a worm from the ground that climbed up the ball. As such, any stimulus to a non living thing can not produce a living thing! Burning it with fire may result in ashes, which would be a chemical reaction. This occurs in both non living things and in living things. Thus, it is possible to conclude that the result of the experiment is merely a chemical reaction.
Although the experiment produced some interesting results, they are invalid because the experiment failed to simulate the correct atmosphere. And even if the primitive atmosphere was actually oxygen lacking, the result of the experiment still does not hint to us how life originated. The reason this is still uncertain is because biochemists can mix all the building blocks of life and still not create an organism (Wells 24). It is true that it produced some building blocks of life, but scientists of today have proved that life cannot be formed by mixing building blocks of life. With these reasons, “The Miller-Urey experiment” was proven incorrect.
Secondly, the criticism for natural selection will be discussed. According to natural selection, complex organisms have evolved from simple organisms. Because this is a slow process, there should have been a time when an intermediate organism, neither completely complex nor completely simple, roamed the earth. This process is just like how an elevator works. If an elevator is at the sixth floor, it must have had a time when it passed the second, third, fourth, and the fifth floor. Thus, there must be fossils of those intermediate organisms. However, the problem is that archaeologists have never found such fossils (Kathleen! This suggests no other conclusion, but that natural selection does not bring about evolution!
To add on to that, natural selection is a tautologous concept, or in other words, it is circular reasoning. This is because it simply requires the fittest organisms to leave the most offspring and at the same time it identifies the fittest organisms as those that leave the most offspring (Duane IV). This is just like saying ‘You are ugly because I think you are ugly. I think you are ugly because you are ugly.’ As such, natural selection is circular reasoning. And it is something people must avoid when trying to prove something. Hence, it can not be used as evidence for evolution.
Thirdly, the criticism for the statement that apes and humans have the same ancestry will be discussed. This statement has been proven to be incorrect by Joseph Weiner, Kenneth Oakley, and Wilfred Le Gros Clark. After careful inspection, it was discovered that the Piltdown skull belongs to a modern human and that the jaw has been chemically treated to make it look like a fossil and that the teeth had been deliberately filed down to make them look human. With all due respect, Charles Dawson’s discovery has been declared as a forgery! Thus, the discovery can not be used as evidence for the statement, which leaves it without any evidence. Hence, the statement is still invalid and thus can not be used to support evolution.
Similar to the theory of Evolution, the theory of Creation also has both evidence and criticism. One substantial piece of evidence for creation is that there are no intermediate fossils (The Fossil…). Of the hundreds of millions of fossils, not a single one of them suggests the existence of an organism, such as a half-fish and a half-amphibian organism (Sonnichsen 3). And those that were once considered to be intermediate fossils were discovered as forgeries (Wells 123, 217).
The absence of intermediate fossils indicates that organisms did not evolve into other organisms. When you know that one of two side roads will lead you to your destination and that the one on the right leads to a garbage can, you automatically know that you should take the one on the left. It applies same for this controversy. If you know that organisms do not evolve into other organisms, then you also know that they must have been created.
The fossil records also provide people with another piece of evidence for creation. It is an absolute fact that life appears abruptly, that it appears in complex forms and that gaps appear systematically between various living kinds in the fossils (Duane II). This suggests that life was obviously created, not coming about through evolution.
Another evidence is manifest in the Earth’s magnetic field. “Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the Earth’s magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate. (Baugh), demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1400 years.” In application, the Earth’s strength about 20,000 years ago would be similar to that of a magnet star. And under this condition, many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form (Baugh). Thus, some intelligent being must have created organisms.
Even the famous British evolutionists paleontologist Derek V. Ager states, “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil records in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find – over and over again – not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another (The Fossil…).” Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki explains, “A major problem in providing the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God (The Fossil…).” As such, the existence of an intelligent being is obligatory to understand the devoid of transitional fossils.
Along with evidence, creation faces some criticism. The one criticism that I have about creation is this: “All people acknowledge that non-living things do not perform any kinds of actions unless an outside force is exerted and that all religions that believe in some type of creator do not state that their creator is a non-living thing.” Thus, the intelligent being must have the six characteristics of life because he is also a living thing.
To pick on one specific religion, I have picked Christianity. The bible states that humans were created in the image of God. Thus, God must have had lungs. Therefore, in order for him to survive, there must have been oxygen around him. Also, he must have had to consume food. Thus, there must have been creatures which he consumed. But where did the oxygen and the creatures originate in the first place?
Following the theory of creation, there must be another intelligent being above God who created God, oxygen, and the creatures. And there would be another intelligent being that created the latter. Hence, there would be numerous intelligent beings. However, this fact contradicts the biblical belief that there is only on God. Thus, there is a discrepancy within the religion. Because it is hard to prove something using evidence with a discrepancy, creation logically does not seem to be a legitimate reason for this topic.
Despite its criticism, the theory of Creation seems to be the true explanation for the origin of organisms. This is because none of the evidence for evolution answers how life first originated. Thus, I am convinced that there existed some kind of an intelligent being and that he created organisms through a supernatural process which I am not able to apprehend, just like the fifteen dimensional world.
Are Viruses Life Forms?
When we think of life, we usually think of the basics; Plants and Animals. It is, of course, much more complex than that. There is a massive amount of Kingdoms of living things, all different in many ways, all unique, but they all have one thing in common; The Cell.
The Virus, the focus of this paper, does not contain cells, and given it's size, it is not a cell. This is why, in my opinion, Viruses must not be considered living things.
But what is life? Many groups and induviduals have different opinions of what the qualities of living things are, but they are all generally the same.
The universal description is the following
MOTION -- does it seem to move under its own power? Does it move with some discernible purpose? (Toward food, away from heat, etc)REPRODUCTION -- does it have some way of making more of itself, either through sexual reproduction or by budding or fissioning in some way?CONSUMPTION -- does it eat or drink? Does it take in nutrients in one way or another in order to survive, grow, and eventually multiply?GROWTH -- does the organism develop over time, increase in complexity, until it reaches a mature stage?STIMULUS RESPONSE -- does the organism respond to external stimuli, i.e. has a nervous system of some sort to detect external conditions?(Newton Biological Resources:http://newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99171.htm [University of Chicago Newton BBS])
This description shows the basic requirements of an organism to be considered 'living', and as you can see by the Italics, one requirement is met. The term reproduction, is also a very loose idea. If anything that reproduces can be considered alive, then one could easily state that Energy is alive, seeing as how energy is constantly replicating into true and virtual duplicates, most of which destroy each other, but some of which escape and exist, thereby being two from one, and therefore being alive.
The main problem with attempting to generally identify life is the fact that we, as a species, feel the need to organize and classify everything. But the problem with this is the fact that there are many uncertainties and things which break off from the mainstream.. both on earth and everywhere else in the universe.
We are still lacking an adequate definition of life. This difficulty in defining our object of study adds an important factor of complexity and uncertainty to the discussions of its existence (Life in the Universe: http://www.lifeinuniverse.org/noflash/Lifedefinition-04-01.html)
As stated here, we will have great difficulty defining things when we aren't even sure of what our definitions are.
However, I still have a concrete argument to state, so I will do so. The reason I think Viruses (using our current template for classification) should not be considered living is the simple fact that they do not conform to enough of the basic rules for life.
Viruses do not move, they are merely carried along by whatever substance they reside in. They do not consume, they merely use living cells as sweatshops to grow duplicated, which do the same thing. They do not grow, after being produced in their host, they are the final shape and size. (as for injecting genetic material when contacting a cell, that is not stimulus response, it is mechanical response.)
A good way to compare Viruses with actual living organisms, is to find an organism comparable to a virus, but that is defined as living. For the comparison, I have chosen the Infestational fungus called Mycoplasmata.
Mycoplasmata is a living fungus that until recently, was allways believed to be a virus, not only because of the way it operates but also because of it's unusually small size.
When biologists did tests on Mycoplasmata, they were stumped by the fact that it passed through semi-permiable membranes designed to retain cells. When they studied it's habits, they saw that it: a) acted as a parasite to other organisms and b) drew it's nourishment from that host, and could not reproduce without a host organism.
This, of course, led them to believe that this was a Virus, after all, it was far smaller than living cells, and was a parasite. But why is it no longer classified as a Virus? the advent of powerful, high magnification imaging hardware showed biologists that Mycoplasmata is, in fact a cellular organism. Instantly, it was moved from Viral status to a living organism.
There you have it, the composition of cells is the barrier. Living things are made of Cells. Period.
Viruses are nothing more than genetic fragments, which, being genetic in nature, reproduce, but nothing else.
That is my place on the argument of Viruses, living or not. This is, of course, simply my humble opinion, and however right is may be, my correctness simply relies on our current classification methods, which are, like all other human creations, flawed.
We are trying to control something which is powerfully beyond ourselves, and even though it seems we've got it, in reality, we have absolutely no clue. I am a proponant of unified theories. Life is far to simple at it's source to turn into some product catalog of science. Until we develop an extremely simple unified biological theory (such as the one I have theorised in a document which I will never release) biology, like all other sciences, while vastly interesting and stimulating, will allways be a filthy mess of Human error.
The Virus, the focus of this paper, does not contain cells, and given it's size, it is not a cell. This is why, in my opinion, Viruses must not be considered living things.
But what is life? Many groups and induviduals have different opinions of what the qualities of living things are, but they are all generally the same.
The universal description is the following
MOTION -- does it seem to move under its own power? Does it move with some discernible purpose? (Toward food, away from heat, etc)REPRODUCTION -- does it have some way of making more of itself, either through sexual reproduction or by budding or fissioning in some way?CONSUMPTION -- does it eat or drink? Does it take in nutrients in one way or another in order to survive, grow, and eventually multiply?GROWTH -- does the organism develop over time, increase in complexity, until it reaches a mature stage?STIMULUS RESPONSE -- does the organism respond to external stimuli, i.e. has a nervous system of some sort to detect external conditions?(Newton Biological Resources:http://newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99171.htm [University of Chicago Newton BBS])
This description shows the basic requirements of an organism to be considered 'living', and as you can see by the Italics, one requirement is met. The term reproduction, is also a very loose idea. If anything that reproduces can be considered alive, then one could easily state that Energy is alive, seeing as how energy is constantly replicating into true and virtual duplicates, most of which destroy each other, but some of which escape and exist, thereby being two from one, and therefore being alive.
The main problem with attempting to generally identify life is the fact that we, as a species, feel the need to organize and classify everything. But the problem with this is the fact that there are many uncertainties and things which break off from the mainstream.. both on earth and everywhere else in the universe.
We are still lacking an adequate definition of life. This difficulty in defining our object of study adds an important factor of complexity and uncertainty to the discussions of its existence (Life in the Universe: http://www.lifeinuniverse.org/noflash/Lifedefinition-04-01.html)
As stated here, we will have great difficulty defining things when we aren't even sure of what our definitions are.
However, I still have a concrete argument to state, so I will do so. The reason I think Viruses (using our current template for classification) should not be considered living is the simple fact that they do not conform to enough of the basic rules for life.
Viruses do not move, they are merely carried along by whatever substance they reside in. They do not consume, they merely use living cells as sweatshops to grow duplicated, which do the same thing. They do not grow, after being produced in their host, they are the final shape and size. (as for injecting genetic material when contacting a cell, that is not stimulus response, it is mechanical response.)
A good way to compare Viruses with actual living organisms, is to find an organism comparable to a virus, but that is defined as living. For the comparison, I have chosen the Infestational fungus called Mycoplasmata.
Mycoplasmata is a living fungus that until recently, was allways believed to be a virus, not only because of the way it operates but also because of it's unusually small size.
When biologists did tests on Mycoplasmata, they were stumped by the fact that it passed through semi-permiable membranes designed to retain cells. When they studied it's habits, they saw that it: a) acted as a parasite to other organisms and b) drew it's nourishment from that host, and could not reproduce without a host organism.
This, of course, led them to believe that this was a Virus, after all, it was far smaller than living cells, and was a parasite. But why is it no longer classified as a Virus? the advent of powerful, high magnification imaging hardware showed biologists that Mycoplasmata is, in fact a cellular organism. Instantly, it was moved from Viral status to a living organism.
There you have it, the composition of cells is the barrier. Living things are made of Cells. Period.
Viruses are nothing more than genetic fragments, which, being genetic in nature, reproduce, but nothing else.
That is my place on the argument of Viruses, living or not. This is, of course, simply my humble opinion, and however right is may be, my correctness simply relies on our current classification methods, which are, like all other human creations, flawed.
We are trying to control something which is powerfully beyond ourselves, and even though it seems we've got it, in reality, we have absolutely no clue. I am a proponant of unified theories. Life is far to simple at it's source to turn into some product catalog of science. Until we develop an extremely simple unified biological theory (such as the one I have theorised in a document which I will never release) biology, like all other sciences, while vastly interesting and stimulating, will allways be a filthy mess of Human error.
Statement of Purpose
Having a notorious record at badgering my Biology teachers in school with questions like why ‘our old oak tree’ had to fall prey to a dreadful parasite called loranthus;why the local fish market had shut down mysteriously in 1993 owing to some ungraspable phenomenon termed “eutrophication” saw to it that I was offered, with all dignity, a permanent membership to the highly esteemed Naturalists’ Society at a tender age of thirteen to “quell the curiosity of this pesky questioner (as my worthy seniors had put it).” This initial curiosity and active participation not only helped me to instill a great liking for Biology but also offered other opportunities to work on important projects like Integrated Farming, art of Bonsai cultivation and a curtailed study about AIDS, a global threat.
My weekly visits to the Sitagarah AIDS Hospital only brought me closer to realize how I yearned to be a part of this beautiful world of Medicine. Here I got to know how people suffering from AIDS were tackled; how the precautionary measures were maintained and also shared experiences with the patients who despite knowing that they had no future lived every moment to its fullest. However with the kind of ostracism they received from society, only deepened the aloofness between them and the outside world, with little expectations. It was here where I felt a strong need to address this issue to all around me as a doctor.
Accompanying my father to the monthly Psychiatric Meet with my own initiative, I noted the tremendously rising number of cases suffering from depression, insecurities and high tension levels-all leading to mental instability. Surprisingly, I also got to see how people still harboured this convention that visiting a psychiatrist was a weakness-a kind of embarrassment. Here I felt the need of an understanding doctor who needs to help people come out of their shells to share their problems and make them confide in him. I was determined more than ever to fill in this place.
Helping my father to organize events, keep a check on the intra-venous fluids given to patients at the ‘Durga Mandap’, a charitable home (where doctors serve voluntarily every Sunday), stands an unparalleled experience and an inspiration to work willingly for a larger cause.
Over the years I have seen a deadly wedge creeping in between patients and their doctors, destroying the sanctity of their time- honoured relationship, and placing each at the mercy of powerful interests whose only real concerns are costs, profit and power.
I guess one has to be in the system to change the system, all for the better and I guess I need a chance to be a part of the system as well.
Before I set out into this world, I owe much to my school Sherwood College for instilling in me all the basic ingredients required for the making of a good human being that will be my greatest weapons in striving to be a good doctor-be it compassion, advocacy, interpersonal skills, leadership or genuine willingness to serve a place unconditionally.
I am yet to become a part of this noble profession and have much to learn but I already have a dream, a vision for something that’s still to be a part of me. My dream and sole ambition in life is to become a fine, qualified doctor who understands the need for the improvement of basic health-care facilities imparted to all sections of society. And I know for sure that nothing is as real as a dream-because the dream is within you which nobody can take away.
My weekly visits to the Sitagarah AIDS Hospital only brought me closer to realize how I yearned to be a part of this beautiful world of Medicine. Here I got to know how people suffering from AIDS were tackled; how the precautionary measures were maintained and also shared experiences with the patients who despite knowing that they had no future lived every moment to its fullest. However with the kind of ostracism they received from society, only deepened the aloofness between them and the outside world, with little expectations. It was here where I felt a strong need to address this issue to all around me as a doctor.
Accompanying my father to the monthly Psychiatric Meet with my own initiative, I noted the tremendously rising number of cases suffering from depression, insecurities and high tension levels-all leading to mental instability. Surprisingly, I also got to see how people still harboured this convention that visiting a psychiatrist was a weakness-a kind of embarrassment. Here I felt the need of an understanding doctor who needs to help people come out of their shells to share their problems and make them confide in him. I was determined more than ever to fill in this place.
Helping my father to organize events, keep a check on the intra-venous fluids given to patients at the ‘Durga Mandap’, a charitable home (where doctors serve voluntarily every Sunday), stands an unparalleled experience and an inspiration to work willingly for a larger cause.
Over the years I have seen a deadly wedge creeping in between patients and their doctors, destroying the sanctity of their time- honoured relationship, and placing each at the mercy of powerful interests whose only real concerns are costs, profit and power.
I guess one has to be in the system to change the system, all for the better and I guess I need a chance to be a part of the system as well.
Before I set out into this world, I owe much to my school Sherwood College for instilling in me all the basic ingredients required for the making of a good human being that will be my greatest weapons in striving to be a good doctor-be it compassion, advocacy, interpersonal skills, leadership or genuine willingness to serve a place unconditionally.
I am yet to become a part of this noble profession and have much to learn but I already have a dream, a vision for something that’s still to be a part of me. My dream and sole ambition in life is to become a fine, qualified doctor who understands the need for the improvement of basic health-care facilities imparted to all sections of society. And I know for sure that nothing is as real as a dream-because the dream is within you which nobody can take away.
Metaphysical Poetry
Discuss the uses of metaphors of colonization in metaphysical poetry and/or Milton.
"Movement across or through space becomes a process of colonization of that space." During the period of Milton's Paradise Lost as well as myriad of poets construction of an epoque submerged in metaphysical literature, a number of significant events both socio-political, entwined with a systematic religious metamorphism of the sixteenth and seventeenth century led to a time of unrest and discovery. The creators and author's of work of this periods placed their emphasis not specifically on a level of morality or self understanding but rather a rediscovery of the body and soul, almost a form of existensionalism or physical cosmos with a geography. 'All things are subject to the Mind... It measures in one thought the whole circumference of heaven and by the same line it takes the geography of the earth. The seas, the air, the fire all things of either, are within the comprehension of the mind. It has an influence on them all, whence it lakes all that may be useful, all that may be helpful in government. No limitation is prescribed to it, no restriction is upon it, but in a free scope it has a liberty upon all. And in this liberty is the excellence of the mind; in this power and composition of the mind is perfection of a man... Man is an absolute master of himself; his own safety, and tranquillity by God... are made dependent on himself.'1 In this short example of Puritanism text as it stands, alone contains a number of various references to the process of colonization, of expanding, perceiving all geographically and manipulating, making man or perhaps more specifically the colonisers omniscient and God-like. The crusader self-reliant and independent with the knowledge that God is his guardian of safety and tranquillity. In this particular the growing number of Puritans played a significant role both in the cultivation and transformation of the Christian religion and foreign territories. The Puritans themselves comprised of those in the Church of England unhappy with limitations of the Elizabethan Settlement; some were Presbyterians, and all were to some extent or other Calvinists (though not all Calvinists were Puritans). They were a people of scrupulous moral rigour and favoured plain styles of dress, detesting any form of luxury or decadence. The name Puritan later became a catch-all label for the disparate groups who led much of the New World colonization and won the English Civil Wars. New World colonization began as early as 1480 by English seamen performing spectacular feats of exploration under Elizabeth I. These seamen made various claims of territorial annexation in America in an effort to outflank their Spanish rivals however, all foundations of permanent colonies proved abortive until the early 17th century. Thereafter, there was steady progress in acquiring territories in the Caribbean and mainland North America. Much settlement in the latter had a religious motive, with colonists seeking to escape the constraints of the English Established Church. As a result, there was an uneasy relationship between many colonial administrations and the royal government at home. Further to these tensions the 'colonies were split in their allegiances during the civil wars in Britain, but Charles I derived little useful help from those who supported his cause. The collapse of James II regime (1688-9) proved a blow to the efforts of Westminster to encroach on ! self-rule in North America. The relationship between the centre and the colonies remained problematic right until the War of American Independence.'2 The metaphysical tradition established during the seventeenth century can find its foundations in the colonization explorations and the domestic unrest caused by the civil wars. The combination of the two contextually, both in spirituality, imagery and definitions of time and space; have the unique effect of creating a devout religious protagonist's perceptions of his environment and its history, encompassed in as often was the case one work of art, as a testimony to the period and the Church of England. Frequently such works could be found in the form of poetry, commonly regarded as the most eloquent and essential part of the English language as a means of communications, via its plurality, richness of language and syntax. Poets of the era harnessed the tools of poetry to the spiritual essence of their communication create an impact of divine, gospel-like proportions, which were received and regarded as perhaps the most innovative and highly appreciated works of poetry! to have arisen.
One such poet was John Milton whose epic work Paradise Lost (written in 1667) was ultimately the last and great Adamite3 work. John Milton (1608-74), was an English poet, the son of a composer of some distinction. The preparation for his life's work included attendance at St. Paul's School, Christ's College and Cambridge for several years. His reputation as a poet preceded him as addressed to the conscience of Europe. As fame through his work augmented so with it did his political career. 'The theme of Paradise Lost (completed 1665, published 1667) had been in Milton's mind since 1641. It was to be a sacred drama then; but when in 1658 his official duties were lightened so as to allow him to write, he chose the epic form. The first three books reflect the triumph of the godly--so soon to be reversed; the last books, written in 1663, are tinged with despair. God's kingdom is not of this world. Man's intractable nature frustrates the planning of the wise. The hetero! dox theology of the poem which is made clear in his late De Doctrina Christiana did not trouble Protestant readers till modern critics examined it with hostile intent.'4 Part of the poem's greatness, apart from its length, is a function of the visual immediacy with which Milton realizes the imagined scenes. Milton has been criticized for glossing over certain contemporary developments in scientific and intellectual thought (the astronomical ambiguities in book VII, for example), eg '.... What if the sun Be centre to the world , and other stars By his attractive virtue and their own Incited, dance about him various rounds?5 Their wander course now high, now low, then still Progressive, retrograde, or standing still, In sixth thou seest, and what if seventh to these The planet earth, so steadfast though she seem, Insensibly three different motions move?6 Which else to several spheres thou must ascribe,7 The poem's realism is that of a myth, and its credibility dependent on the outlines of Christian belief, rather than specific historical details. The entire concern or major theme of Paradise Lost is to confute predestination and demonstrate the freedom of will. However Satan is portrayed as an almost romantic, recognizable character with whom we share every twist and turn his thinking takes throughout his physical and mental journey. Satan can easily be perceived as the bold intrepid colonist, not lacking the courage of his convictions, be it at the expense of being exiled from the vaults of heaven. With the strength of classical precedents, Milton's cosmology refracts a seemingly incomprehensible geography of fantastic proportions, utilising allusive language to describe the indescribable.
Nevertheless this did not deter some illustrators attempting to recapture the imagery of Militon's Cosmos.
Satan's fall from grace to a desolate place of fathomless voids, yet unpopulated, turns Satan's disgrace into a voyage before a quest with a mission, not unlike that of the colonisers. In Book I the voyage of these unchartered and as yet inanimate destinations began when Satan and his host are: Hurl'd headlong flaming from th' Ethereal sky With hideous ruin and combustion down To bottomless perdition, there to dwell In Admantine chains and penal Fire.
For nine days they fall through Chaos till: Hell at last Yawning receiv'd them whole, and on them clos'd, Hell their fit habitation fraught with fire Unquenchable, the house of woe and pain.
They splash down into a burning lake, and, looking around, discover themselves much changed from their original angelic form, similarly their surroundings are: A Dungeon horrible, on all sides round As one great Furnace flam'd, yet from those flames No light, but rather darkness visible Serv'd only to discover sights of woe, Regions of sorrow, doleful shades, where peace And rest can never dwell, where hope never comes That comes to all; but torture without end >From which they make their way to land: ... yon dreary Plain, forlorn and wild, The seat of desolation, void of light, Save what the glimmering of these livid flames Casts pale and dreadful.
Nonetheless, like a colonizer in a one of the worst far flung corners of the globe, claiming whatever he passes as his own, Satan makes the best of his circumstances: Farewell happy Fields Where Joy for ever dwells; Hail horrors, hail Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell receive thy new Possessor Meanwhile the demons begin work creating a splendiforous palace, Pandemonium, perhaps the most palatial structure in Hell's history to match that of heaven. Satan's acceptance of his situation, is analogous to a determined settler determined to cultivate his surroundings as his own before expanding further afield.
Later the demons swarm to the council to decide on an acceptable plan of action. Amidst the demons and second in rank is Envy; he tells of "another World, the happy seat / Of some new Race cal'd Man," and suggests that they subvert it "and drive as we were drive,/ The puny habitants; or, if not drive/ Seduce them to our Party." This is perhaps the most substantive and overbearing allusion to colonisation of the New World, meant literally in this context. The eager demons might well be a metaphorical representation of the religious convoys who were frequently sent ahead with the intent of settling and were hell bent on converting the original inhabitants of the land into their own kind, to adopt them into their religion, their community, so that by manipulating and corrupting them they could seize advantage of their innocence by blatantly encroaching on their land and property, with minimal opposition.
Another part adventure to discover wide That dismal World, if any Clime perhaps Might yield them easier habitation Satan's heroic-like journey continues through treacherous conditions, having to pass inhospitable terrain and fauna, before reaching "thrice threefold" gates of Hell, three of brass, three of iron, and three of adamantine rock, guarded by Sin and Death. On managing to escape Milton's world of Hell he eventually reaches earth where subtly tempts Eve with the forbidden fruit of knowledge until Eve concedes and eats leading to their loss of paradise. An analogy could be drawn here between Satan and the colonisers of the period enduring a tiresome journey and then tempting the inhabitants (Adam and Eve) with the prospect of wealth through trade; and on acceptance, thus marking their own loss and transgression into a state of perpetual inferiority thereafter in respect of the colonisers. Adam and Eve the original settlers are beguiled by Satan's corruptness through their own innocent naivity. In respect of Paradise Lost and the theme of colonisation we can the course marked by Satan via his journey (see diagram) is regarded as his geography, despite having finally accomplished his course of action.
Further on in books V-VII we have elaborate description of the landscape of Paradise, which is used the manifesto of colonialism through religious dynamics and instability. The schematics of geography and the final mappings that became increasingly important, in so far as territories, progression of colonization and like, even God himself charters the stars in a calculated Genesis He took the golden compasses, prepared In God's eternal store, to circumscibe This universe, an all created things: One foot he centred, and the other turned Round through the vast profundity obscure, And said, Thus far extend, thus far thy bounds This by thy just circumference8 Milton himself somewhat of a nationalist puritan poet in response to the issue of reformation, firm in the belief that the English were God's chosen people addressed parliament asking: Why else was this Nation chos'n before any other, that out of her as out of Sion should be proclam'd and sounded forth the first tidings and trumpet of Reformation of all Europ. And had it not bin the obstinat perversnes of our Prelats against the divine and admirable spirit of the Wicklef, to suppresse him as a scismatic an innovator... the glory of reforming all our neighbours had bin compleatly ours.9 Similarly if not more so the concepts of colonialism, the systematic functions of identifying, locating and securing are no better displayed, conveyed or apparent than in writings of the metaphysical poets.
Man is all symmetrie, Full of proportions, one limbe to another, And all to all the world besides: Each part may call the furthest, brother: For head with for hath private amitie, And bothe with moons and tides.10 In this brief extract taken from George Herberts poem Man we can see the extent to which this evangelical poem - using maps and geometry to define the protestant server and his maker. A new method of language and metaphors had become available and poets did not hasten to incorporate as many different styles as possible to create an identity, using the terminology associated to science, in order to define. A place for everything and everything in its place, reaching the conclusion that God is omnipresent, after having used language to process His location. Likewise John Donne an acclaimed poet of his period, and as Dean of Saint Paul's Cathedral was a seemingly inexhaustible source of spirituality with which to ordain his poems. Licence my roving hands, and let them go Behind, before, above, between, below Oh my America, my new found lande, My kingdome, safeliest when with on man man'd My myne precious stones my Empiree How blest I am this discovering thee11 In this his poem named, Elegie: To His Mistress Going to Bed the allusions to colonialism are by no means marginalised. Donne paints a scene of a woman undressing, in which his description has the duality of de-sexualising, whilst sexualising. The emphasis and attention paid on material objects such as the garments are for all intents and purposes dehumanising. The description of clothes are paralleled to the colonial, metaphysical conceits discovery and of ownership, whilst mapping. Ostensibly what Donne endeavours to do is colonise the body of the woman. Although considerable language and detail is spent in describing the layers of clothing the purpose of which to emphasise the letting go of material objects. The infinite quest of the spiritualist could be that longing for the return to innocence, of spirituality and spiritual embodiment can only be achieved when irrelevant and extravagant thoughts of materialism and clothes are disregarded. Once the woman is void of! all external graces and is the way nature intended, only then does the journey of exploration commence, to discover the essence of human nature, the spiritual manifestation of passion merely acting as a catalyst in the celebration of sexuality. The theme of a quest, searching, mapping territory or bodies, geography of mind, body and soul, unrest and all that is external is apparent in a large proportion of what was written in the seventeen century, religious unsettlement serving only to fuel, scepticism or convictions further. The majority of metaphysical poems have similar themes and imagery, often set in room, study or office, any private enclosure reminiscent of a confession booth. Writing poetry in the form of a confessional is used as a moment of introspection. The new awareness of questions rising with new religious identities of new churches necessitated these occasions of profound reverence and occasional enlightenment, in a journey through their own spirituality. Poetry was writing for private readership, a confessional in the form of a diary, debating with themselves and God. The status of body, that of men and women, the relationship between themselves with one another, and God were all predominati! ng factors in their writing. Poetry was written private realms for a private readership with no public address. A parody may even be draw between Milton circumstances and his vision of Satan, during on of his profound moments of reflection: Me miserable! which was shall I fly Infinite wrath, and infinite despair? Which way I fly is hell; myself am hell;12 I may be useful to think of Satan in the light of 'likening spiritual to corporal forms', partly as representative of the public world of politics and rebellion, and his presentation as an exploration of the ambitions and failures, the egotism and despair, that public life offers. In this his role is therefore complemented in the poem by the private, domestic world of Adam and Eve, in whose interpersonal relations are enacted the possibilities and problems of freedom and self-restraint. In metaphysical poetry the body was seen as a secular vessel, embodied with a spiritual love of the world, attached to a humanist concept that pre mined to embody God within the body of man. Colonialism expanse across the America's induced imagery through language; exploring, discovery, conquering, divine protection, geometry, geography, astronomy, navigation and science were the foundations on which metaphysical poetry evidently propelled itself to growing popularity at a time of general social, political and religious unrest. The Sunne Rising also created by Donne was slightly more satirical, yet maintaining that man was ultimately the ruler of his own world, and God being embodied in wherever he be therein. The sun is employed as a metaphysical conceit, with man being able to block it and the other element with a single wink.
Thy beams, so reverend and strong Why shouldst thou think? I could eclipse and cloud them with a winke,13 With reference of imperial history he no longer needs to explore to India, for it is already traced and recorded on a map before him. His self-elevation and lack of humanity are comparable to that of Milton's Satan. Around the same period other works of post-colonial art were be developed, no doubt heavily influenced by contemporary issues. One such example is Shakespeare's final work and tragi-comedy The Tempest (1611), interposed and concerned with the theme of the elevation of one myth above another, recurrent impact of colonialism, morality and the loss of innocence. Shakespeare's unique style of writing is as a direct result of a plethora of influences, one of which was 'Montaigne's essay Of Cannibals which discussed the value and the way of life of societies which had not been affected by civilisation of a European type. In addition to this essay a pamphlet circulate called The Discovery of the Bermudas , otherwise called the Isle of Divels, may have played a crucial role. This pamphlet described the bold adventures of a religious group of colonist travelling in a convoy of ships from London to Virginia. However during the voyage, the flagship was separated from the remainder! of the convoy in a storm. The maverick ship inadvertently blew towards Bermuda before being tossed onto some rocks. The colonists lived on the islands until they had built boats in which to continue their voyage. The story of their almost miraculous survival aroused considerable interest in England and echoes of their adventure can be found in The Tempest. With little regard of the more elaborate themes images the tale is one of a landing on a island, a veritable paradise, already inhabited by Caliban (often spelt 'canibal' by Elizabethans by transposing the letters 'n' and 'l') a wild, deformed uncivilised beast (representative of native settlers), who is quickly manipulated, overthrown and enslaved by Prospero (King of Milan). Caliban and his environment are parallelled to those of the Garden of Eden and Caliban himself is elemental. As the story progresses and the tyrannical relationship between the two continually increasing, Caliban's intellect is worthy of argument against Prospero for having denied him his birthright. Prospero's aim of teaching Caliban was to increase his indisputable control over him, by subverting him into an incomplete and image of his master, defective of all other attributes ie of magic. Caliban, similar to every colonised people before him adapted his adopted culture and power of speech inflic! ted upon him as a weapon to communicate his own indignation and animosity towards his oppressor. And despite being frequently referred to as a crude savage, disfigured, and evil Caliban exemplifies a better set of values than most of the 'civilised' characters in the play. This image derives from speculation regarding the popular English belief that uncivilised pagans were below their civilised counterparts in the hierarchy which had God at its apex and inanimate nature at it base. However a few individuals were beginning to question this assumption and 'there is evidence in the play that Shakespeare believed that the corruption in a civilised man was more abhorrent than any natural albeit uncivilised behaviour.'14 At a time when many books and sermons, effected a characteristic Renaissance union between moral and political implications, and concerned themselves with the task of persuading the public that exploration was an honourable and indeed a sanctified activity and Drake was compared to Moses, combining voyaging and mystagogy a practical justification of "the lawfulnesse of Discovering". It was a somewhat sophistical argument by Purchas, in favour of the propriety of usurping the rights of native populations, and an insistence, half-mystagogic, half-propagandist, on the temperate, fruitful nature of the New World, and the unspoilt purity of its inhabitants. 'The True Declaration defends colonizing, on the ground that it diffuses the true religion and has authority from Solomon's trade to Ophir (whether it lay in the East or, as Columbus thought15 in the West Indies). There is room for all; and in any case the natives cannot be regarded as civilized people.'16 The revelations of The Tempest of watching Caliban suffer at the hands of Prospero affords interesting material for examination. Caliban endures his abuse and insistent that he has deprived him of what is rightfully his, and this perhaps may have been Shakespeare's way of confronting his contemporary pro-colonising audience with the problems of ownership of newly discovered lands.
"Movement across or through space becomes a process of colonization of that space." During the period of Milton's Paradise Lost as well as myriad of poets construction of an epoque submerged in metaphysical literature, a number of significant events both socio-political, entwined with a systematic religious metamorphism of the sixteenth and seventeenth century led to a time of unrest and discovery. The creators and author's of work of this periods placed their emphasis not specifically on a level of morality or self understanding but rather a rediscovery of the body and soul, almost a form of existensionalism or physical cosmos with a geography. 'All things are subject to the Mind... It measures in one thought the whole circumference of heaven and by the same line it takes the geography of the earth. The seas, the air, the fire all things of either, are within the comprehension of the mind. It has an influence on them all, whence it lakes all that may be useful, all that may be helpful in government. No limitation is prescribed to it, no restriction is upon it, but in a free scope it has a liberty upon all. And in this liberty is the excellence of the mind; in this power and composition of the mind is perfection of a man... Man is an absolute master of himself; his own safety, and tranquillity by God... are made dependent on himself.'1 In this short example of Puritanism text as it stands, alone contains a number of various references to the process of colonization, of expanding, perceiving all geographically and manipulating, making man or perhaps more specifically the colonisers omniscient and God-like. The crusader self-reliant and independent with the knowledge that God is his guardian of safety and tranquillity. In this particular the growing number of Puritans played a significant role both in the cultivation and transformation of the Christian religion and foreign territories. The Puritans themselves comprised of those in the Church of England unhappy with limitations of the Elizabethan Settlement; some were Presbyterians, and all were to some extent or other Calvinists (though not all Calvinists were Puritans). They were a people of scrupulous moral rigour and favoured plain styles of dress, detesting any form of luxury or decadence. The name Puritan later became a catch-all label for the disparate groups who led much of the New World colonization and won the English Civil Wars. New World colonization began as early as 1480 by English seamen performing spectacular feats of exploration under Elizabeth I. These seamen made various claims of territorial annexation in America in an effort to outflank their Spanish rivals however, all foundations of permanent colonies proved abortive until the early 17th century. Thereafter, there was steady progress in acquiring territories in the Caribbean and mainland North America. Much settlement in the latter had a religious motive, with colonists seeking to escape the constraints of the English Established Church. As a result, there was an uneasy relationship between many colonial administrations and the royal government at home. Further to these tensions the 'colonies were split in their allegiances during the civil wars in Britain, but Charles I derived little useful help from those who supported his cause. The collapse of James II regime (1688-9) proved a blow to the efforts of Westminster to encroach on ! self-rule in North America. The relationship between the centre and the colonies remained problematic right until the War of American Independence.'2 The metaphysical tradition established during the seventeenth century can find its foundations in the colonization explorations and the domestic unrest caused by the civil wars. The combination of the two contextually, both in spirituality, imagery and definitions of time and space; have the unique effect of creating a devout religious protagonist's perceptions of his environment and its history, encompassed in as often was the case one work of art, as a testimony to the period and the Church of England. Frequently such works could be found in the form of poetry, commonly regarded as the most eloquent and essential part of the English language as a means of communications, via its plurality, richness of language and syntax. Poets of the era harnessed the tools of poetry to the spiritual essence of their communication create an impact of divine, gospel-like proportions, which were received and regarded as perhaps the most innovative and highly appreciated works of poetry! to have arisen.
One such poet was John Milton whose epic work Paradise Lost (written in 1667) was ultimately the last and great Adamite3 work. John Milton (1608-74), was an English poet, the son of a composer of some distinction. The preparation for his life's work included attendance at St. Paul's School, Christ's College and Cambridge for several years. His reputation as a poet preceded him as addressed to the conscience of Europe. As fame through his work augmented so with it did his political career. 'The theme of Paradise Lost (completed 1665, published 1667) had been in Milton's mind since 1641. It was to be a sacred drama then; but when in 1658 his official duties were lightened so as to allow him to write, he chose the epic form. The first three books reflect the triumph of the godly--so soon to be reversed; the last books, written in 1663, are tinged with despair. God's kingdom is not of this world. Man's intractable nature frustrates the planning of the wise. The hetero! dox theology of the poem which is made clear in his late De Doctrina Christiana did not trouble Protestant readers till modern critics examined it with hostile intent.'4 Part of the poem's greatness, apart from its length, is a function of the visual immediacy with which Milton realizes the imagined scenes. Milton has been criticized for glossing over certain contemporary developments in scientific and intellectual thought (the astronomical ambiguities in book VII, for example), eg '.... What if the sun Be centre to the world , and other stars By his attractive virtue and their own Incited, dance about him various rounds?5 Their wander course now high, now low, then still Progressive, retrograde, or standing still, In sixth thou seest, and what if seventh to these The planet earth, so steadfast though she seem, Insensibly three different motions move?6 Which else to several spheres thou must ascribe,7 The poem's realism is that of a myth, and its credibility dependent on the outlines of Christian belief, rather than specific historical details. The entire concern or major theme of Paradise Lost is to confute predestination and demonstrate the freedom of will. However Satan is portrayed as an almost romantic, recognizable character with whom we share every twist and turn his thinking takes throughout his physical and mental journey. Satan can easily be perceived as the bold intrepid colonist, not lacking the courage of his convictions, be it at the expense of being exiled from the vaults of heaven. With the strength of classical precedents, Milton's cosmology refracts a seemingly incomprehensible geography of fantastic proportions, utilising allusive language to describe the indescribable.
Nevertheless this did not deter some illustrators attempting to recapture the imagery of Militon's Cosmos.
Satan's fall from grace to a desolate place of fathomless voids, yet unpopulated, turns Satan's disgrace into a voyage before a quest with a mission, not unlike that of the colonisers. In Book I the voyage of these unchartered and as yet inanimate destinations began when Satan and his host are: Hurl'd headlong flaming from th' Ethereal sky With hideous ruin and combustion down To bottomless perdition, there to dwell In Admantine chains and penal Fire.
For nine days they fall through Chaos till: Hell at last Yawning receiv'd them whole, and on them clos'd, Hell their fit habitation fraught with fire Unquenchable, the house of woe and pain.
They splash down into a burning lake, and, looking around, discover themselves much changed from their original angelic form, similarly their surroundings are: A Dungeon horrible, on all sides round As one great Furnace flam'd, yet from those flames No light, but rather darkness visible Serv'd only to discover sights of woe, Regions of sorrow, doleful shades, where peace And rest can never dwell, where hope never comes That comes to all; but torture without end >From which they make their way to land: ... yon dreary Plain, forlorn and wild, The seat of desolation, void of light, Save what the glimmering of these livid flames Casts pale and dreadful.
Nonetheless, like a colonizer in a one of the worst far flung corners of the globe, claiming whatever he passes as his own, Satan makes the best of his circumstances: Farewell happy Fields Where Joy for ever dwells; Hail horrors, hail Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell receive thy new Possessor Meanwhile the demons begin work creating a splendiforous palace, Pandemonium, perhaps the most palatial structure in Hell's history to match that of heaven. Satan's acceptance of his situation, is analogous to a determined settler determined to cultivate his surroundings as his own before expanding further afield.
Later the demons swarm to the council to decide on an acceptable plan of action. Amidst the demons and second in rank is Envy; he tells of "another World, the happy seat / Of some new Race cal'd Man," and suggests that they subvert it "and drive as we were drive,/ The puny habitants; or, if not drive/ Seduce them to our Party." This is perhaps the most substantive and overbearing allusion to colonisation of the New World, meant literally in this context. The eager demons might well be a metaphorical representation of the religious convoys who were frequently sent ahead with the intent of settling and were hell bent on converting the original inhabitants of the land into their own kind, to adopt them into their religion, their community, so that by manipulating and corrupting them they could seize advantage of their innocence by blatantly encroaching on their land and property, with minimal opposition.
Another part adventure to discover wide That dismal World, if any Clime perhaps Might yield them easier habitation Satan's heroic-like journey continues through treacherous conditions, having to pass inhospitable terrain and fauna, before reaching "thrice threefold" gates of Hell, three of brass, three of iron, and three of adamantine rock, guarded by Sin and Death. On managing to escape Milton's world of Hell he eventually reaches earth where subtly tempts Eve with the forbidden fruit of knowledge until Eve concedes and eats leading to their loss of paradise. An analogy could be drawn here between Satan and the colonisers of the period enduring a tiresome journey and then tempting the inhabitants (Adam and Eve) with the prospect of wealth through trade; and on acceptance, thus marking their own loss and transgression into a state of perpetual inferiority thereafter in respect of the colonisers. Adam and Eve the original settlers are beguiled by Satan's corruptness through their own innocent naivity. In respect of Paradise Lost and the theme of colonisation we can the course marked by Satan via his journey (see diagram) is regarded as his geography, despite having finally accomplished his course of action.
Further on in books V-VII we have elaborate description of the landscape of Paradise, which is used the manifesto of colonialism through religious dynamics and instability. The schematics of geography and the final mappings that became increasingly important, in so far as territories, progression of colonization and like, even God himself charters the stars in a calculated Genesis He took the golden compasses, prepared In God's eternal store, to circumscibe This universe, an all created things: One foot he centred, and the other turned Round through the vast profundity obscure, And said, Thus far extend, thus far thy bounds This by thy just circumference8 Milton himself somewhat of a nationalist puritan poet in response to the issue of reformation, firm in the belief that the English were God's chosen people addressed parliament asking: Why else was this Nation chos'n before any other, that out of her as out of Sion should be proclam'd and sounded forth the first tidings and trumpet of Reformation of all Europ. And had it not bin the obstinat perversnes of our Prelats against the divine and admirable spirit of the Wicklef, to suppresse him as a scismatic an innovator... the glory of reforming all our neighbours had bin compleatly ours.9 Similarly if not more so the concepts of colonialism, the systematic functions of identifying, locating and securing are no better displayed, conveyed or apparent than in writings of the metaphysical poets.
Man is all symmetrie, Full of proportions, one limbe to another, And all to all the world besides: Each part may call the furthest, brother: For head with for hath private amitie, And bothe with moons and tides.10 In this brief extract taken from George Herberts poem Man we can see the extent to which this evangelical poem - using maps and geometry to define the protestant server and his maker. A new method of language and metaphors had become available and poets did not hasten to incorporate as many different styles as possible to create an identity, using the terminology associated to science, in order to define. A place for everything and everything in its place, reaching the conclusion that God is omnipresent, after having used language to process His location. Likewise John Donne an acclaimed poet of his period, and as Dean of Saint Paul's Cathedral was a seemingly inexhaustible source of spirituality with which to ordain his poems. Licence my roving hands, and let them go Behind, before, above, between, below Oh my America, my new found lande, My kingdome, safeliest when with on man man'd My myne precious stones my Empiree How blest I am this discovering thee11 In this his poem named, Elegie: To His Mistress Going to Bed the allusions to colonialism are by no means marginalised. Donne paints a scene of a woman undressing, in which his description has the duality of de-sexualising, whilst sexualising. The emphasis and attention paid on material objects such as the garments are for all intents and purposes dehumanising. The description of clothes are paralleled to the colonial, metaphysical conceits discovery and of ownership, whilst mapping. Ostensibly what Donne endeavours to do is colonise the body of the woman. Although considerable language and detail is spent in describing the layers of clothing the purpose of which to emphasise the letting go of material objects. The infinite quest of the spiritualist could be that longing for the return to innocence, of spirituality and spiritual embodiment can only be achieved when irrelevant and extravagant thoughts of materialism and clothes are disregarded. Once the woman is void of! all external graces and is the way nature intended, only then does the journey of exploration commence, to discover the essence of human nature, the spiritual manifestation of passion merely acting as a catalyst in the celebration of sexuality. The theme of a quest, searching, mapping territory or bodies, geography of mind, body and soul, unrest and all that is external is apparent in a large proportion of what was written in the seventeen century, religious unsettlement serving only to fuel, scepticism or convictions further. The majority of metaphysical poems have similar themes and imagery, often set in room, study or office, any private enclosure reminiscent of a confession booth. Writing poetry in the form of a confessional is used as a moment of introspection. The new awareness of questions rising with new religious identities of new churches necessitated these occasions of profound reverence and occasional enlightenment, in a journey through their own spirituality. Poetry was writing for private readership, a confessional in the form of a diary, debating with themselves and God. The status of body, that of men and women, the relationship between themselves with one another, and God were all predominati! ng factors in their writing. Poetry was written private realms for a private readership with no public address. A parody may even be draw between Milton circumstances and his vision of Satan, during on of his profound moments of reflection: Me miserable! which was shall I fly Infinite wrath, and infinite despair? Which way I fly is hell; myself am hell;12 I may be useful to think of Satan in the light of 'likening spiritual to corporal forms', partly as representative of the public world of politics and rebellion, and his presentation as an exploration of the ambitions and failures, the egotism and despair, that public life offers. In this his role is therefore complemented in the poem by the private, domestic world of Adam and Eve, in whose interpersonal relations are enacted the possibilities and problems of freedom and self-restraint. In metaphysical poetry the body was seen as a secular vessel, embodied with a spiritual love of the world, attached to a humanist concept that pre mined to embody God within the body of man. Colonialism expanse across the America's induced imagery through language; exploring, discovery, conquering, divine protection, geometry, geography, astronomy, navigation and science were the foundations on which metaphysical poetry evidently propelled itself to growing popularity at a time of general social, political and religious unrest. The Sunne Rising also created by Donne was slightly more satirical, yet maintaining that man was ultimately the ruler of his own world, and God being embodied in wherever he be therein. The sun is employed as a metaphysical conceit, with man being able to block it and the other element with a single wink.
Thy beams, so reverend and strong Why shouldst thou think? I could eclipse and cloud them with a winke,13 With reference of imperial history he no longer needs to explore to India, for it is already traced and recorded on a map before him. His self-elevation and lack of humanity are comparable to that of Milton's Satan. Around the same period other works of post-colonial art were be developed, no doubt heavily influenced by contemporary issues. One such example is Shakespeare's final work and tragi-comedy The Tempest (1611), interposed and concerned with the theme of the elevation of one myth above another, recurrent impact of colonialism, morality and the loss of innocence. Shakespeare's unique style of writing is as a direct result of a plethora of influences, one of which was 'Montaigne's essay Of Cannibals which discussed the value and the way of life of societies which had not been affected by civilisation of a European type. In addition to this essay a pamphlet circulate called The Discovery of the Bermudas , otherwise called the Isle of Divels, may have played a crucial role. This pamphlet described the bold adventures of a religious group of colonist travelling in a convoy of ships from London to Virginia. However during the voyage, the flagship was separated from the remainder! of the convoy in a storm. The maverick ship inadvertently blew towards Bermuda before being tossed onto some rocks. The colonists lived on the islands until they had built boats in which to continue their voyage. The story of their almost miraculous survival aroused considerable interest in England and echoes of their adventure can be found in The Tempest. With little regard of the more elaborate themes images the tale is one of a landing on a island, a veritable paradise, already inhabited by Caliban (often spelt 'canibal' by Elizabethans by transposing the letters 'n' and 'l') a wild, deformed uncivilised beast (representative of native settlers), who is quickly manipulated, overthrown and enslaved by Prospero (King of Milan). Caliban and his environment are parallelled to those of the Garden of Eden and Caliban himself is elemental. As the story progresses and the tyrannical relationship between the two continually increasing, Caliban's intellect is worthy of argument against Prospero for having denied him his birthright. Prospero's aim of teaching Caliban was to increase his indisputable control over him, by subverting him into an incomplete and image of his master, defective of all other attributes ie of magic. Caliban, similar to every colonised people before him adapted his adopted culture and power of speech inflic! ted upon him as a weapon to communicate his own indignation and animosity towards his oppressor. And despite being frequently referred to as a crude savage, disfigured, and evil Caliban exemplifies a better set of values than most of the 'civilised' characters in the play. This image derives from speculation regarding the popular English belief that uncivilised pagans were below their civilised counterparts in the hierarchy which had God at its apex and inanimate nature at it base. However a few individuals were beginning to question this assumption and 'there is evidence in the play that Shakespeare believed that the corruption in a civilised man was more abhorrent than any natural albeit uncivilised behaviour.'14 At a time when many books and sermons, effected a characteristic Renaissance union between moral and political implications, and concerned themselves with the task of persuading the public that exploration was an honourable and indeed a sanctified activity and Drake was compared to Moses, combining voyaging and mystagogy a practical justification of "the lawfulnesse of Discovering". It was a somewhat sophistical argument by Purchas, in favour of the propriety of usurping the rights of native populations, and an insistence, half-mystagogic, half-propagandist, on the temperate, fruitful nature of the New World, and the unspoilt purity of its inhabitants. 'The True Declaration defends colonizing, on the ground that it diffuses the true religion and has authority from Solomon's trade to Ophir (whether it lay in the East or, as Columbus thought15 in the West Indies). There is room for all; and in any case the natives cannot be regarded as civilized people.'16 The revelations of The Tempest of watching Caliban suffer at the hands of Prospero affords interesting material for examination. Caliban endures his abuse and insistent that he has deprived him of what is rightfully his, and this perhaps may have been Shakespeare's way of confronting his contemporary pro-colonising audience with the problems of ownership of newly discovered lands.
The Elements of poetry
While literature should be defined as the moral of life, poetry is the most presentable way to stir the human-mind, a way to achieve the enchanted realm of enlightened thoughts. In this respect, we can view some clear or distinguish feature of those scattered sentiments. Such as-
Language- Whether the essence belongs to the ultimate utopian universe or just the realism of ordinary human-affairs, language seems to be an emotional taboo to poetry. A language that lingers in the soul, by what the subject should be justified, an impulsive influence of the emotional corner is to be executed through spiritual dignity.
Expression- Reality is the constructor of philosophy through human-mind. The responsibility of the poet is not only to execute what it seems but also to execute through minimal of complications. Its not that the fact ought to be clear, but vague instructions can be charming…but it is the way the emotional vibrations move, exactly what matters most.
Central Idea- Idea of idealism, the expression of perception defines the central idea of a poem. From ordinary manhood to extraordinary affairs of emotional life, everything that touches the solemn soul can be a center of attraction in a poem.
Perception- A view of ideology, an attractive construction including the simplification of philosophy must draw the mass attention. But there should be a touch of artistry that is made for only the admitted person; an emotional password to reveal the true sense should be in one hand.
Thus, the elements of poetry are to be felt in a way that serves our moral faculties to re-discover what our heart truly voices for.
Language- Whether the essence belongs to the ultimate utopian universe or just the realism of ordinary human-affairs, language seems to be an emotional taboo to poetry. A language that lingers in the soul, by what the subject should be justified, an impulsive influence of the emotional corner is to be executed through spiritual dignity.
Expression- Reality is the constructor of philosophy through human-mind. The responsibility of the poet is not only to execute what it seems but also to execute through minimal of complications. Its not that the fact ought to be clear, but vague instructions can be charming…but it is the way the emotional vibrations move, exactly what matters most.
Central Idea- Idea of idealism, the expression of perception defines the central idea of a poem. From ordinary manhood to extraordinary affairs of emotional life, everything that touches the solemn soul can be a center of attraction in a poem.
Perception- A view of ideology, an attractive construction including the simplification of philosophy must draw the mass attention. But there should be a touch of artistry that is made for only the admitted person; an emotional password to reveal the true sense should be in one hand.
Thus, the elements of poetry are to be felt in a way that serves our moral faculties to re-discover what our heart truly voices for.
Poetry and Piano
SOUND and written word; two abstract concepts, but hidden are many underlying similarities. Like the hybrid pluot (mix of a plum and apricot), taking two different fruits and finding a delightful product by intertwining them.
To appreciate the similarities, we must first consider the differences. The piano is a musical instrument that unlike poetry, is tangible. You can touch and feel the cool keys as your hands glide over them as well as feel the resisting pressure as you press the peddle under your foot. Poetry on the other hand, while capable of being seen, you cannot touch the words themselves. Who of you can say what the word that feels like?
The piano is also a harmonious instrument that is often accompanied by another instrument or even several different types. A whole orchestra can play, but if you listen closely the piano is still distinguishable. On the other hand, try having two people read two different poems at the same time. The task in itself is easy to do, but what you hear is not a harmonious melody, but a jumble of words that produce a confusing effect on the listener.
Poetry and pianos are similar though, in that they contain a rhythm. Although, a poet won’t sing his poem, an affluent reader can make his words vivid and smoothly transition between lines and stanzas, creating a music-like effect. In reading a poem it is important to capture the pace, intensity, and meaning of what the poet is trying to convey. Piano songs also contain a structured rhythm indicated after the clef on the music sheet from which you play. Often, you’ll even find yourself subconsciously tapping your foot to the rhythm of the song. The rhythm is the backbone to a song or poem and directs the flow and attitude.
And obvious similarity, is that it takes somebody to write a poem or play the piano. A fact often unnoticed and unappreciated is that every song or poem created came from some person’s imagination. It takes a person’s hand to write down a word or strike a key and this combined with my previous statement on imagination leads to my next similarity.
Having so many words and musical notes to pick from, the outcome of each person’s creativity results in something completely different from the next person. One person motivated by sadness my create a more slow, somber, and melancholy piece. A person overwhelmed by happiness may create a faster, upbeat song or poem. It all depends on time, emotion and vastness of vocabulary (in the case of a piano creativity with different keys and chords). The product of each person’s imagination is almost endless.
Both poems and songs are just scribbles on paper unless you have someone to bring them to life. They are similar in the respect that both poetry and sheet music can be read. The only difference is how it is read. While poems can be read in their written form, just as it is, reading sheet music takes a little more effort and wouldn‘t sound that great if you read it for what it was. Reading off your sheet you might get: G chord, C chord, D, E, C and who would honestly enjoy that? No, the pianist must in effect “read” the music with his fingers after interpreting from the page which keys to play. Some have even combined piano and poetry together to form poetic
1 songs. An example of this is French composer Maurice Ravel’s Gaspard de la Nuit. Ravel composed three pieces for piano in 1908, basing them on poems by Aloysius Bertrand. All three of which are beautiful and showcased his talent and mastery in the piano. Also translated into English by Michael Benedikt. Maurice’s piano compositions show that poems can be rendered, modified, or transformed into music that is pleasing to the ears. Below is an excerpt from one of his three songs, entitled Ondine: Listen!--Listen!--it's me down here, Ondine, splashing all these droplets against your casement
windowpanes so that they echo, here in the dim, regretful moonlight; and up there, high above us in her black silk dress, is the chateau's lady upon her balcony, gazing out at this beautiful starry night and at my lovely, sleeping lake.
We have just begun scratching the surface of the many marvels of poetry and the piano. All the more so, I hope my brief analysis of the differences and similarities of poetry and the piano has helped you appreciate a new aspect or unravel some sort of unfound revelation. Perhaps take a second glance at the seemingly boring, everyday things.
To appreciate the similarities, we must first consider the differences. The piano is a musical instrument that unlike poetry, is tangible. You can touch and feel the cool keys as your hands glide over them as well as feel the resisting pressure as you press the peddle under your foot. Poetry on the other hand, while capable of being seen, you cannot touch the words themselves. Who of you can say what the word that feels like?
The piano is also a harmonious instrument that is often accompanied by another instrument or even several different types. A whole orchestra can play, but if you listen closely the piano is still distinguishable. On the other hand, try having two people read two different poems at the same time. The task in itself is easy to do, but what you hear is not a harmonious melody, but a jumble of words that produce a confusing effect on the listener.
Poetry and pianos are similar though, in that they contain a rhythm. Although, a poet won’t sing his poem, an affluent reader can make his words vivid and smoothly transition between lines and stanzas, creating a music-like effect. In reading a poem it is important to capture the pace, intensity, and meaning of what the poet is trying to convey. Piano songs also contain a structured rhythm indicated after the clef on the music sheet from which you play. Often, you’ll even find yourself subconsciously tapping your foot to the rhythm of the song. The rhythm is the backbone to a song or poem and directs the flow and attitude.
And obvious similarity, is that it takes somebody to write a poem or play the piano. A fact often unnoticed and unappreciated is that every song or poem created came from some person’s imagination. It takes a person’s hand to write down a word or strike a key and this combined with my previous statement on imagination leads to my next similarity.
Having so many words and musical notes to pick from, the outcome of each person’s creativity results in something completely different from the next person. One person motivated by sadness my create a more slow, somber, and melancholy piece. A person overwhelmed by happiness may create a faster, upbeat song or poem. It all depends on time, emotion and vastness of vocabulary (in the case of a piano creativity with different keys and chords). The product of each person’s imagination is almost endless.
Both poems and songs are just scribbles on paper unless you have someone to bring them to life. They are similar in the respect that both poetry and sheet music can be read. The only difference is how it is read. While poems can be read in their written form, just as it is, reading sheet music takes a little more effort and wouldn‘t sound that great if you read it for what it was. Reading off your sheet you might get: G chord, C chord, D, E, C and who would honestly enjoy that? No, the pianist must in effect “read” the music with his fingers after interpreting from the page which keys to play. Some have even combined piano and poetry together to form poetic
1 songs. An example of this is French composer Maurice Ravel’s Gaspard de la Nuit. Ravel composed three pieces for piano in 1908, basing them on poems by Aloysius Bertrand. All three of which are beautiful and showcased his talent and mastery in the piano. Also translated into English by Michael Benedikt. Maurice’s piano compositions show that poems can be rendered, modified, or transformed into music that is pleasing to the ears. Below is an excerpt from one of his three songs, entitled Ondine: Listen!--Listen!--it's me down here, Ondine, splashing all these droplets against your casement
windowpanes so that they echo, here in the dim, regretful moonlight; and up there, high above us in her black silk dress, is the chateau's lady upon her balcony, gazing out at this beautiful starry night and at my lovely, sleeping lake.
We have just begun scratching the surface of the many marvels of poetry and the piano. All the more so, I hope my brief analysis of the differences and similarities of poetry and the piano has helped you appreciate a new aspect or unravel some sort of unfound revelation. Perhaps take a second glance at the seemingly boring, everyday things.
Претплати се на:
Објави (Atom)