I n t e r n a t i o n a l   Z e i t s c h r i f tAbout ·
Submissions ·
Archived Issues ·
Literature & Book Archives ·
Home
|
This following poem by John Ryskamp precedes his article. The Twenty-First Century by John Ryskamp Nothing
feebler does earth nurture than man, of all
things that on earth breathe and move. For he
thinks that he will never suffer evil in time to come so long
as the gods give him success and his knees are quick; but when
again the blessed gods decree him misfortune, this too
he bears in sorrow with such patience as he can, for the
spirit of men upon the earth is just such as the day which
the father of gods and men brings upon them. -Odyssey, 18, 130-137 I Fraud
most displeases God. Of what use is
humanity? Calm
down, myself, and be still. Between
the Torments
and the Scaean gate, Surviving
in the valley of your speaking, Each
word a copy, Wall
before the watcher (with
burning sorrow, you beat upon that wall til
truth obeys your call and soon
tire of three enchanted fires of “the” Lower Empire, never
the contemporary of your own desires) Atmospheric
parting of the frieze Sections
of arcadian strata— Dream
intense, swift— Year to year and crag to crag,
procuring, Find, as
if by design, this talking night book of signs In a
hell sans hooks (only
writing is thought, talking its book), And
tread—like a broken chariot, Enfranchised,
from the three worlds— That
path of humility which leads to reality, going forth, No
lodging for you but a cold hard confiding stone— And
shout an evil secret to the agora stone— The air
filled with covered water and
stone, in a bitter blue death light. Eating
the legumen of the algoraba, Thin
from eating flies, circumcising the indefinite. Fulfilling
your destiny, Shadow-bearing
lord of weak remembrance, Dissembled,
proffered, recovered, withdrawn— Speaking
radio silence— (Why not
just say, disheveled?) Infernal
hurricane in your breast, Have a
little drop of nothingness, rest on Hera’s breast, perturbed
spirit, from your friendquest—and no fingerpointing! Confusion
is the beginning of the philosophical quest. Here, in
the adminisphere, are some Iambic jests and
little straws to put in your nest. I’m
blown up! Xook. Impatient
for night? Vade mecum. Every lazy
postwoman is. Very
well then, here it is, Let’s
have a dekko, conversate: All men
are whores, Some
named Therefore. In obedience to other laws, Fog
cruises everyone and mobs embattled Seraphim to war, Only exaggeration
moves them, Their
will bondsman to the obliterate dark, They set
sail in a black, enigmatic vain and
helmless raft or barque, scarf upon scarf Baudelaire
sprawled on the poop Of that
craft, mumbling epigraphs. Gesunde Volkskraft. Started—a
thoughtwreck that. Ships set sail
on time. Then press at blue midnight
beneath love’s cornice (Draped
by bunches of acorns, unsightly moss, mimicking orchids,
poplar, and grapevine tendrils) In Porto
Pozzo, live lips upon a plummet-measured face. Welcome
to the machine/poem. I’ll
language your efforting. Let me open the door for you: Night snores over the earth and
wallows in wild dreams; wishes
take shape as deadly swallows and steal into the
silent house of dreams; this is
the curative oft-limned pure zero hour of [the
relationship of] the will to power: an
inarticulate red right hand transmitted from a
bookish iron famine tower bringing
back a white celestial flower. Twentysomethings all
ready in cock rings awash in
their fluids and
tonsured by Druids, powdered
white, dressed in black black-collar
workers walking in the steps of Kerouac shorn
like an ox’s balls, with horse’s horns a tattoo of a
warbler born from wishful bamboo. They
seem to undress looking
as if falling to earth but are
merely repeating forms in infinite regress. Where
are they? Swear. With
ear-kissing arguments, hints and guesses Nibbles
and caresses Hugo’s
hide rope, dragon, present identical abyss Severed
heads kiss In
mourning eclipse Under
the assin between two apolinere enameled obelisks (and
their laurel wreaths slip) In a
garden without names, rapt in flames Another
old fat man, fat like a strange terrestrial cypress tree, Daisy?
or buttercup? or just
a rotten old fuckup? It’s the way I’ve
always been treated, a creepazoid
baron, an occasional transvestite, an Uncle William, with a
wicked pack of franks A
banished old tightwad claiming to be limited
God, in imagination Bent on the wisdom of fisting
deformed solar God who
shows you his open citron hand (yet their
heart’s covered waters spill no
baleful word abroad) ulcerated
scrotum à la Coleridge replaced
haunch and trailing paunch, consults the
threefold whorl of a conch
(the center of which cannot hold), lives in
the capsule of a cell phone waits in
a cassia tree munching the fungus of immortality, not
suffering very low food security, plies
and anoints with split nitrogen, confiding,
in a motionless sliding, draws
near, sweetly questioning in artificial English If you
lack anything: A little
usury up the mula bandha While
you’re in crow? Fastens
on your buttonhole More
subtle than a weaver’s shuttle Ponete mente almen
com’io son bella! Si tu voulais seulement M’approfondir
ensuite un peu!— the nineteenth autumn has come upon me since I made my last count!
Ohno-second Behind
the unity of a hundred masks he asks: Is there
anything else you don’t like? what makes you weep?— Hey, he
gets off on that, OK? Tells tales (through halitosis) of
a moral apotheosis, Through
barely-parted lips, a muted
half-pentameter apocalypse. Pumpkin,
when do you shed deconflicted diamond tears? when
another sun appears? Wiggle
your unfathomed, unholy, burning Sanskrit ears and Don’t
look** so forlorn, baby, was ever
innocence in beauty born? Ich liebe dich, Und bist du nicht willig, so brauch’ich
Gewalt. What’s
up with your antithetical deformed arm? Your
watch must be fast. Show me your
eggplant. Thought
is free: what’s your metaphor? Bo-peep,
what’s in the hibiscus basket? Why are
your fingers caressing my neck, you ignorant… melting
boy? Non vis ut sim sollicitus: you parent killer! Taking
suggestion as a cat laps mouse milk, in each
other’s grill, about to throw down, A bouquet of blossoming vulvae, c’est du sang en fleur Let a
thousand humble hollow pelvises blossom Get down
this way often? Are you
up for grabs? Christ
I’ve got monetized eyes for your peacock. Some are
anxious crossed out spineless angels
pulled away by an arm, Some
undone, in the unattended moment, Approached
in the sacred porch with consuming heat from the
speaking, sulphurous
torch (to let the warm love in!), Ponete mente almen
com’io son bella! Si tu voulais seulement M’approfondir
ensuite un peu: He
fucked my ass off while
coalesced syllabic onyx nails scratched the rails. men che drama di sangue
m’è rimaso che non tremi sed faciles Nymphae risere Elated
chatter among the leaves. Nothing
outside; nothing inside. Nothing
inside and outside. Your
dying slave, Lost
eyes uplifted speckled knees bowed down, In the
distinct concessional, In Urso
Major, under the dragon’s tail, Under
the very nose of Jesus [death], Nurse,
the basting syringe (Fill it
with Grey Poupon), Unwilled
of heaven in mankind, in a Childbirth
of the mind You,
with your Spenglerian brownish hue see the
point which has passed beyond you (outdo
what you have undone) at
midnight in XX XX primary
master, secondary slave, the bow
is bent and drawn, make from the shaft, lance
his piles, give a
masked antithetical neutering tincture to his
sphincter: all is beauty, ecstatic
concentration, and extinction a new
race of Longobardi, earth’s litter speculators
in derivatives thoroughbreds
and chickenheads a sword
fight Some
struggle— torrid
though torpid towards 3 PM (sundown)— With a
bottle Up a
millionaire’s ass, Your
idol and your tyrant— Once a
kindly Zephyros, now a blustering
Boreas (and I
mean that in a non-“windy” way) a
buster, stifled Titan,
going at it with Santa claws out by
the long home hidden by the almond tree working burdensome gleaning grasshopper jaws la lippe me fait le
mouvement de paître giving
you a philoctetes with his everyday missile by a
divine thrusting on and on a
ratty couch in the vestibule, in your
hammock a whore! The blemished tiger springs from
his fallen God, the dog backs
down before the bull. Yacking,
you eat the copper hair on the
eyes of his chest, you blow
menos in his wordhole, potency
gaining existence by form, in the
felly and the nave breathing
each other’s life, exchanging colors, living each
other’s smoky breath, blowing out: thought,
absence, language=pulsating death. Vis-à-vis
lesbian Picassoid tongues by teeth are torn impaled
on rhinocerous horn or Glastonbury thorn (not
until humanity composed itself could Christ be born) terror
and oblivion Your spirit overkissed—your
young zeros! breath scarce
knows the way! w00t! Rubens
Moreau Balthus
Corot Destroys
with the brightness of his coming. O, O, O,
O. In life we are in death. Au secours M. Kosygin! You
spill air; it
gathers in covered Rhone pools, psychic puddles which
whisper: “Call 647-8262,” whisper
The Solution: “All
crime is unsuccessful revolution.” Laboring
under the erotic, cinema (let’s
give baby an enema) Narcotic
Kairotic juju of his succubus-like spell and
balls as big as church bells Bite,
and with ardent eyes and brite, In a
lonely impulse of delight, Draw
back to watch the imprint of that bight. Discharging
starlight, I feel like a prerequisite Job tonite. Il s’agit a shrine of
melancholy in a temple of delight, Synopsized,
personalized hobby: exteriorized rite. Unpack
your heart with words: Zoit! A sillie worm: O do not bruise me! quia amore langueo The
master struck him with three mirrors and a candle, stole
his yams and mandals. Before
you realize in the region of unlikeness This
Colonel you do not recognize Tes yeux dans ces
yeux-là! You have
changed blue eyes and have the throat of relanguaged late birds. Soon. In the
Nd-Yag drishti of the stance you have
changed black eyes and in
intellectual sweetness pissed crosswise so a
menstruating Jew will die (and the
images of your mind are changed). Qui s’en vont dans
l’air pur À l’aventure I want
to know what fat day this is. What
day is this? Reproduce
all marvels of classical architecture In a
distended platitude Et puis? Well, in
the dixit of a
contemporary critic what
follows radiates the sort of pathologic corona of a
pestilent Prufrockian persona: in
short, an herbal installation (a scanslation) an asana
in the assana (without straps) of an
aerie of little eyases with
most miraculous organ, one
great fact of interpenetrative causation, four
positions of the host and guest whistle
belly thumps You send
a meatloaf: suave vulnus charitatis gladius amoris me vulnera Behold
the nadir: Tension
resolved at noon, you show
your O face without a figure
from the lips of your eye, an
unhorrified evacuation (full of sound and fury!) against
an art nouveau wall, de- flowering
indifference of liberation (a wonder to behold), the
separate substances: you produce a large unimpeachable radish, ridenti colocasia, a rotted potato and la cookie a
chocolate kiss on a drop of hammered blood (a puddle of
frozen piss in the Pure Land— and
valor and luxury in a lonely place) A little
one is separated from the body— la goutte d’encre
apparantée à la nuit sublime— and
produces an author. And why
not? Refrigerator art can change
too! huc ades; quis est nam ludus in undis? sinister
filaments in a thick, gelatinous substance outraging
two enameled shady serpents which
part the bears— frigidus in pratis cantando rumpitur anguis yes,
divine justice like a sex poemmmm, a
combustion from below to make Christian
hell smell like a sweet sachet and your
back crack, knees freeze and needled,
observed liver quiver. It
raised the wall, and houses too (and silenced the Sybil). Perchè sei tu
sì smarrito? And then a green
apple quick step Stouty
lobby lizard stampede to the hereafter! Fear of
compelling interfaces and forms from this place: Austerity
of virgins, sobriety of slaves, Outmoded
shadows, children’s laughter. I drank,
from the clear milky juice allaying Thirst,
and refreshed—heads without name Then
made covered water at great need Clutching
seven unequal marsh reeds Bio
break: one thrill sweet grass, one pulse in bitter weed Fue una vaga congoja de
dejarte Lo que me hizo saber que
to quería. et durae quercus subadunt
roscida mella Reader,
can you help observe that
some things are like big, long words? Who then
devised the torment? Love,
reinvented in perfect measure. Io no lo intendo,
sì parla settile. Love
took my hand, and smiling replied, Who made
eyes but I? You were born in the
sky. A part
of labor and a part of pain (then
reduced, somewhat, by wind). The
young in one another’s arms. send out
words and blood together from a tear (there
is no flying hence or tarrying here). Radiantly
sit down, love, and taste my meat. Give me
a gash, put me to present pain— Beauty
ripped by a boar. Quick
now, here, now, always—it’s Zen Now and
now Teldeath
I am coming. He made
time. As men
more like gluttinous swine No
checkypoo? Wan wu
sheng yu? Yu sheng
wu. You who
are a copy, what is
your name? What is your name? An sich? Für sich. Yanwai ngoh hai yat goh Centing
buck why-foo biby Bit
Hat. No Cattle. O—mm—okay? Todestelle Work my
loom and visit my bed, Leave me
in peace and go. Love is the wind Frühling, der liebliche Knabe Erring,
erring Under
the lash of a lust Which
drives them— Mongrels
of the summer (their
life so pressing but one
undressing— steady
aiming at the tomb), Taking enlightenment
in the end, Noisy
sausage party of clerics, men of letters and neoterics, nulli certa domus Loud sky
and silent sea, Butterflies
struggling in a vacuum, Grief
pouring out through their eyes—nurse (conceived
in the false cow, with
secret traces a concave womb re-worded— they
would have been lucky if they had
never been given cattle!—to devour entire! raw!) grief in
a gutter and give the world to chance, Come
here, boo boo, come give me dein Hand. Sit here: Cattywompus
from there. Did you ring? Give me a pearl. Stop
sneezing and cool your spleen. Shake it
off. Bounce. Call 647-8262. Cheese. Cancel past that. Wake up. Climb
out of your K-hole and suck a slaughtered pig’s ass. Thus
gone, suckle Diana’s green breasts. Snap on
a feed-bag—or eat yourself to lessen pain. Such an
unlucky hand! Symbolized by five
stars. Your guest star is Karuna. Mr.
Netsuke, a mekiki with a Buddha-hand citron. Observe
your faults Observe
you. In drag of regret. Wahrheit und Richtigkeit. Leering
like the screensucking sun from the clouds. Real
sun. Don’t be too brazen! A hooded
monk, and toilet bowl soup. Do you
have a Pinto for sale? Sell the
Buick— and put
a Cadillac in a Ford! Gaffle
some skrill. Gank now from
then. Scarf
Round Robin. Sorrow, sorrow. Numbers are never spoken; bodies
by Cézanne or Dr. Seuss Hope
never comes that comes to all Violence
is done to one of three From
such soulful amberlight nothing can give shade, and
heaven is out of view. Anglican
einfühlung is not appealed to. Your doom is in this sky (the
point of the infinite is sharp!), Wherein
you behold, in the délices de Kermoune (the truth cannot
be told without prejudice), A bossy
Hebraic homily in colloidal borrowed gold— Clashing
words in the air suspended, unequal
language in the agitated air— Wherein
perfection lives on in some Cartesian void Raining
points, even after its life has been destroyed, Ideals
unrealized so adformation unjustified. The
center thrice to the utmost pole. Soleil, soleil, faute
éclatante! Job and Sophocles. Offers
no relief, and does not share in the banks of Ocean. Remorse
smiles up from the Bay. Fishes
quiver in the seiche tone on the
unjust horizon. Upward man and
downward fish. La cité d’Ys,
la Sodome noyée. Leman. BHAG. Ding-dong, bell. In the
circus of fixed destinies Da ist kein
“humanity”— Only
time devils, The Ape’s Problem and profanity. The
medical specialist and the painter, The
death light collector and the headlight child, A
nightingale named Ruth, the Green Man, The
gris-gris and the bochio, buoi and giogo, The guey
professor and the Negro twin Brothers
who are the only child of two mothers (they
perch like swallows and like swallows go), Louis,
Sir Sinister Palindrome in the sex act, his
two-faced silent echo sister; Prince
Fondle, OMO in encaustic emerging from an
acrostic on pride, Hu Nu in
a porkpie hat (McNamara with a
mouthful of bad teeth), Hector
with his stutter, phantom Helen (her
fair face) with her beauty spot, Aeneas
short and fat, that Greek chap Clitoris, And circus animals and animulae: A veiled
Maya, secret moonshine shopper, voluptuous fox, Scapegoats
and branch-grabbing monkeys,
scampering Chinese rat, Un qui passait Son ombre changée
en souris Fuyait dans le ruisseau Baron Grimm the geology conductor, hunting
an Irish Atlantis in the swastika (facial?) entrails
of a greedy praying mantis, Mr.
Jimmy the mad hatter, a malignant turbaned dwarf and
eunuch deprived of the extension of his poetic unit, Ursula
Major the minor, Easter, Erato, Suzy
Sansouci and the Disappearing Master, Buddha
doing kung fu yoga in rose midair,
the immoralist Goethe, Sue
Kasana and Rick Shasana, Colombo,
Sardinian Foolio, Molina, a yummy
mummy reek-of-estrogen Sybillina, the donna dello schermo and the melting girl
in pig-tails, Cowfaced
and owleyed, All look
down from out the stair from the
pages of the Revue nue What
minor tearless gods are there (with such hair!) light
little people sous le ciel neutre in
corresponding Tiepolo air (a
phenomenon which I have often noticed) twining
deceitful faces of hope and despair? If life
is a dream, what does it foreshadow? Who has
a bird’s head among
the gods of imperturbable upper air? Hakuryo
still withholds the mantle re-releases
an immortal fox from a Chinese box I met
them all thirty years ago for
twenty minutes in some open studio and
endured a session with
poetry praised as an obsession: persiflage, Duchamp
playing chess in a mirage. They
created everything: God, money hash, time. They’re
not even listening. a palimpsest
on a Poussin a dragon
of the air They
don’t ever care. White
raisins, beautiful virgins (blessed
hoochie ladies in the sphere) and vaporized glass Veronese
and borzoi. Melting
schoolboy, wardrobe mistress and groom. Fate
yields to chance and chaos. The ecstatic princesse nocturne, la Muse camarde ici pose, works a crucigram and
turns the worked and patient dark Marseille card (you
watch her, frowning, as if
she were speaking while drowning— she
foretold twentysomethings— their
hair uncut—who look seventy years old!): look at
yourself through inner other lost eyes: dormandise aspire
to taste bitter fire avoid
four (the black eagle), the fifth and hell’s wan king;
owl competes with first black swan: seek
protection of the serpent king, a
literary terrorist plants word bombs, til dawn
I can’t do anything. Kingfisher
and Fisher King. BHNC. Young
man and melting girl in spring. You have
a predetermined number of breaths; don’t
hurry things—dream of me at your identical death. Lord!
You were once ideally ordered selves who met
over a rag in Munich in 1912— you are
asleep, let me speak first: Tell me
and I will tell you if you know you
resemble Foucault? You must meet
two women. I’m losing you. I see
you’ve given your soul away, but
masterful heaven has intervened to save it: when
small men cast long shadows then the sun is setting. What is
the one word? Being. Who speaks it? Truth. What is
meant by an
autistic designer of abbatoir equipment? If
you’re not living on the edge, you’re wasting space. Orderly
beauty of mass destruction, whether
military or industrial I cannot see, lost
death eyes cannot be read with such certainty. Byron dan les îsles,
et Shakespeare encore From fat
morning to noon they fell Seraphim
in an avalanche, hit and hit Apotheotic
collapse joining heaven and earth Craters
through flames Bells
from gorges Rung From
noon to dewy eve— A
summer’s day—and with the setting sun Tone Yet in
that sound the earliest names have all
faded away; Yet in
that Word the weaker words have
long since died; and the
paler images also have
melted away in the seal of the spectrum. Des fanums
qe’éclaire la rentrée des theories, d’immenses vue (mock)
Tone God
Pantocrator, Ur-Glossator, in half-empty heaven (when
4=7), as God
might be, conceived in adhocracy, incumbent
on air though shorn of his beams, riding
in molto forte C major,
phosphorescence and
smoking Boucher clouds of conscious unknowing
upon the second black swan of melody, Passing
through brazen screaming tempestuous skies of
tumbling carp and butterflies twittering
predatory swallows and funky wavelets
à la Hokusai (earth-born
clouds vacate lost eyes but
Aphrodite renounces flux as her lucid curves crystallize), borne
into eternity upon selfful extended wings of
passionate things—ingenious lovely things, flying
in a dancing sleeve of
Thracian hail, false flags of rank indecency Signing
off on consistency, Parousia of the logos, topos and tapas. Measuring
properties of angels in a Maya-like world. The
royal banners press forward (those banners come not in), Tityrus
is Arion and rides a dolphin the
Secret of the Cross is shining and The
flower pities the bee for its
fascist intertextuality, in
incommensurate mastery God hates 9 but loves 3 and
throws an onion into the sea, Christ
Hospitaler [death] Intones
from the Cross, “Heaven
is to die for.” We were
all with Moses then, he was
drinking from a fire hose, was
under the cloud and in the sea, mimicking
mortality and immortality. He
transforms himself each salmon day anew.
I can’t hear you. Bearing
the skin of himself, Peter
the grudge bearer rails at ninth Heaven. cantus
infirmus Making all, unmade unnamed
universal He in the immense juniper shade All over
the map like an old tree Black
cloud occludes the sun Like a
Cubist collage, and then Love
clasps Grief lest both be drowned and Homeless fearful sun dépose sa
pontificale étole, sleeps
under the disappointed Bridge again, The dead
a talisman for men. righteous cock and noble balls God
swallows a phallus Hercules
fresh from harsh austerities, disturbed
by his own feces discovers
in it the pure concord of Empedocles but
without the strength to force the moment to its crisis, addict
Christ Adonis still half-brother to refined (wimpy) Dionysus Achilleus—tiny
two eyes, broad-shouldr’d and
pindick—impregnates Hyperbolic
Sinbad the fleeing leech-gatherer and
pea-green Atlantic sucks up
his wooden ship. C’est
Galathée aveuglant Pygmalion! Impossible de modifier
cette situation. Only
heroes redeem Eros. Homosexual
Diana and Camilla Without
concern for the meaning of marriage Posterity
decides everything and understands nothing. Rome had
its cuts too. And Rome
died. Who is the blind starer? As gods
toward their rest— Youthful
Chinese figures on a gilded hearse— Listen,
why can’t you, who Are a
copy, as fat night passes shamelessly: BOTTOM
WATER DEEP LIGHT NO
IMMORTALITY THAT ONE
BREATHE THE CORD
OF EXISTENCE Tapas?
Heat by body Kavi?
Designates the Saint Soma?
South of Market, where
the sun’s rays never penetrate. Zophos but
rinse their beams under Aquarius. A third
black swan in a labyrinth. Collocation,
ascetic conjunction, Fire and
Love and connectile dysfunction. Eat the
leaves, and give the pain, an
outlet in each tear. Sad young man,
cradler, on a train contemplating
poetry etched upon the window pane. words
found in the poet What is
young and old, and old and young? II This
world has forgotten many things. Which is
the natural man and
which the spirit? Who
deciphers them? Fame is
a consensus of sorts. What undermines
it? A bald
face unbaptized, a blacksmith and his help, tickled
a pickl’e, tossed the salad and transferred data points. made a
clam dive, whacked the mole, tied up
the toa’d and christened the cat, shaved their balls and
galloped the lizar’d, killed Nan-ch’uan’s kitte’n, played
with a fat dill piec’e, a turtl’e and waxed the dolphi’n. Paratactic
son of man, you who are a copy, Distinct
configuration of selves (not entirely verbal Pace atlas and iron
herbal), Viral
phallucinogenic penis rising at morning to meet you— bootstrapped,
no less alive for that Out of
the sea of spinning sound On entre à cheval Huge
leviathans forsake unsounded deeps to dance on sands In the
feast of nights Heart
full of sorrow as the sea of sands. Shadow
governments inch toward the birth light. Kingfishers catch fire in a
painting by Dali. Europe
after the rain—dance Monster. Yes, did
you ring? I can’t hear you. Do you
feel me? Clear karma which is real persistent
rolling wheels Radiant
Ezekiel sitting in an open field Greek
steam engine and Aztec wheel A
scented citron hand from the cloud emerges (bird’s
round eye in the palm), holding
a chart expanded— The
living lost eye—searching past and future— of a
gargantuan reordering, A
monumental ordering of the
doubly-contaminated eightfold way. Great
sea-horses bare their teeth and
laugh at the dawn. Out of
the sea of unjust sound Freedom! Freedom
from tolerance, freedom from intolerance. Freedom
from freedom, freedom from servitude. Freedom
from mortality, freedom from immortality. Freedom
from indifference, freedom from concern. Freedom
from love, freedom from hate. Freedom
from sickness, freedom from health. Freedom
from poverty, freedom from wealth. Freedom
from death, freedom from life. Freedom
from darkness, freedom from light. FREEDOM. Maitreya, schist, with the
knowledge fist, shake
the tree, repress the mountain and startle the fish: The
gadfly clung like a nymphomaniac, A
hermaphroditic self-eating devourer of “the” dead (identifiable
by the necessary white patch on the rear). I am the
dog. No, the
dog is himself, and I am the dog, a
seven-year postwoman, a witch’s dog unearthed from the
sewers— Hypospadias,
urethral opening on the underside. Warred on by cranes. Kaum erwacht,
hört’ ich dein Rufen, Stürmte zu den
Felsenstufen, Hin zur gelben Wand am
Meer. Heil! Da kamst du schon gleich hellen Diamantnen Stromesschnellen Sieghaft von den Bergen
her. Me, the
heart moving toward the heart Moving
through the heart toward moving the heart Love
moved me. Love has made me speak. Todestelle. Ist auf deinem Psalter, Vater des Liebe, ein Ton Seinem Ohre vernehmlich, You who are a copy, So erquicke sein Herz! Öffne den umwolkten
Blick Über die tausend
Quellen Neben dem Durstenden In der Wüste. We move
above the moving yew Tree in
light upon the figured leaf Observe
the black hunter and conversion of the Jew And hear
upon the sodden floor Below,
the boarhound and the vengeful boar Pursue
their pattern as before— Only
this, and nothing more: terror
and oblivion. Beauty
ripped by a boar. Kill a
boar and prove your name. exultatio secura
cantantium, concordia summa
laudantium, lex mentis, lex in
membris, rixa cupiditatis victoria charitatis O qui dira les torts de
la Rime? infin che il mar fu
sopra noi richiuso Et son égal en
pureté et son égal en piété Ma Dame et Saint Michel bénissez A leper
once he lost and gained a king They had
no son but the helmsman had his poem These
noisy cities are not my cities East to
New York Far East
to Japan West to
the Tyrean whore. Gitmo
and Indokorea Tibetan
Kalachakra Merger,
Japan six
great cities, 36000 years Germany
hears from every corner of heaven Russia
brings poetry They’re
making a circle out of a star Pierrette
in chains The owl
upon the wall Banked Where
Michael bent proud spirits under law [red
star] We are [red star] non iniussa cano III During
the fat day (and I
mean this in a nighttime way) We were
alive to sunlit terrors Syntax
deceived us With its
sound-form phenocrysts And obelisks swam in amethyst Des noms barbares
hurlés par les rafales roulés, Sous les larmes sourdes,
cases Dans les brisants et
perdus en Chair de poule sur les
marais In sleep
we are free. In
ambrosial night, still awake at 4 AM, eos
erigeneia, Aiolos,
word and mind eponymous, Castor
and Pollux hapax, Parrity
and disparity, synonymous,
fractious fractals, Mind
dirt and broken ash, grimy ash over exhausted ground, We are
in mourning, Knowing
neither zophos nor eos, That is,
neither life nor death, but rather, One
longing for the other. death
unrelated to life Or
rather: And die,
being dead. The world’s
asleep, the
night keeps phonemic silence and
delivers dynamic convergence. From
where does the faded horny sun-in-moon emanate? Dull,
small astonished Equinox 1 moon has forced the
tie-dyed sun away, This is
the hour and the third day, The
bride stripped bare becomes the wife And
Strindberg wields a palette knife, Dante is
a foreign car, Rimbaud
a movie star. Babbling
all its foolish past English,
its head in a bag, goes down in babble at last. Imagine
all of humanity
leading you to chance death. I know I
do. breuis est uia You come
too. Do you see what I see? What is
the date today? What
have the waves done wrong? Even if
it is not true Even in
despite of truth We must
maintain it anyway Valence
blinds and other valences Logology
made flesh Il est minuit comme une
flèche.… We now
enter the author’s gallery of grotesques We hope
you’re very lonely Because
it’s For Madmen Only. Here
you see unfurled like a
backdrop in a security theatre, the embodied world: Featureless
midnight, deceptive, itchy-fingered dawn (sacred
if only for the mask it grants you) An AI
insect climbs the tree of knowledge the two
taxations animal-fantasies Omnia fert aetas, animum quoque First on
your right side, Breathing
like the sea you are Breathing
like the sea in your black sack, Between
sleeping and waking That
postmodern krak of language breaking Investing
shadows with lucid rot Notional
stones with meteorological clot as it
were, fraught with
floating debris of mediaeval psychothought (and
reality with too much Eliot— didn’t
he have false teeth and put his wife in an
asylum? They must have had a
falling out— he
thought habit would atone for all his sins; is it by
rat choice he
exorcised the ghostly voice?) It is
typical of the mediaeval mind to find
meaning in concrete images of this kind deep in
shit, and blaming someone else for it Then on your back, Turning
beauty into a soggy sameness Then
face downward —but
at last a patient sad spider (Penelope) brushes
your lost black deconflicted diamond eye. e li occhi no
l’ardiscon di guardare. Beautiful
body as you are, you’re
dead now: karmic retribution. XX Two
hours before cold and passionate dawn, in the sudden thunder of 59 mounting
precursor fourth black swans— warmly
rejecting number— and
graphic figuration of the beyond of the
fertility myth and Ariel’s song With
burning sorrow, you appear upon the
identical mulleted lugubrious lawn Carpeted with yawns And
plant an oar in the radius of Venus. Standing
on your head: feces, baby and
penis—an infinite number of species. Infra great sea-horses
laugh at the dawn. A cuckoo
is erect in a good oak coffin Sounding
the knell of the vast hours. Behold
the man that loved and lost: Des noms qui ont des voix You
rise, to wander, from your crib, the
cavernous waste shore, bitter
endive and ammonium chloride, painting
your white sister’s image on the ground, Distractedly,
jaded, along the line of narcissurf— The
unharvested seat of desolation, void of birth light— Heart
full of sorrow, disconsolate chimera tail in your mouth, Forsaking
unsounded deeps, lost in loss itself, Cast out
you are cast down, sand in your hand, Blamestorming
your world with sorrow’s wind and rain. Des noms qui ont des voix That one,
that of so many myriads fallen, Yet one
returned not lost, pour quêter un linceuil. A sigh
is the spirit come into this world. From a
sack of mute sounds With
twilight wrapped round In a
sordine enveloped: “Rain,
rain.” With hints of burnt
siena, Padua at
the marsh stains the
covered waters of Vicenza and
exploits intuitive supply-chains. nec lacrimis crudelis Amor The
white rock, the gates of the sun, The
community of dreams. Solus, si liceret, tota die sederet, Libros versaret vel reversaret Yes, paler
for sorrow than a milk-white dove. One by
one the stains that kisses made In
biting cold and burning sunlight fade. Io vegno il giorno a te
infinite volte No, no,
he’s gone—it zoots you: I’m
losing you. Before
dawn his glory and monuments are gone. Je ne retrouverai plus ma
petite folie. He is
not here; but far away in the
inexhaustible fountain of beauty’s spray. Devoid of return. J’ai
rêvé tellement fort de toi, J’ai tellement
marché, tellement parlé, Tellement aimé ton
ombre In pilgrimage, bearing
their cry inshore, long-legged gulls, the
albatross of the tempest, indignant horny
fifth black swans, the
kingfishers, Slavic ducks and warning geese are still there. Veuve avant épouse
car la mer est jalouse You
parch your skin and lose Your bronze
hair. Inbaked, you see, or dream
you see, di gonna in gonna, 3 ou 4 gouttes de hauteur
n’ont rien à faire avec la sauvagerie the
throne of Lachesis in the talismanic dreamland— Dream of
Tangiers, American dream, Parisian dream— You
dream you throw embers, and a key, in 62
rushing streams. You are
your Mother’s prophetic language dream. Voluble
flowers, stones look on. Eliot’s dream. Each is another’s bad dream. Todestelle Liebster, Liebster, der
Morgen kommt. Was sol ich allein hier
tun? In diesem endlosen Leben, In diesem Traum ohne
Grenzen und Farben. Der Morgen trennt uns,
immer der Morgen. Wieder en ewiger Tag des
Wartens. I think
there is nothing to be seen in light But The
Muffled Gentleman and the ghost of Moritz. No one
can take my death from me. Ignoring
the strobes and tones, Watered
but cool in an ice age, Before
the pastoral obelisk, a symbol and its tristitia we have put away, On the
descending ass-end of space you brood, on an
unjust wandering grave and rapid cooling
of nearby lands, unpregnant
of your cause, drawing resolution from despair, Make it
pregnant, and state an elegiac mood. Over his
own sweet voice the stock-dove broods. Memory,
and perception, and expectation. Memory,
and perception, and expectation. that what how where when why if March 10 if you
know that you are but not what you are, what you
are but not how you are, how you
are but not where you are, where
you are but not when you are, when you
are but not why you are, why you
are but not if you are, if you
are but not that you are, what you
are but not that you are… the
hundred negations The dead
are a talisman for the living. Anne, ma soeur Anne, ne
vois-tu rien venire? A
restless seeming, dreadless, unlooking back, Too full
for sound and fury Having
shaken the oak, you turn again in an
allegory of the letter to your
memory palace and obscene confessor, litigious
tame Superman, A sickle
with never a handle Your oar
become a winnowing-fan, Thoughts
all a case of knives: Christ Glittering
with hatred, You
think: …solida casa di pietra
squadrata e liscia… Keeping
your anger bright: Kleist (you
scare your melancholy). Al cor gentil ripara sempre amore. Eroma erpmes arapir litneg
roc la. Leonardo cradling a baby Dusty
garments committed to amber earth before
the swept threshold of your
hummer house: thou shalt die, and not live. Your house is empty, your late
birds have flown. In that
bright unique tomb, and taking the measure
of that room, again— descend
the staircase, drink the poison and enter the tomb— you destroy
half your brain, mesh intuitive content you go
to bed but
cannot sleep with sleep perceptions out of wedlock recorded time power to
thyself, in singleness thy state indictable
on several grounds, self-indicted on them all but all
the while take the Fifth—and smile Your
watch must be fast Microwaiting, you must eat your
medicinal meal (frying gravel), asphalt,
salt, pennyroyal and delirium (but not fish) drink
chocolate+blood+mescaline—nothingness— amber,
viscous and sawdust from the
cinnabar vase of the seven gods, from a cow’s hoof, sweeten
it with eater and eaten, jazz bachelor, to melodious thunk, check
your airline schedule and carrier pigeons, observe
teeth, the black snakes and kids (you’re
the man who built the pyramids!), talk
your book, defend to the devil the literal level, cut off
your eyelids, nurse
your habitus, brew your blood via sacred induction— vengeance
listen to a fool’s request— manfully
strive to squeeze your lemon dry to step
off the mad 51 bus, brush success gridmaster,
accept the armor and hoist your ass into the
noisy upper middle class—howl your howls, but a
draw a web out of your willow bowels before
the coveted crow and incestuous owl; between
the intention and the act build a
fire in the digestive tract. It would
be some kind of music. Thus gone, you do the bars,
keeping your heart and
other inner organs, in Canopic jars. Work
harder, jog faster (keeping going) then
consult the horny Wu Li master. Take 17
different immortal vitamin and deer market pills then a
hike into scores and spores of the
alchemic Berkeley hills. You must
learn to confirm L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E
in Esperanto, frantic
to become a reactionary romantic. Wake up. Vous êtes mal armé. Defend
cliffs in stages O
captain of the rear guard, nor
trust too early to reluctant soil a whole
year’s hopes. To make
things clearer talk to the orangoutang
in the subtle mirror (in
which, like a Catholic Ulysses, you see
everywhere the turnless turning cosmic face fantôme
qu’à ce lieu son pur éclat assigne— wisdom’s
reward for running life’s race— but the
finished man sees his enemies), mirrored
mirrors the mirroring mirrored; whilst a
three-legged white raven warns you: be craven. Dead the
warrior, dead his glory, Above
all, dead the cause in which he died.
Deja poo. Practice
pinning a ghost on a cactus. Your eyebrows fall out of the
window of the hearing: raw
vegetables and cooked vegetables. You open
a door onto a constitutional Right,
the fact of knowledge (we don’t tell the
Jew!—transfixed by SM hash dog-whistle politics): omnis feret omnia tellus If
anything, the opposite. You’re
back from where you went, and
become the constellation Virgo. You
sense a theatrical police presence. You
honor your limits and complete your partial mind. Gathering
string: “Right now I’m washing my feet”— spoke
and set the cocks a-crow. The stricken sun is not named, but
his hash
power is amongst us: Scattered
by winds and high tempestuous gusts, Just,
stereometric bees with smoke, and doves in
mid-air with noisome stench. And de se borner à
connaître de près les belles choses, et À s’en
nourrir en exquis amateurs, En humanistes accomplis. Rimbaud
with a cyst. A diseased face
shadowed by Catholicism. Pretty as
a pietà. Bees
from an unhappy cello come Summoned
by a deathless damask drum. By wasps
and hornets stung. A dog
dreams of a happy ending. I charm
asleep—and when I will, awake—the eyes of men. Poetry
from raw pork and opium. They
vibrate in the dark, and remain below language. “You
taught me language, malice, and I know how to curse.” True
dat. quia amore langueo and
endless rooms of endless houses with marble
draperies, emerald chairs and
copper halls, violet corridors and three
tumbled ancestral ivory stairs above or
below? enharmonic elevations leading
to houses and—muffled scansion—endless rooms,
failures of wise deconflicted
diamond corridors to lead to endless rooms of chemical
red velvet houses and Princess
Eavesdrop, aka Belle Headache aka
Matelda Hale-Bopp, a
yellow-mouthed baby in oppression blue, her pet tricked
out chimps, Fantoche et Josette: “I
don’t care!” she screams, “if
you invented air! There’s
a real image there! You only
have so many breaths; do you
want to hurry up your death? Vines
and creepers, my melting girl! You haven’t
killed your lower-case self yet? I
can’t hear you. The five vowels gave birth to you,
and
passion turned you blue. It’s
time you got off that sofa, Mary (she was born in “the” sky) (she
hides her literature: she’s drained life to the dregs, her arms
are like forelegs— how did she get in? she preens and eats
apricots where everyone can see her naked skin, undoes
herself across nine acres, farts up
a sky and expends her yellow labor— she’s
as tarty, farty and arty as Astarte (her
lovers discluded Sraffa and Malaparte)— in full view of bewildered
neighbors: the
tricks of this dominatrix! the trysts of this Iscolde! she
reminds me of spilt covered water and my
long-lost daughter). I’m
losing you. Viewless
wind always brings a blush to Phoebe
avaricious of life, The moon
spots to destructive Bea cowardly as a spider who
never could bear much reality and who,
for that matter, in
thought, word and act always smells
of the fish of the sea— she’d
suck whiskey off a sore leg; silk
comes out of both sides of her mouth. To hell with her—and I mean
that in a heavenly way. Ma jolie (Rrose Mystica),
you’ve a run in
your hose—you’ve been drinking from the fire hose— don’t
**look down the dot of your reversible Roman nose in the
anger of the pose! You’re the
opposite of prose. Marianne? takes it in her
recuperating can (she was
“traded” between Bellmer and de Man, but shat on
Lacan—cauterise her sinus! she
sings of anger—and of her man) nevertheless
sees in Sanskrit and Chinese the five
elements and ten degrees: she
doesn’t see the forest for the trees (what
can I say? she digs sleaze)— she just
wishes she had a brain pearl! seeks “peace,” has
applied for it to the Bureau of Release. Lulu
(the first Mrs. Milton), in five signs—qu’elle est— of an
angel’s decline, guides
us all—or did, before her fall (this
Cinderella came late to the ball, wearing
a necklace of ping-pong balls!). She has an hyperbolic eye in her
forehead: she has
monetized eyes—wha-what’s that you say? What do
you know about my image duplicator? —for
days! They rest, like Keats’
vectors, in relays. I
suppose love’s blind heart conquers all. What a
fright! with her triple sight. Let me make this clear: in
childbirth, she lost her mind over a mirror. She
hides her writing (her perfumed periods stink!). She
longed to see the top of her head. She was
born in an extant lotus and flipped
a coin as she rode on a shameless tortoise— not to
be believed! but what has my scolding ever achieved? terror
and oblivion. She never comes
until Hugo (aka Basil), her anticipointment, gosee, her arrival,
leaves (in love
those two are one)— don’t worry about this
nymph, I’m giving her (too much!) notice. Enough; no more. She’s
not as sweet as she was before. They’re
not people—they’re napkins: clockroaches! Don’t
even think about it—you have your music too! This is a
chambered tomb à la Poe, a
poem: what do you care? She’s
history, she’s talking a closed book. Dream on: you’ll always love
her, and she’ll always be there. Although
she does not know, she is quite dead— that’s
in a life-enhancing way, if you
can see that in a light more than that of salmon day! On whom
is this joke being played? Are you
an undertaker’s hamburger? an occasional bachelor? a fool
in a shower? a meatball sundae?
I’m cold. Menoporsche! You’re
throwed off. Find everything Here
first. Listen, my little personette.
This is my advice, my
six-wired bird of paradise (did
Prince Albert ring?): Next
time you go out, pack
your cock in ice, hide
your syntax— It’s
much the safest way. This is
the hour and the day. It’s
not that anonymity is your best defense: You are anonymous. Get over it or emigrate to Saturn. Have you moved to
Atlanta? You are so
dramatical! You have Rachel
tension. It runs
from the family. Obsolescence
is the mother of invention. —the
mother of invention. Symbol of
change. What is
your name? What is
your name? Enlightenment
is an ember not a flame. Etor in her mouth. “Baseball.” Baudelaire and baseball Voi che’ntendendo il
terzo ciel movete You know
her: the spiky-haired postfeminist, rather
screechy— she
blinds you with botox science— hey, she
gets off on that, OK? Polymath,
polyglot, or fashionable
nonsense idiot, psychopath? devotee
of Derrida or simple carping
dogged barren Hecuba?— anyway,
she wanted to spank the shit out of Nietzsche (he
stood for formless norms a-and normless forms which he
hurled against life in nine fearful storms) with the
telephone: BFO: I
just could not understand the
feminine blank—what, and get
that syphilis all over your hand? (This
shows how little you know— she
reached perfect enlightenment countless eons ago.) epizootics
of the blowhole perdrix sans orange a hieroglyph in a chicken La jeune demoiselle
à l’ivoirin paroissien Modestement rentre au logis persons
haunted by a bird to hell
(in an eggshell) in the middle of our days complete
and pure as a polished shell in the
freezone Mercky narcotic of Ravel we go with an
old flame, Michelangelo The
bottle: “There is one among the relanguaged birds, among
the fish and among men one, perfect.” words
found in the poet You
should be forced to live out on the streets, Eating
your beard. It’s
your hat makes you mad. It’s
absurd. Let’s leave the
initiative to loan-words (follow
that bird!), try these: Michelangelesque
acorns—and baby birds! Ignore
the strobes and tones. …les demains sont morts. Zosted,
imagine! drinking Mai Tais on the island of Ififi. Feel
into the moonness of your dog.
Which is my right leg? Ring for
an oscillating mushroom. I’ll
language you: from the thigh lengthening.
Source it… Get down
this way often? I’ll mirror
you. Are you
up for grabs? Bee break. When small men cast long shadows
then the sun is setting. I should give up tarts. Reverse sixth black swan. I should
have followed the arts. I mean,
that’s not O.K.—and I mean that in an O.K. way; you
could be meaningful— and I
mean that in meaningless way. brittle Peking duck, savory M & M: Olympic
dining See this
finger? It’s a toe. Someone shot my dog Munich. He has a peppermint bark. You cannot be deprived of
glorious haven if you follow your star. With time—Josette (look at her turquoise ring)! Ne touchez pas!— I have 0
tolerance for intolerance it’s
an occupation for a saint. ppp We know what you
mean by the second coming— The wind
take you. Your highness, if I live
a thousand years, I’ll
have your corpse spanked til enameled.
I overstand— marry
yourself in San Francisco. Prince
Fondle, I’ll eat your divine liver over and
over and throw it in the first meeting of local rivers. Christ
I’ve got eyes for your peacock: your
figure is striking— you must
have made a language to your liking. You
ought to go On a
barcode rape safari to Colorado In
Georgia O’Keeffe’s truck! Speak of
pearls before swine and you hear their wings. You’re
a bird of very ill omen—you’re such a monet. Be less
great to be less ridiculous— golden
frog of Supata, get off the white
stag and take a lilac, go; mouse,
put off holiness and put on intellect, feed fat
sheeple and sing a blind slender song.
Mr. 9, go eat your Jack in the
Box. Convoy. Take a
dog’s-eye view: mold the characterological. Only an
asshole is scatological— that
dark brown hash god with its red aureole! You’re
a case of involuntary certitude. If
things are so bad, why haven’t we noticed? Little
Coriolanus, you plunge your dart into A
supplicating mother’s purple heart. Ne touchez pas! Fantoche! Wench! I tell
you this: you’ll leave a perfect corpse. Right
Dao, wrong day. Some
people were born to be
humiliated: Happy Birthday— and have
a great day!” Vous avez l’organe bien
perdu. Et lui comprit trop bien,
n’ayant pas entendu. But when
you are dead you are not: what good is humanity? And keep
blowflies away. Contemplate a world
of things. Weave
and reweave, homage and regret. Parfait chemiste, dull-witted
ambassador of the
purposive cliché, Lunchin’ Drinkin
’em pretty, Unfolded
man, you wouldn’t dream of putting your Tongue
into their mouths After
you see them urinate, first Some
jelly beans, Then a
tiny ravening fish sucer la chair d’un
coeur élu, ravening
like autumn shears through century after century Then
strawberry seeds and a
thin little silver spangled polar snake which
bursts upon the ground. Certum and verum Forming
the New Society Out of
the Shell of the old. Word
become flesh. A fallen
branch Becomes
a tether Becomes
a snake Becomes
a lazy postwoman Becomes
a cleft in a rock Woman
from rock and rock from woman n’est que femme encore the
death of a beautiful postwoman is poetry A flock
of scarlet pigeons columba mea in foraminibus petrae Thunders
imprecations, name and place, Then in
vigil plunge through meadows of flame Into a
thicket of somber emerald lace. I wish I
had been a tree I wish I
had been a fish I wish I
had been a melting young girl Laforgue
Baudelaire Mallarmé
Corbière Despising
hope and adoring despair A blue,
period gaberdined lunatic holds out the rosy
fingers of her immense phthisic hand, soaked
in a sweat of black venom, Zoe ugly
as a turd, vodka snorter and self-slasher who
bleeds at certain words Chipper
gluttonous Madonna of the garbage can holy
terror and carbon-based error, can’t
find herself in the mirror (one of
six daughters of a dead Indian and a three-legged Jew, “I’m
not waiting for the bus, I’m waiting for truth, for hell!” pitched
battle of well-matched oblivion and terror “Richistanis! Monkeys fly out of my butt.” Of many
thousand kisses the poor last. The Nazi
Yeats would say, “This one’s colossal— A poor
woman with the soul of an apostle.” Your
basic grousing homeless freak here
given a pomo tweak. trails
darkness as a robe, sells
ointment to kill dead moles, bio break, smells
like a Protestant church), In
America’s green and pleasant land. Thank
you for your letter. We are doing
very well here. We have work and we
are well treated. We await your
arrival. We are working towards the
Führer. weltanschauliche vernichtet warden Bildung und Vernichtung Whiter
than butter on a ground like a
shower of red coagulate gore, I am not
used to live in a cage, I only
live, I only live In the
green forest, My goal
being modest: To turn
objective ideas into myths, Lord The
borrowed language we use today, will live forever I only
live in the green forest, Fly up
on mulberry branches, Above
the silent sea And
orchids in their mimickry Of
mortality—or immortality As
evolution circles relativity; I eat
pine-nuts, I drink pearl-dew, the food for glory. breathless
mouth of a golden bird Quickly,
you who are a copy, run to
where the passage starts! And was
that past life a dream? Where
sobbing Idea, like a rétiaire,
combs
her girl’s mane in this people’s garden,
softly speaking tandemly repeated genes (in
which ontogenic concretion recapitulates
phylogenic abstraction!)— Or was
that only possible which came to pass? IV What
largesse of bright air— in which
shuffled ducks flee M eagles, dogs attack a hare— clothing
the vales in dazzling light, is here! in which
everything, in dropped wind, is a
cylinder or a sphere. Is this
the most damned city, the region, the soil, the clime Amidst spurge-laurel,
vengeful heliotrope, cypress and thyme Of one
who cannot be changed by alltime? Hier ist kein warum. The year
is at its nicest now. Don’t
praise cosmic paired cups when you can see 100 cows, make
yellow patches, quote a sutra, or see
the ship of the vow. All
things that love the desolate sun are out
of doors. Infra wind-driven souls on
gilded runners run. Maitreya, schist, sclerosis and
Farinata and in the
voiceless shady tamarisk and applauding juniper curative
fourth bear garden of a
reciprocal fresco of Siena we glimpse the
clouded leopard, Enhydris Gyii, smoky honeyeater, and
fashionable hyena devouring—its share of ecstasy— the
triple refuge of a Lady while a
fawning feral impotent poet makes
love to a lesbian lady Distracted,
tonal garden! Hiatus. Painting,
not prose, is the opposite of poetry ut bos piger palaestrae exerceat aut asinus segnis inter spheristarum ordinem
celeri This proscribed youthful land has a
sun and stars of its own and
cries out for a dragon mythology with none to citron hand. The
revelation flowers are inscribed The
exiled sky is five feet wide Stretched
taut over the last of genocide. A pair
of feathers and a long-legged fly dance a
jig on the surface of a greenwashed revelation pond. On freshly-cut conflict diamonds,
with white
blackberries, genital babycakes and
applets—narcotic fare served with a slap in virtual gloves— stolen
pears, cloves and pressed cheese, reader
(or are you sick of apples?), rest yourself
awhile, kicking it freestyle, on these pithy green fronds— but
skirt the erotic laurel covered pond (the
audience is a myth) of human wishes and prolific voiceless
celadon fishes, where every maw the
greater on the lesser feeds evermore. Gaze
into the index of two ever-flowing springs
of unjust covered water to see
the water-bearing ao fish and tears
and horns of your scavenger’s daughter’s daughter’s
daughter (you owe
me a son, my barcode raped daughter), sip
mountain tea from ersatz, named Raku for an hour, casually,
against a sky blue as staggering lapis lazuli, and, ton
irrémédiable filet, l’ennui, browse: the
Elgin marbles have come to drowse a te convien tenere altro
viaggio fête galante of Utrillo with the
Duce the Führer and the Caudillo. thaw
your locks, feed weeping figs to buried ravenous loyalty
pigs and
suppress the urge to devour (like
that fly, I seem to see you seethe but
remember: even poetry must breathe— at this
point your hostess, a grave
old insulted doll with a murderous gaze, takes
your order in reverse on a pad of little post-its and
muses, like nurses, famish
what you need for your verses). Turning
now to Wieland, Horace, Kant and
Plato—books fairies read— now to
Benedict, Peter Damian and Bernard of Clairvaux (and perhaps Marot) in a
universal language of Latin, Greek, French and Hebrew. Or draw
from models here afforded you, reverse
profiles of Osiris in bistre upon thin boards or
protective papyrus, or watch
kings, hash
gods of their kind, dismembered
by subjects drugged out of their minds— and
that’s a good thing. Love is
perilous, beleaguered, blind. Or,
finally, renounce a wish on the
cup, the lance, the sword and the dish. Did you
ring? For this
magnified penny world is a perfumed academic room Furnished
with poplar, osier, pipal, teak and wise broom Purple
robes with embroidered roses, and stone looms Batty
zombient atmosphere distinctly “avian”: goût grec, meubles Flavian—black archeology. The
White Cube is not a room. Proceed freely. Hier ist kein warum. The
topmost spray entreats “the” forty-ninth day of Y2K cliché
serves and inhabits cliché puns
savage reality. Why not
just say, fictive narration with true signification? This
crown of blossoms, this gay of hue: although
not heaven, this noisy earth is lovely too. Sraffa,
the correspondence theory of truth a tautology, We have
no emotional economy now—and no singing: we place
orders in a cave, The open
kept City—where every sex club is opacity
and its revolutionary committee— as
levels of human satisfaction, epidemic contagion of space. Judicial
astrology in Macrobian zone theory Characteristica
universalis differentiation
without gravitas Look! There are those who sharpen the tooth, glitter
with glory, sit in
the sty (jigger the dance) and
suffer in ecstasy— a moral
geography, quirky in the first instance. I could
not weep—the children wept. Bavius
and Mevius neatness
and philanthropy presents
and constipation: dark
origin of liberality Here they scum again! Here comes
one of the parings! They ask
the water buffalo to the bath In Cancer
above the flocks. It is July 14th,
it is One hour
and forty-three minutes. They
bring a lead rope or not. They
grab him by the nose. “Okay! Beast!” trahit sua quemque
uoluptas Look
here come two ambulatory cowpies! The
composed lady of Christ (self) and
futureless Miss Virginity (soul) beating
an antique drum—on the amorous green enamel out of
council in pandemonium. Look! Tiresias has his tit fresh
from the pallet of the posing misfit (that
forwardlooking nanogigawit) caught
in the wringer again! He’s
worse than Ruskin struggling
to master the seven laws of Tuscan! They
take us, leaving us behind, and Leaving
us behind, take us. Destinesia…Autopsy
of Ephesia Some
exercise upon the grassy-fields, but
grass is far from them and each ithyphallic goat is pined, Light Salutaris
Hostia In
malicious obedience to other laws, in plastic reaction, surcharged
with fairness Cool in
an ice age and clean as a piece of dusted glass Tableaux vivants in the crushing intercourse
light show of beryl, non-repeating paradise Naked
green Sparta boys and embarrassed, drowsy
melting pearl girls relentlessly against
one another in pugnacious array,
receptive and directive, white archeology hurling
invective, balsamed ephebi, hornless
epiphany, verging on majority, starved for authority, cries as
shrill as the sound of a dentist’s drill— echoing
to enjoy their Parian
marble bodies and their own ideas paradoxical
prudes, rapt swift sunny intertextual nudes Spiritual
eugenics: BIRG “Being
hated makes us beautiful and strong— mathodology:
the logic of the body” (the
comparison to the mud puddle): meeting
moths and Visigoths and
non-hurting of any small animal and
close observation of small things: beauty
is no longer sexually attractive two
spheres and a sounding obelisk skeletal
centipede atop the femur throne A
terrible booty is born Adorn in tears
amid the alien corn and not
a late bird or bat of day dare
extinguish that delight Glittering
with hatred and with bloody
throats in posthumous voice sing ara vos prec (Martha,
Sally and Aunt Flo are visiting), mental
Pez, an plutoed ode to divinity in a tone proper to sublimity Endlessly advancing, endlessly
resuming their initial positions, arrayed— to
repeat is not to reason— thirst
from the clear milky juice allayed a
thousand foreskins fall summer’s
gladness, repose, then a spasm of madness Tu as vu la mort en face,
plus de cent fois, Tu ne sais pas ce que
c’est que la vie. In perfect phalanx
to the Dorian mood, exhausted
tricky saffron himation against
fiery cotton chiton After
the bucolic diaerisis, before the sleepy feminine caesura Cold
pastoral! pepnumenos What is your name? periphron What is your name? Sunk in
the abyss of desire clay
babies melt the heart in laurel fire and
selfful desire little
bastards short and stout here is
their handle, which is also their spout: Oto, Flo, Clo, Leo Lio, Zio, Ojo, Geo Abbo,
gabbo, babbo Tebe,
plebe, zebe— Ineluctable
refinery! alder, poplar, heavenly fir Hunting in line, as if on physizoos earth again arrayed
in the middle air a sangha
member: don’t bear any children Or
wrestle on the yellow sands, desexuals With
strength hung in their dark blue steel hair (what if
that ancient hair were neatly arranged
with a boxwood comb!), The
spiritous hand of the land upon their shoulders, Virgil
and Rousseau, practicing skillfulness and trust, sand in
their hands, at speckled arm’s length militantly bland scarified
dominated must on their hands or woven
in their garments In
revelry of sport, in isolation taking bound
confict diamond hands Giving energetic
song to man, singing it in a
strange land one
small step for man. Ryskamp
the rabbit scribe among them with the
sky rooster, grinding herbs Orpheus
offending (for style is fate), Futurum: a trepanned poet en retard? not quite yet a bard? (What
was he thinking? Ryskamp,
like Stella, always loses at cards) Still,
the darling of the avant garde, pursuing
with Ciceronian aisance Things
unattempted yet in prose or rhyme (stil
nuovo!)— They do
say he… The
appreciation of his verse has
exceeded the prewar level. You who
are a copy, what do
you think of Nature Studies? — That
twice-dead mystery Ryskamp is a famous man, Skillful
maker of comparisons. quae Ryskamp praescripsit pagina nomen And what
of Metamusic? he transforms himself each fat
day anew—They say you play it with your eyes. Aimez-vous Ryskamp? (That
jabronie does this all the time!—he’s
especially fond of a rap around rhyme [“But
it’s to lengthen the poetic unit beyond the line! —longer
poems mean longer lines”] lives
like three angels terminate on the rhyme As if,
“All drama is mine” His
rhetorical bitches his sublime as if he
knows there is no genuine rhyme I’m
losing you That
ghost in the machine Where is
the concordance with his rhyme?—he writes The way
a Czech cook speaks German! Or a
Scotch puisne judge of decidedly French origen! — “There”
as if it rhymed with “near”! Keats in
rhythm with Yeats!) Annoyo
Babylonian! Xook! He talks
his book! He razed the silver roof with
changes to the net proof. One has
to hope he lives
in a world which rhymes like Pope and in
his bowels conceals a reciprocal global proof— or falls
off a roof! molti che forsechè
per alcuna fama in altra forma
m’aveano imaginato Concussive convulsive Complex
conventions for the sake of all people, The
convex lens of his conversation His
encyclopedist impulse does nothing
but repulse— Does he
even have a pulse? Than
whom none are wittier (Tho his
doggerel stinks like Whittier!) That
he’s obscene is clear
to any reader seated in Phase 13. “For
sure, some of his lines do fall
flat— his
metamorphoses are ovious—but he is Number One—how cool is that! He can
ride but he’s the devil to guide. Look**:
he simply sought images for thought and his
audacity like lion’s wings— motivated,
to be sure, by all things antiquated and
rhymes subject to extension into another dimension— flies, a
delay in glass, like time’s arrow to
expression of six personal things. It’s
cornucopic, honey, not myopic: he
provides the new metaphysical foundation of the world— he takes
it with him.” Yes, I
catch your drift: you
think that, like a postwoman, he’s better than Swift. In
incommensurate mastery concetti sprinkled
like confetti, more
twists and turns than a plate of spaghetti— but
don’t cry, feel
free to dissect him before he dies. He turns
up his nose And in
pitiful prose Turns
poetry into a small Cheshire Cheese. And worse! St. Ryskamp Demodocus! His
heart as broken as his
hollowed out verse! Figliuoli
where sì is spoken. “His
literary references violate sense—I’m losing you. There
has been a hostile influence a sort
of groping in cloacae for erotic penitence.” A
Veritable Bede! A
courtesan who reads! Ses tendences m’alarmaient! Bad
breath from reading Gide! perceptions
out of wedlock (this
poem is like his Bride, he
can’t keep his hands off of her!— so
learned his readers divorce him!— Modulations? Discrete. Allusions? Replete. Illusions? Complete. And the Lord knows what— an
excursion his readers take with aversion.) Who,
smitten by auctoritas, could say, “Go
to hell, Dante,” and make
hella rhymes that way— but he
has a headache today. Even if
it is not true I
can’t hear you even in
despite of truth we must
maintain it anyway. Estraneo a la bellezza,
non può essere nessuno Poetry’s
reflexive stores serve But to
renew his stock of metaphors! — And,
like Nature, half reveal The soul
within—and then conceal. O rustice et wozzock, ut quid opus tuum inter scriptores indi aestimas? qui saepius pro masculinis
femina pro femineis neutra pro neutra masculine
conmutas The work
some praise and some the architect parva quidem et humilia,
sed subtilia ac dulcia Ce charme! il prit
âme et corps Et dispera mes efforts Thus
gone, subtly of himself contemplative, vowing Eternal
hatred of poets and poetry, a nimble dance, no poet
but ego of poets, of a better nature, a few
years late (but
well worth the wait!)— then he
appears by speech (song is a need of man) who
walks beside him on the white road?
What is his Dao? Who is his
guide?— Is it
his sister? We. I can’t see: fears are in the way I do not
know who is going to come, there is
no root: where are you bound up? Two men are just, but held in
disregard, a weaver
by his tooth, a
compositor by his vacuous left thumb. Poetry
is the subterfuge of an age. Perhaps
he has a brain tumor. Philistines
and the Saracen and
Blake the watcher (Jesus from his tomb) again. Do you
think he wants to rival Apollo…? finding
the element of surprise in
poetry and hash gods’ eyes. It is
easy to kill people. lupi Moerim uidere priores The
muffled gentleman and the ghost of Moritz—but
what is the date today? to be an
azure Smyrna poet cristal comme un conscience a dancer
and a tree (and
root beside that tree) asphodel,
lilies and the dead mind,
inky ash and mud jade
crystallized from blood and
footprints crystallized in mud squeezing
my medicinal lemon dry, j’essaierai en
choeur d’endonner la note to
overwrite is to override thou are
to me but an
invisible thing a voice,
a mystery (the
more I age, the more this weighs on me) and a thing
apart amidst
abdicated snake hash gods, white notional scorpions and
clever, timid rats of fixed art in a
parable of the poet— we know
not whence come the
basic beats of rhythm Ach, wer heilet die
Schmerzen Des, dem Balsam zu Gift
ward? Der sich Menschenhass Aus der Fülle der
Liebe trank? Erst verachtet, nun ein
Verächter, Zehrt er heimlich auf Seinen eignen Wert In ung’nügender
Selbstsucht. Todestelle. Light Shedding veils on laurels, pulled away by an arm Slender
charm lotus feet and cool statist dignity leaving
a liver by a palm tree ritual
impurity! noxious magic! virginal irony Some
foot the bacchant rhythmic dance (they
have 0 tolerance for intolerance!) transferring
corn under the radar in
double flaming drishti of the orator stance in the
sacred grove of smoky inframince (the
medium says will sterilizes choice and nocturnal,
knowing chance) and, in
the hour’s right mode (cider
is the liquor of this ode), chant
locked poems aloud, love in
golden bee-loud bee breath— distichs, eclogues—rare
forms—ellipses of psalms (four
syllables for the eternal, six for time), chantefables and rational allegory
in the volgare illustre in a
style proper to comedy. music as
the key of love. Chausson:
Caillebotte in
another room. a language without synonyms cantares pares et respondere parati The Dance of Death, the Way: choroi in northsouth
progress, their foot their tutor, …les demains sont morts Friends
neither ardent nor weak Granite
monuments to granite Leur tête a du
requin et du petit-Jésus, needless Alpha
pups careless and heedless Regarding
neither swadeshi nor Hindutva Tho some
do their duty To the
Buddha and the booty later, departed from the Greek
Security Theatre, advance pacified
blackstone absolutist apsaras in a jetlag trance as if at
an immense séance follows
Orpheus Apollo ad vocem tanti senis to a
green thought in a green shade: a convenient park, a
beneficent orgy in a far from cool -.1
porous tufa grotto owing nothing to human artifice— forgetting
that recognition is begetting hyena
their emblem, fuck you their motto Soon Rameses the Great spits three
times. Air and
world unsought Central
focus of the eternal for a week Not
exactly statuesque—Picassoesque With a
crystal visor and a knot of ice These
kanephoroi and korai, showing
but a single face, jitterati, refugees from apogee spawning illiquid rescue fantasies
pressured
by a postmodern absence vegan
cannibals of the apricot tree who
scent (their only food) humanity’s
one, piddling accomplishment, endless
argument: when can
wan “I” die, pass and
pass by, beat up
the light, and
chase it like a kite through the sky? burdensome
grasshoppers, surfeit of data points, a
cacophony of maiden cicadas
(Gold hedge-crickets sing —actually
their thought is rather messy; it
springs from aspidistra, not the root of Jesse; their
movement, their doxology, from
metaphysics to epistemology— why not
just say, applied typology? they’re
dopes, who “mope” in an erotic trope passion
fueled with frankincense and empty hope) They are
those criminals whose
crime is to invent their symbols
Danseuses de Delphes, apple-cheeked melting
celebutants of la période flottante in amber
beads and five chignons, chicken cutlets
and butt paste with tribal bling bling, fly
tresses Dora,
Dora and Dora: bettys asexual
cornucopia, nonorgasmic utopia enduring
two changes, trivial systolic confinement:
disciplined diastolic expansion contracting
and expanding all their flexible senses In a
Herakles knot, streaming real-time between trailing firs. Gold
cicadas (which are quotations) on the
lifelike morning dew. tum uero in numerum
Faunosque ferasque uideres ludere, tum rigidas motare
cacumina quercus Metamorphoses
approach the epic. Fruits, leaves and human skin. Glimmers
of light amid the silver summit. minuet,
allegro, andante ground under Ixion’s wheel— chemical
syrinx music absorptive and resorptive! sonic doubles,
Stalinist hero twins, time devils, Hoho, He He (are
they twins or aren’t they? I
still don’t know what happened) race
teams, little light people in terza rima
the walking rhyme an
inglorious harmonious crowd of two in
involuntary certitude release amid the girlish sala
trees forgetting
human words and wishing
what is happening as if it weren’t pascentis seruabit Tityrus haedos will and
world-spirit unconscious where
evolution and relativity once held sway from
these notions they have simply walked away (as from
establishments far gone in madness— “And
every salmon day is new: Shouldn’t
every thought be, too? Trees
shed leaves: people shed ideas.”) rich in
the simple worship of a day. moving
in radio silence and detached hysteria to
unbearable Schubert terrible
lightning from the harmonium or shielding lute tunnels
between worlds in the
humility of the brute and love
affair with the assassin of the future absolute morbus
in patient pursuit in
distilled panic in the circle garden, to soft pipes, amid
meteoric obelisks and phallus-bearing herms, frenzy
in the broad cold palace (“feet,”
also “vestiges,” are a euphemism), pruned
trees by sepulchers, barebacked Priapus and Procne (a
surfeit of fruit, and dizziness), in a
field of non-actual hyacinths strewn
with weeping plinths, huntsmen
with horns spy on an
adminisphere of aquadextrous nymphs, a
caterpillar, a target, and music marked out, on a
beautiful soft poison tree, procreation
from friendly enmity, ravished
nightingales, reality by Satie: this all
takes place in Thessaly murderer
repeats his murder lover
his serenade robber
his robbery on the
foreground of Purgatory parallelogram
of painted wood for them
his ears gushed purified blood and yet
they call this Friday good end of
an endless childhood but
it’s all good— Jesus
before his mimetic birth love and hate movements of the
dance que peut signifier ceci breasts
white as a gambler’s cast dice with no
more sound than mice make their miniature hands move to
and fro in
childish carpalistics in exact
transmission of relinquishment and distress or of
ether, or airy, the
auricular or annulary—the funeral of a fairy; toying
with a filial fan like a dancer of the Han (or is
it a Junwazhe surfboard from Bhutan?) or in a
boat reciting Qu Yuan or bearing lilacs from France font moins de bruit que
des mouches immense
daisies must be daisies still, and
still saying, “We are here,” sunflower abuses, every hundredth
iris glares and
lotus stares, demurred
orchids flatter and follow everywhere, to the blind singer, discharging
all sound on a
drum: ominous, displaced white
counterfeit stags, in letters paw their
left ground (later lashed as riderless
they pursue their course) Subjective
and objective, none are
better known to the hound gazelles
predicative of the law What can
doves do when eagles come? (glocalize
the sound) the
enamelled melting Puvis girl in pig-tails and
Thetis are pregnant from the germ and in
labor among the hazels never-bathing
bears springing to life; Light
light in the
silence of prior discord, enemies
cancel each other out make one
music as before and love
at fat noon on the bathroom floor; mind and
soul, according well, according to the canon, defending
clefs in staves along the digital divide skipping
from junk to junk captive
flies with detached features, on burning soil, amplified
valerian, lilacs and rank ailanthus support the sky, calamus
and oak tree in the front garden (the
dead hyacinth girl is a melting live boy!— a
hyacinth in the mountains which shepherds trample
underfoot, its purple flower on the ground) “Black
roses” and golden armor on the grass
under a sky like lead only exaggeration
moves them who would not live long by their
own hard spirits deified, in natural piety— where
are the songs of spring? menis and cholos terror
and oblivion, mystic union with deity Daphnis
plants a once more extant pear tree but,
conceiving no aspiration, plants no seed of liberation thoughts
fed by the sun: what is my self? Devouring
womb, self-ruined wheat and poppies in the right hand, meadow
of violet and parsley dreaming of change as warriors
dream of childless war, and war
(a new home), the Trojan geste
(God’s boke) and the
acme of heroic saga, the war
of the bones, shock and awe, a bungle
sans the jungle—the maddened
love of Mars, killing
as mourning, mourning as wandering, nostalgia moving
as the real sun moves, swift-footed and swift-fated un soleil blanc comme un
crachat d’estaminet comme une glande
arrachée dans un cou, sweating selves in
date— less,
branding lively heat: griffins
and bloody pedigree mares mate Indecorous
Keats masturbates—dubbing sound—with Yeats draw
rein, draw breath lynx and
river spellbound a
wilderness of monkeys the boar
and the boarhound— they are
words dipped in meaning and sound— teaching
which enjoins the good is seldom found warmth
the sculptural condition enriching
soil, sweating surplus, fed by bees, opening
paths and tightening pores in a
pasture of steel BDN:
150,000, 000
dancing in the breeze they are dancing everything,
all lands are burning a
firedragon of the air Epos iam neque Hamadryades rursus nec carmina nobis ipsa placent; ipsae rursus concedite siluae V Every postwoman adores a Fascist. Which
was cruel, Mother, love or you? They
burst from the sauna like Jews from a grass chamber! One dog
goes in while another goes out. Waiting
out the regulars, They
don’t come and they don’t go. Jews and
screwdogs (dogs in heat). word and
word terrible
and gay Why are
you here every day? You’re
nothing if not in my way. I loathe
you—and I mean that in a loving way. Then
what they say three times is true: There’s
just no getting away from you (but
pines and laurels weep for you). Who knew You were
evil through and through? Then you
bit my pretty red heart in two. They quicken their pace as at a
lash, Nor wait
a second there, But pick
up their feet and make a dash. Ebbing
men, like shuddering toads from chthonic snakes, near the
bottom run, accroc de l’astre
jaune, éteint. The run
of the mill are ground under foot. Freud’s
filthy image came on more and more Yet
landed with but head and chest in view, Leaving
his tail where all the unjust covered waters roar, Eau et gaz rise from the
floor. Blind
house of woe, shutting the door on futurity (Shut
up! They have their Vanity to keep
them warm!)
Ach! du who walk alive, speaking well, Ryskamp,
you who are a copy, We have
lingered with the tips of our fingers in the
chambers of the sea Because
and because White
raisins, beautiful virgins and vaporized glass Fanatic
Egypt and her priests To
fright the reign of chaos Falconetti By
melting sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown Radiantly
sitting in a park in Paris, France Peace is
despaired, for who can think submission? Jane
Fonda The
world is named so Syncretic
Chinglish Till
human voices wake us, and we drown. genoi hoios essi: the world
congratulates the mind. A
mongoose spews a meteor, then the
circular origin of jewels. In whose
intelligences sixth in line Beyond
the utmost bound of human thought Let us
follow knowledge like a sinking star. Leering,
leering. the
clock on your wall the
clock on your VCR the
clock in your car the
clock on your wrist (your
watch must be fast) the
clock by your bed Ransack
the center hora and hebe divided
time My
cousin, my wife, what are we here for?—you’re asleep. I
can’t hear you. You are
eighty and I am eighty. It is
late in the
world and Aremideia must be
skillful in Upaya to teach it. My
wisdom is not very great. I have
turned into what I hate. I smell
a plum blossom in a cherry blossom Blooming
on a willow branch. Shuddering
orchids and narcisso floreat alnus peony
tree and chrysanthemum tea I engage
in 3-coloring. I use
Chvátal’s red comb. I think
it is night both
years and fat days deep midnight. And I, Asinius Gallus, held on to
one word Eyes
bandaged, With but
a memory of language, Lingering
between heaven and noisy earth In gray twilight
knowing Neither
victory nor defeat. Offered by a downy-lipped, chlamys-clad
melting eternal boy, a mere
intersexual lad in a wide-brimmed hat (his
anus holds the meat), a syrinx
air, and acorns in his aluminum hair so aloof
he falls off a silver roof! Early and late, foot and fate who
complains of Virgil, and that nothing happens in
“the” faint geologic Iliad,
Guarding
sheeple by an obelisk (or on a
half-reaped furrow sound asleep), leading
an unflawed complacent
ithyphallic goat from a fruit-laden vine, to an
old man blinded by an execution and led
by an unhealthy mongrel dog, a bunch
of acorns, cookies, a cold biscuit, then a cold potato. A set of
teeth and galvanized bones is
traveling upon this road through
explosive, tearstained bamboo, screaming
rabbits, tattered false flags no-go
zones, floral meteors and slag, prunus
and pine hunting the toad, to where
all loves end and all love ends, bearing
an impure load; but
better trudging through residue there—than living here— on
death’s hard royal road. Non sum qualis eram, there
fell my shadow, there falls my
shadow—a distant shadow rhyme… I cannot
endure an old man like myself.
I’m tired, the
soles of my feet are on fire. Hell
is middle
age—and the faces you meet. Square
principle, circular knowledge and the
cone of nonduality. What
pity! What pity! Only
exaggeration moves me. Parcels
and morsels, homage and regret. I like
to be alone, my
tongue’s a stone. Iron must
be the heart within me. A
poached egg underground, a windbag cobbler, an old
man but no bats hanging upside down swinging
the scaly horror of his folded tail, a white
ax in the open ground. Let me
load an empty autumn: The rug,
capsa, kandys and lamp of vigil, En bas, dans la nef
dalleé de pierres tombales A blind
insightful Sicel mother pouring chocolate and
opening blindfold a plain black egg to wisdom; in a
hanging osier basket, snake and an eaten filthy melting
baby boy; and
Friederike, a clairvoyant restless
dead child of seven: anastasis. A kettle
on the hob, some tea things on a shelf, a mirror
which does not show you yourself—who
is that blind starer? storehouse key, 9-eyed Gzi Cézanne’s
obliterated apple and 54-skull rosary. An indolent hash goddess on an
urn, a
melancholy nightingale in autumn, the
soul’s assent to exquisite constraints, the
perpetual triumph of sacrifice, terror and oblivion. Die Vögelein schweigen im Walde. Warte nur, balde ruhest du
auch. A red crab roasts on the
hearth— she
roasts her man without fire, and
hands him over to raw old age. Athena
stares—and burns. Late
Vesper lights the lamp— bid me
strike a match and blow. Scars
and music—and sing the sun to bed. A
sterile supreme hour has struck and The horse and the bull have
bridled their ardor. Darkness
hangs about me like a shroud or a sheet— tomorrow
I must go and go out and with myself compete. The
perishable sound of a bell. A hollow
form with empty hands. Youth is
landscape, old age the blacksmith’s cave. the
fence of time, the geological twilight The
repetitive stress of living, and the
drug of dreamed dreams. Yes, soon. You’ve said goodbye when you’ve said goodbye to the lantern of the moon. My fortune my misfortune. What
I heard In the wingbeat of a late bird.
Ah, misery! Glad to be old and not see this mess unfold even with my trousers rolled, soon to face the wall and not speak— thus gone, look after my soul in the seventh week and place a three-headed dog at my feet. I’m cold. Voll Güt’ ist, aber fasset Allein Gott. So lebte er hin It would be comforting to make
love with a woman, suckle and sing
the canticle of infinite gratitude Tre donne intorno al cor
mi son venute for
pleasure’s endless trance— or of
Kosovo or South Central L.A., in song: place it
on the female body. I would
rather be free than loved. What else have I to spur me into
song? Monetized
eyes that lured a doting boyhood Might
well fool a dotard’s age. BHAG:
Lord make me chaste, but not just yet. Silent,
unaccompanied English is the language of the sea, English
poetry like sinful karma runs to the sea And
remembers the Thames valley. November
10. I want to die. Shakespeare
and “heart.” Shakespeare
and “stick.” Everywhere
I turn robbed by the urn. Harp
hung upon the willow, a damask
drum hangs in the laurel tree. no long
time will you remain to me, a
semi-Islamic litsedei among the
fissiparous—in reality or what
us humans call childish reality. evading
the chain of causality Who was
the Prince Hal born under the sign of Gemini? (Master
Frost with his feeble stylus) I am not
rambling Prince Eliot nor was meant to be— Fascist
or Jew, he was once tall and handsome as you La pensée est la
houle ressassant le galet. What is
the use of humanity? Beautiful
body as you are, you’re dead now. C’est la chanson des
rêveurs Qui s’étaient
arraché le coeur Et le portaient dans la
main droite perceptions
out of wedlock Ratification
is a burning reality and ransomed heart-mystery. Di realtà e di
acqua: la ratifica è un altro. Tell
death I am coming, an old
hunter talking with knee-mail gods— but I am
not content, I want proof (do you
hear this nightingale? named Ruth—or
is it a toilet flushing? It
distracts my thoughts) I will
regress through age to youth. Let me
be! saeva indignatio: I sleep
beneath the greatest epitaph known to men: The Point
of View will see me through To my
death— or
should I take arms against a sea of troubles, like Macbeth? Con
usura nessuno ha una solida casa I have
seen deep-seated Phthia and know
the thoughts of men— And my
death belongs to me and it
walks with me and it talks with me. The
earth is already round. A loud
tree—but what exactly does the wolf see? I
can’t bear it. A
sighting of cacophonous humanity Such as
a Returning Angel—or Rimbaud—sees, Amalgam
of life forms, I am
tired of humanity—Ryskamp, it has
been a scene well set, and excellent company: may all
these characters remain when all
else is ruin once again. I do not
ask for a wife— I am a
poet of the afterlife, like
Keats, before and after life— sons,
money or a long life. I have
no father-in-law. And
seasons have no parents. quia amore langueo Imagine
all of humanity
leading you to death. I know I
do. You come
too. My hands
are numb, my insight dumb. One must
go to bed laughing. Humanity
is grass And
knows it. Pray you fill this glass. VI Speaking
first, you address the noisy assembly: Quickly,
run to where the starry passage starts! All
those rooms, white bears and passages are gone! as
is the exacting lawn! That
music is gone: where
are they? eternal west, seeking distraction In the
life it made. You were
born in the paradise of the fateless west. Goodbye. And was that past life a cool dream? a
shipwreck that in which
you doubt your sanity, and wag between extremes. Where
Idea, like a rétiaire, combs
her girl’s mane in this
soldier’s garden, microepic
tandemly repeated genes. With
burning sorrow, you have seen Apollo and your peers anew And
venerated the lyre. Night, adieu. Yes,
though sin and pride hath brought God’s wrath and
death of previous afterberths, Demoniac
cerebrates return And his
will the loving piece. Vetch and
lentil. Pleiades,
confused Boötes and Charlie’s wagon. Something
apart from the four statements. preserved
in transcendence in
perfection by divine judgment through
experience of youth through
the spinning wheel you saw the
confusion which now fell on our law Such is
the use of memory, Such the
string of desires. Liberation
from past, liberation from present, liberation
from future, liberation from
And that
reality within us awaits
the chore of ratification, Is the
chore of ratification. Systematization
of the chore Is
reality the experience, Long
experience the
illusion of reality within us and the
chore of another. Reality’s
chore within us is the ratification of another. Another’s
chore within us is the ratification of reality. . .
. Reality’s chore within us is the
ratification of another. Another’s chore within us is the
ratification of reality. :Let
gross minds conceive and see that
inscription on the gate. Wind-driven
souls on gilded runners run. As the
universe pursues its course Every
elbow-wiggle becomes a tour de force. With but
this was our universe begun, Mole and
mountain, sinner, sun. Two
spheres (sans obelisk) were joined by
“the” grace of their Creator Through
the third sphere of connectivity at their equator. In an
axial age, axle as praxis and axis—one
feels like applauding: the word
“earth” brought forth its birth. Carrying
bricks or be moved by something— but
I’ll discuss that later. A wig
rolling down a street, reburied in a pot of basil: What’s
unjust covered water but the generated soul? Thoughts
beyond reach through
ten thousand banana leaves of right speech grasp,
clutch and crush deformed— or
gently massage, masticate, mutate or
laminate liberal—speech. Tandemly
repeated genes. On gilded runners run. Ghostly gyres run on (and at
this pace, and in this wise): “Remember:
irregardless of what your feelings, motivation
or personal inspiration might Be please
remember: don’t act foolishly, proceed
methodically; convoy. Bee
break. Call 647-8262
and ask about that schedule: ‘I’m
losing you—CAN THEY GET
YOU A FLIGHT the hell
out of here without a stopover in Dallas?’ tonight. I’m cold. Is that door
shut? That door isn’t open or
shut. Yes? I
can’t hear you.” Marking
descriptions are not complete. The
lion’s share of ecstasy is, being a doer. Argos
and Neptune are wiped from your mind. The
virtuosic feat and extended body Two are
dripping in sweat while a third is dry A
mole’s adventures of a whackamole hole—and humankind Historical
relationships of text Impede
development and climax Factory
fabrication and tasklike activity and
climaxes come on the heels of one another and
Satan lacks a certain manual dexterity. Renvoi: Lady,
you farting devil, I am almost done Even
though touching the poem has not
begun in the time of
the portable sun when two languages become
neither two nor one. Then
it’s true, what they say three times about you. Why so
intent on being yourself? because you know, Still
registration, neutral performance on a human scale— Matters
not how golden—or stolen glance! can miss
the point of hell. Climax—are
you well? having drunk toad
venom from an oyster shell— not
standard stoppages in still suspension, was the
point of the fourth dimension. But that
was then, this is now: carry
bricks or be moved by something. If Virgil
had been Dante’s wife, would he
have written cantos all his life? “That
damned door, is it
emblematic of oblivion or terror, love or war?— Montashigi,
have you seen my @? I
forget—I’ve lost both eyes, I think
I might have left it with my . Or
perhaps it’s doing time with my Î. Where are they? This
then is your coda? Ipse dixit and Coca-Cola?— it’s
the coffee talking! and I mean that in a
decaffeinated way— if you
can see that in a life light more
than that of fat day.” ðð Let
gross noisy minds conceive, see and hear the
inscription on the sun (Hebraic
homily, nicht wahr?). Wake up. That’s
why separating-out is the point of departure at the gate (and we
are on the point of that departure now, just you
wait— English
tortures us with love, and that love with hate). Why a
physical “high” and “low”— a
mirrorical return of
uninterrupted forms and literalness— comme dans un haiku by Basho, basically,
severed heads tête-bêche
conversing in a Géricault. Did you
ring? Men are sick with love. Or why
historical relationships of text— see
semiotic sparks above— impede
development and vex the
virtuosic feat and extended body, or and here
I quote Collocation,
ascetic conjunction, Fire and married Love. Look**, on the one citron hand the
Jongleur de Notre Dame is doing
in the pureness of his blind outstretched
heart what he can. “Yet”
takes some stretch of the imagination—so
give me a pearl! And on
the other? The fool
is the happiest man in the nation For he
lives in a world of his own creation. Standing
surety for national security, There
will never be another Munich, says the
teeny weeny voice of the
commanding eunuch. C’est à dire, the
unresisting nation, in theme and variation, consumes
the universe in self-congratulation masked
and unmasked copulation and
chance dissimulation (it’s a work of installation!) and your
heart in (self-)laceration though
in this poem all is in musical relation (written
under observation—self the object of observation!). masked
and unmasked copulation Are
questions the agents of spontaneous regeneration or
mediumship dramatization? So…there
is no middle flight, no, to help
us through this night. Shut that
door— I think
it’s the bones of my Mother, or the
prophetic dream of my Mother. He
He! I’m
ignoring the strobes and tones (ringtone rage)! Yes? “I’m
sorry. There is no night flight
tonight.” Wind-driven
souls on gilded runners run, each
assures the other’s life to come. Fraud
most displeases God. Paradox, Natural
Mathematics, Relativity and Twentieth-Century Ideas By John
Ryskamp This is the story of an error. It identifies the error, describes it,
and tells how it came to be. New
historical research shows that twentieth-century thought was expressed in terms
of the “natural” mathematics developed at the turn of the century
in order to cope with the supposed “paradoxes” generated by
Cantorian set theory. Economics,
physics, biology—apparently no area of inquiry has escaped being made
part of the “natural” mathematics project. This mathematics asserts that
mathematical formulations are inherently anomalous; the evidence of this is
that they generate paradoxes.
Therefore, the idea that mathematics is an aspect of human perception,
must be made a part of mathematical formulations even though it plays no
internally consistent role in any “natural” mathematical
formulation. The polemical nature of “natural” mathematics—its
frank and unapologetic embrace of bad faith—is nowhere more clearly
stated than in this formulation of its latter-day incarnation, constructivism:
“Constructivism is a point of view (or an attitude) concerning the
methods and objects which is normative: not only does it interpret existing
mathematics according to certain principles, but it also rejects methods and
results not conforming to such principles as unfounded or speculative (the
rejection is not always absolute, but sometimes only a matter of degree: a
decided preference for constructive concepts and methods). In this sense the various forms of
constructivism are all ‘ideological’ in
character….Characteristic for the constructivist trend is the insistence
that mathematical objects are to be constructed (mental constructions) or
computed; thus theorems asserting the existence of certain objects should by
their proofs give us the means of constructing objects whose existence is being
asserted.” We shall return to
the “means.”[1] The role of
“natural” mathematics has gone unremarked for the very reason it
was influential in the first place.
Whether the researcher was the physicist Albert Einstein, the economist
Piero Sraffa, the logician Kurt Gödel, the philosopher Ludwig
Wittgenstein, or the biologist Motoo Kimura, scientists in non-mathematics
disciplines felt they were unable to express their ideas mathematically. This is the chief revelation of the new
historical research, and a remarkable and unexpected (given the exalted
reputations of these figures) unifying feature of twentieth-century
intellectual history. These
thinkers had to search for appropriate mathematical terms in the latest
mathematics of their day. They were
unprepared to cope with the idea that flaws in the mathematics lodged errors in
their theories. The current
reexamination of the mathematics of the disciplines began with the revelation
of the faulty approach taken to set theory by some of the chief proponents of
“natural” mathematics. It should be noted that
this unification of twentieth-century ideas on the basis of the
“natural” mathematics they share, was not the unification sought by
twentieth-century thinkers themselves.
It has gone pretty much unremarked that twentieth-century thinkers
sought to unify the disciplines on the basis of relativity. It has gone unremarked largely because
the project was abandoned when physics developed terms of art so
recherché that the data and concepts of other disciplines could not be
matched to them in an internally consistent way. The approach was swiftly abandoned, and
suppressed out of embarrassment. As
we shall see, bringing Einstein’s work into alignment with
“natural” mathematics—something which has not been possible
until now—allows us to begin asking the kinds of questions which will in
the end reveal precisely and in detail, the influence of “natural”
mathematics with which we still live and in which we still express our
scientific ideas. With the appearance of the
general relativity theory, it became increasingly difficult for other disciplines
to “map” their own terms of art to those of relativity in an
internally consistent fashion. But
we know now that it was attempted very high up in the western intellectual
hierarchy, as Galbraith[2]
has shown in his work on Keynes.
Ernst Mayr, at one time the doyen of
evolutionary studies, claimed during the 1950s that evolution could be seen as
a genetic theory of relativity.[3] However, the concept dropped
unexplained out of his later writings.
Today, of course, we say that it’s impossible: there are no quarks
in biology, no leptons in economics and certainly no charm in mathematics. You can’t get, logically, from any
concept in any of those disciplines, to any concept of the Standard Model. We smile at the naiveté of Keynes
for even attempting what until very recently we considered quite
impossible. And yet it is not
altogether fanciful to see internally consistent links between the relativistic
world and the biological or economic worlds. After all, light is one of the
postulates of relativity, as it is in biology, and humanity is part of biology,
and economics the study of one aspect of humanity. Links like that, however,
didn’t arouse the competitive instincts of early twentieth-century
intellectuals. What did arouse them
was the idea that Einstein’s special relativistic argument had wound up
at the top of the heap of argumentation.
His rhetorical strategy is what proved so seductive. We are starting to unpack that now in
the twenty-first century, as I shall show and as Andrea Cerroni[4]
has shown. However, at the time of
its appearance (although Einstein was frustrated at how long it took to gain
recognition even after the publication of the 1905 papers), what impressed
intellectuals was the special relativistic argument qua argument—above all, the relativistic “event,”
what today we would call a spacetime point. To them it was a matter
simply of ignoring the subject matter—the materials—of the
argument, and just looking at the argument as an internally consistent
structure. It was gorgeous—it
had no flaws. What was even more
impressive was that it required Einstein himself to point out the limitations
of special relativity. If you
could come to terms with his argument, then you could configure the terms of
your own discipline so that they mapped to relativity in an internally
consistent way. Then you would have
a relativity theory of economics, or biology—or even mathematics! It must be noted that we
are still enamored of the explanatory power of the Standard Model, despite its
having turned into something like a Christmas tree.[5] For this reason, historians of ideas pay
little attention to the idea that the fundamental ideas of relativity are
simply shared by the other disciplines.
We are still in an early stage of the examination of the influence of
“natural” mathematics.
The apparently bad experience of earlier attempts to unify the
disciplines, along with disciplinary hubris, still makes us leery of revisiting
the settled questions of the various disciplines. And there is nothing wrong with
respecting the boundaries these disciplines have set up for themselves. In fact, it allows us to take the chief
current ideas of different disciplines one by one, examining them on their own
terms in light of the latest mathematical historical research. This examination begins to reveal their
shared ideas, and the overarching concerns of twentieth-century thinking. In the course of this examination, we
shall see that we have begun to free ourselves of many received ideas. One of the most important
goals of the discussion which follows, is to briefly introduce specialists to
major monuments outside their disciplines and to provide reasons for
specialists to familiarize themselves with these works which, initially, may
seem to be remote from their concerns.
Why should a chemist read Sraffa, or an economist read Kimura? Hopefully, the linkage of these writers
through “natural” mathematics, will provide, above all, the
stimulus for specialists to reexamine ideas in their own fields which they take
too much for granted. Piero Sraffa’s Economics of “Natural”
Mathematics Production of Commodities By Means of Commodities[6] is still the most advanced
work of economics and one of the chief artifacts of the twentieth century. How does this famous work relate to
relativity? We know now that Sraffa
read books by Whitehead, Einstein and discussions of quantum mechanics.[7] By the time he came to these works,
“natural” mathematics was well under way. The “paradoxes” were so well
accepted that their origins—the exploration of which is the means by
which Alejandro Garciadiego reveals their flaws—had been buried. What we don’t know is the extent
to which Sraffa went beyond a general understanding of the terms he read and
was able to use them in their own context as terms of art. By the time he started working, had he
imbibed enough “natural” mathematics through other means that what
he read merely confirmed him in his procedures and terms?[8] It appears, by the way, that
Wittgenstein never read a word of Einstein—at least I have seen no
documentation of it, although there are comments on relativity in his remarks
on the foundations of mathematics[9]
and other places. Sraffa was not, I think,
sufficiently aware of the polemical program of “natural” mathematics
to be on his guard against it, and so he did not set himself the task of
looking into its terms.
Nevertheless, he may have sensed that something was amiss, and may have
simply been trying to express his misgivings using the received terms of art of
economics. Examining Production as a form of protest may, in
the end, make a lesser but more useful figure of Sraffa. That certainly seems the way we are
beginning to examine twentieth-century mathematics itself. It is an approach which allows works
which, otherwise, are strangers to each other, to “talk” to each
other. Sraffa, of course, tried
his hand at unifying economics and physics, without much success. It does not appear that he was
particularly on his guard about the whole notion of terms of art, and he
tended—at least early on—to pile one vague term on another. Look at the project he set for himself:
“I foresee that the ultimate result will be a restatement of Marx, but
substituting to his Hegelian metaphysics and terminology our own modern
Metaphysics and terminology: by metaphysics here I mean, I suppose, the
emotions that are associated with our terminology and frame…[,] that is,
what is absolutely necessary to make the theory living…, capable of
assimilation and at all intelligible….This would be simply a translation
of Marx into English, from the forms of Hegelian metaphysics to the forms of
Hume’s metaphysics.”[10] But “translation” is not
really what goes on when the basis of a later theory, is the pointing out of an
internal inconsistency in an earlier theory: the earlier theory is not
“in a different language”—it is simply wrong; more precisely,
it is meaningless. No translation
brings meaning to light in something which has no meaning to begin with. Sraffa’s idea was
naïve even at the time. If
“translation” was ever used to link Newtonian to relativistic
mechanics, it was an indulgence to a relativistic beginner, it was designed to
lead the beginner to an understanding that Newtonian mechanics had no logical
content. Neither is it clear what
he means by the rest of his terms.
What did he mean by “our own modern Metaphysics?” What “Metaphysics?” Certainly relativity was a protest
against “metaphysics,” if by that Sraffa means arguments which
depend on terms not internally consist with all the other terms of the
argument. On what basis did he feel
that “Hume’s metaphysics” were “our”
metaphysics? And what did he mean
by “Hume’s metaphysics?” Needless to say, all this
was going very far afield of economics, but it was not necessarily fatal. However, when some connection is claimed
based on “Metaphysics,” we certainly have the obligation—and
he had the obligation—to inquire into the connection between his conception
of “Metaphysics” and the conclusions he reached as the meaning of
received terms of art in his discipline.
Which means that he should have investigated more closely the nature of
the mathematics he used and, for that matter, the natures of the most advanced
physical theories of his day: evolution and relativity. Whatever else he meant by
“Metaphysics,” he seems—when he uses such terms as a
“living” theory—to have meant those arguments which seemed to
be logical to his contemporaries (although the term seems to be grounded in Romanticism). That certainly seemed to be his
complaint about Marshall’s work: it claimed to be state of the art, but
it was internally inconsistent. I
don’t notice that he ever posed that query to any of the mathematicians
he consulted, or to evolutionary theory, or to relativity theory. Instead, Sraffa seems to
have regarded relativity as standing for the proposition “that for every
effect there must be sufficient cause, that the causes are identical with their
effects, and that there can be nothing in the effect which was not in the
causes: in our case, there can be no product for which there has not been an
equivalent cost, and all costs…must be necessary to produce it.”[11] These commonplaces were, of course, a
serious misreading and later a misapplication of relativity, further compounded
by an even later putative rejection of the misreading. Sraffa disliked subjectivism in economic
analysis, but according to relativity, terms such as “cause” and
“effect” are problematic—they simply are not relativistic
terms of art. At the same time, if Sraffa’s
use of generalities seems to take him further and further away from relativity,
the linkage between Einstein and Sraffa in terms of “natural”
mathematics, makes possible an evaluation which previously was not possible. We can formulate a much more precise
question in an attempt to carry out Sraffa’s project to
“translate” economic terms of art into “our own modern
Metaphysics.” For example, is
the following statement by Sraffa, nothing other than the restatement of a
spacetime point? [F]or circulating capital,
at the same moment that its value passes into the product, in most cases, also
the material substance which is the bearer of that value, either passes into
the product (raw material) or anyway passes out of the process of production
(e.g. fuel). On the other hand, for
fixed capital, the transfer of value from, e.g., the machine to the product,
appears as a purely abstract process, which takes place without any
corresponding transfer of material substance: that value is passed is undoubted,
for the machine decreases in value while the product increases, but the machine
remains complete in all its parts, with its efficiency unimpaired for the time
being, and ready to resume operation in the next year. In order to see how this abstract process
takes place an abstract point of view is inevitable.[12] It seems now that every
term Sraffa used—production, commodity, and so on—are terms of art,
with no lay meaning, which means that everything he wrote has to be
reinterpreted in terms of “natural” mathematics and the problems
with that mathematics. What is the
geometrical expression of Sraffa’s statement above? By way of contrast to his previous
statement, this statement introduces a term of art, the term
“abstract,” by means of which it seems that all the other terms in
the statement become terms of art as well.
Consider, for example, that we cannot understand the word
“capital” as used here, as having any of the meanings we previously
associated with it, but instead, only the one Sraffa gives it in his
argument. Since this opens up the
possibility that that argument is the “natural” mathematical
argument, we can in turn subject it to questions relating it to relativity as
another expression of “natural” mathematics: 1. What are Sraffa’s assumptions here
about light? about biological theory (considering Production deals with agricultural production)? 2. What is the economic “event”
here, regarding that as a spacetime point? 3. Does the approach here reflect the
“natural” mathematics as of the 1942, when it was written, or the
developments of physics of the same period? We think of the
“developments” of “natural” mathematics as ridiculous,
rather like the “development” of phrenology. However, its practitioners
were—and are—busily scribbling away. Did Sraffa “keep up” with
this nonsense and “incorporate” it? 4. What are Sraffa’s mathematical
assumptions in this statement? Are
they entirely Euclidean, or Euclidean at all? Remember that Einstein adopts strict
Euclidean ideas as the assumptions of special relativity, along with the
constancy of the speed of light. 5. Does the train experiment in Relativity map logically to the Production “event”? 6. Above all, is the Standard Commodity an
artifact of “natural” mathematics? It would seem so. We shall have occasion to
give Einstein’s formulation of a spacetime point as this same train
experiment, and open up the possibility of setting Einstein’s and
Sraffa’s statements side by side as expressions of one idea, or different
aspects of one question. In this
latter statement of Sraffa, what “paradox” is he trying to express,
what “paradox” is he trying to avoid? Perhaps a good place to
begin understanding Sraffa’s relation to the set-theoretic
“paradoxes,” is Karl Marx’s own concern with paradox. Marx’s intellectual career began
with the study of logic, and his mathematical writings reflect his emphasis on
“the distinction between the real contradictions characteristic of
reality and the contradictions of the sophist type,” the latter giving
rise to the “paradox.”[13] Given Sraffa’s own interest in
finding a mathematical expression for his ideas, perhaps he sought to mediate
between the two notions, and so found attractive a mathematics derived from
Cantor’s own putative ability to deduce rules from reality. However, he would also have had to
grapple with Cantor’s ill-defined notion of “intuition” as
differentiating the rule from the reality.
Is this what Sraffa meant by a “translation of Marx?” We need to know much more about the
written comments Sraffa made on his readings of Marx. Sraffa’s work of the
late 1920s on what would become his “production equations,” bears
such a striking resemblance to Cantor’s 1895 paper on transfinite
cardinal and ordinal numbers that it seems Sraffa came to his task with quite
an advanced case of “natural” mathematics, even if one not
contracted at the source. This link
is implicit in one scholar’s recent work showing that the “natural”
mathematician Frank Ramsey’s vaunted influence on Sraffa is both misstated
and overestimated.[14] Sraffa—not Russell, Gödel or
anyone else—is Cantor’s true successor, Sraffa’s “real
costs” being the expression, in economics, of the “natural”
mathematics idea that mathematics is an inherent human faculty. Kurt Gödel’s Insufficient Examination of
“Natural” Mathematics It is clear now that
Alejandro Garciadiego’s book[15] on
the set-theoretical “paradoxes” is a dagger pointed straight at the
heart of Gödel’s theorem.
Above all, this devastating book shows that the various paradoxes which
so entranced Bertrand Russell and his contemporaries, weren’t paradoxes
at all—they weren’t anything at all, they were nonsense, letters
pulled out of a bag. For example,
he shows that the famous “paradox” of Cesare Burali-Forti simply
does not exist. In the context of
an attempt to prove the Trichotomy Law, Burali-Forti tried “to prove by reductio ad absurdum that the hypothesis
[involved in his own argument] was false and this method required supposing the
hypothesis true and arriving at a contradiction. The employment of the hypothesis, as an
initial premise, generated the inconsistency. But once the hypothesis is seen to imply
a contradiction it is thereby proved to be false.”[16] It is doubly disconcerting
to note that Gödel approvingly cites Richard’s paradox in his 1931
paper. Gödel accepted the
false but widely held tradition that Richard argued that truth in number theory
cannot be defined in number theory.
It turns out that what is undefined in Richard’s argument (as he
himself pointed out) is the number crucial to making the argument. As Garciadiego notes, Richard called his
argument a “contradiction,” not a paradox, and, specifically
referring to his formulation (his paradox—and all notable ones—are
available online) said that “the collection G had meaning only if the set
E was defined in totality; this could not be done except with infinitely many
words.” However, nothing
daunted, Gödel added to Richard’s argument the idea that provability
in number theory can be defined in number theory, and came up with mistaken
result that if the provable formulae are all true, then there must be some true
but unprovable formulae. Gödel
depends, for an internally consistent distinction between truth and
provability, on the idea that there is some logical content to Richard’s
“paradox.” Because that
“paradox” has no logical content, we are left not with an argument,
but instead with a question not previously: what is Gödel’s
argument? Is he actually making an
argument? This change in attitude
toward Gödel’s theorems, is one of the first revolutions wrought by
the historical inquiry into “natural” mathematics—but it is
not the last. Above all, as we
shall see it allows us to link Gödel’s ideas in an internally
consistent way, to those of other twentieth-century thinkers, the goal of our
present inquiry. And special
relativity? In fact, we know very
little about Gödel’s study of relativity through the years, apart
from his rather uninteresting later relativistic studies, and Solomon Feferman
in his editorial notes to Gödel’s Works is quite dismissive of some of Gödel’s
restatements of relativistic ideas—in fact, he is rather dismissive of
some of Gödel’s restatements of Gödel’s own ideas. When did Gödel first read the 1905
papers, or did he ever read them?
We just don’t know. This leads us to ask the
same sorts of questions about Gödel’s paper as we do about
Sraffa’s book. Is there an
assumption about light in that paper?
This seems a very odd question, even an inappropriate one, to ask about
a mathematical argument. However,
Gödel provokes it with this remarkable statement in his paper:
“Numbers cannot in fact be put into a spatial order”—this is
the infamous footnote 8. What does
he mean by a fact? by space? What
are the Euclidean assumptions, if any, of the paper? What, in special relativistic terms, is
a Gödelian event? Is
Gödel’s theorem an argument at all, and if so, is it, not a
metamathematical argument or even a piece of formal logic, but in fact a
straightforward physical theory? Is
the paper nothing more than a retelling of Einstein’s train
experiment? It is almost certainly
the case that Gödel’s theorems do not say anything. Motoo Kimura’s Search for a “Natural”
Mathematics It may well turn out, based
on an improved understanding of “natural” mathematics, that it was
not Einstein who developed the special relativity theory, but instead, Mendel
and Darwin, because the rhetoric of geometry—the “natural”
geometry—in both Mendel’s paper and Darwin’s Origin is what we now recognize as
demonstrably similar to the geometry Einstein sets forward in the train
experiment in Relativity. Only an understanding of
“natural” mathematics makes this linkage possible. Just as Einstein sets it forward to
articulate the physical event, so Mendel and Darwin use it to articulate the
biological event. It is in biology,
of course, that we are most justified in asking for an internally consistent
discussion of light. Do Darwin and
Mendel, and later Motoo Kimura, have light as an assumption in their arguments,
and what is that assumption? Are
their assumptions Euclidean? Or
better yet, if Einstein were to posit a relativistic biological event, how
would he express it? Or is he
expressing it? Is selection the
relativistic event? These are not questions
necessarily restricted to special relativity. This is because Kimura is a
statistician. His increasingly
sophisticated use of statistical concepts led him to a mathematical apparatus
which, in The Neutral Theory of Molecular
Evolution, looks remarkably similar to the mathematical apparatus of, say,
Richard Feynman’s QED.[17] The modern discipline of statistics
grows out of “natural” mathematics. Are the similarities internally
consistent? Is Kimura’s
random drift—responsible, in his view, for most mutation, rather than
selection pressure—an exception to selection, or is it an exception to
relativity? What is his biological
event: substitution? mutation? selection? something else? Is the neutral theory a biological
theory, or a physical theory? This
latter question arises in considering a comment drawn from Kimura by a
critic. In response, Kimura says:
“Just as synonyms are not ‘noise’ in language, it is not
proper to regard the substitution of neutral alleles simply as noise or loss of
genetic information….It seems to me to be more appropriate to say that
strictly neutral alleles are absolutely noiseless.”[18] These metaphors are physical ideas. Of what? The basis for unfolding the
context of the terms of art of these different disciplines, is the
understanding that they emerge from a shared “natural”
mathematics. The latest expression
of this point of view is self-confessedly ad
hominem: “humans are so constructed as to conceptualize the world in
terms of some simple fundamental categories (e.g., as comprised of individual objects standing in various
relations); that the world, to a large extent, is properly described as so
constructed (up to the point of quantum mechanics, at least); and that a
rudimentary logic is implicit in these shared structures….”[19] Neither Kimura nor Sraffa came to his
discipline from mathematics, and they felt they needed a mathematical
expression for their ideas. Kimura
learned French rather late just so he could read Gustave
Malécot—who pioneered the use of “natural” mathematics
in biology—and Sraffa went, like Diogenes, through mathematician after
mathematician searching for the mathematical expression of his ideas. We still need to clarify the doctrinal
influence on Sraffa of two “natural” mathematicians—Frank
Ramsey and Abram Besicovitch—as opposed to the technical assistance they
gave him. At any rate, Ramsey spent
much of his brief career exploiting a quixotic and quite baseless assumption of
difference between types of “paradoxes”—which were not
paradoxes. Did he put Sraffa in the
picture on the problems with the set-theoretic “paradoxes?” Almost certainly, no. Was Sraffa in a position to ask about
them? No. Did Ramsey himself bother to find out
about them? No. Historical research is
revealing the difficulties in the chief ideas of “natural”
mathematics. For example, L.E.J.
Brouwer promulgated what he called an “infinite ordinal
number.” Supposedly this
notion had been ratified by Georg Cantor’s well-ordering of the ordinal
numbers. But it turns out that
Cantor never did so, never claimed he had done so, and never used the term
“infinite ordinal number.”
As Garciadiego says: “[G. G.] Berry maintained that Cantor had
virtually proved the existence of the well-ordering of the ordinal numbers by showing
that ordinals of the second class are well-ordered….but Cantor simply
indicated that ‘we shall show that the transfinite cardinal numbers can
be arranged according to their magnitude, and, in this order, [they] form, like
the finite numbers, a ‘well-ordered aggregate’ in an extended sense
of the words.’”[20] Nevertheless, Brouwer’s term
worked its way into the discourses of Émile Borel (the mentor of
Malécot), Andrei Kolmogorov, Haskell Curry and John von Neumann, and is,
regrettably, at the heart of contemporary probability and computational theory;
computer science is replete with “natural” mathematics—what
false results is it thereby giving us?
The project of
“avoiding” or “solving” the “paradoxes,”
comes almost immediately to dominate twentieth-century mathematics itself, with
all the problems inherent in addressing issues which do not exist. It is worth noting that neither Frank
Ramsey nor Alonzo Church nor Alan Turing—nor other figures such as Kurt
Gödel, Rudolf Carnap or Alfred Tarski—ever considered whether the
“paradoxes” might be simply meaningless. They all believed that these arguments
had at least some logical content, and that that content had implications with
which they had to deal. From this
initial error, many other errors followed.
As Garciadiego makes abundantly clear, the “problems” of the
“paradoxes” proceeded in no way from logic, but instead, from
Russell’s megalomania. Alonzo
Church had problems with definitions: “A function is a rule of
correspondence by which when anything is given (as argument) another thing (the
value of the function for that argument) may be obtained.” The problem is the word
“thing,” which is never defined. Church subscribes to the
“definition of simple order in terms of the relation precedes,”
which he attributes to Cantor.
However, this attribution is in the context of Cantor’s
formulation of the notion of a set, a notion, as Garciadiego says, comprising
“properties…so unsound that the theory seems to be the product of a
charlatan.”[21] Indeed, one of the most important
revelations of the new mathematical historical research is, Cantor as natural
mathematician: “Cantor tried to develop organicism with all the
conceptual and methodical rigor of mathematics: he scored ‘dialectical
logic’ and tried to penetrate into the matrix notion of the continuum by
studying point-sets and the mathematical infinite. He attempted to become a Newton of the
organic world, developing the needed mathematical tools and applying them to
natural phenomenon.”[22] There was not paradox, or anything else,
to be found in such a project. It is likely that we can
put most twentieth-century disciplines in the form of Richard’s
“paradox,” see how they partook of “natural”
mathematics, and reveal their flaws.
Now that we are more familiar with the idea that the project of the
twentieth century—regardless of discipline—is “natural”
mathematics, it is probably best to approach any idea in a twentieth-century
discipline with two questions: what “paradox” is it trying to
avoid? what “paradox” is it trying to express? It should not be surprising
if biology turns out to be a branch of physics. Most of Gregor Mendel’s published
papers are in meteorology. Charles
Darwin began as a physicist seeking to describe reality and that concern is
recurrent. He first sought to do so
in the context of cosmology and geology and only later turned to biology, as we
see when he presents his physical ideas in a book no one reads anymore, The Structure and Distribution of Coral
Reefs (1842).[23] For Darwin, the identity of physics and
biology is due to the progressivism of reality. Nature—encompassing all the
disciplines—is the continuum of that progressivism; paradox supposedly
flowed from the tension between perfection as an assumption and progressivism
as a conclusion. Both Mendel and
Darwin seem to have turned to biology because it offered more, and more
internally continuous, physical data than cosmology or geology. Of all twentieth-century researchers, it
appears to be Kimura who took his discipline closest to relativity. Is that true? Both Darwin and Kimura set their work in
the context of physics. Darwin says
“that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law
of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” Kimura’s gloss on this passage is
to remind us that although mutational “random processes are slow and
insignificant for our ephemeral existence, in the span of geological times,
they become colossal.”[24]
Indeed, perhaps a clue to
understanding Sraffa’s use of “natural” mathematics, can be
found in this comment on Marx by David Riazanoff, the editor of his notebooks:
“If in 1881-82 [Marx] lost his ability for intensive, independent
intellectual creation, he nevertheless never lost the ability for research.
Sometimes, in reconsidering these
Notebooks, the question arises: Why did he…expend so much labor as he spent as late as the year 1881, on
one basic book on geology,
summarizing it chapter by chapter.”[25] What was Gödel’s or
Sraffa’s theory of geology?
We in turn hunt among concepts such as “fixed law,”
“gravity,” “random” and “geological times”
for the necessary internal links between geology, physics and biology…but
perhaps these words have fallen apart and we cannot use them anymore. It appears, in any event, that if
physics was the monarch of twentieth-century science, during the nineteenth
century, the resort was to geology to test all theories. Perhaps we don’t understand
twentieth-century thinkers very well because they’re not
twentieth-century thinkers: they’re nineteenth-century thinkers. And as for nineteenth-century thinkers
(and before), we don’t understand them very well, either, because we
don’t understand the prejudices we share with them. The neutral theory of molecular
evolution is said to remove many facts from selection. Much more important is the idea that
Darwin and Kimura use “natural” mathematics. This is a charge laid against both of
them. Another idea is also
beginning to take shape: there are no “paradoxes,” at least as far
as we know. Researchers, it seems
to me, have resisted looking into the set-theoretical paradoxes because it
leads us further and further back in time and so implicates more and more
important ideas. If the
set-theoretic “paradoxes” are not paradoxes, are the earlier
paradoxes (for example, the liar paradox) really paradoxes? And more importantly, to what extent are
the earlier mathematical expressions in the various disciplines, simply
projects to “avoid” or “solve” these paradoxes, which
in turn may not be paradoxes at all?
To what extent is the history of objective discourse, a falsely based
“natural” mathematics having no logical object? To what extent can we say to everything
we currently consider to be internally consistent: what is your argument?[26] And relativity? In taking even a retrospective glance at
the works of only three twentieth-century figures in relation to relativity, we
are free to put ourselves very far in the future, at a time when an internal
inconsistency has been found in relativity itself and that theory is an
historical artifact. Then the three
look to be, not attempting to map their work to relativity, but rather, using
the inherited concepts of their respective disciplines to critique relativity,
looking for an internal inconsistency which actually lies in the
“natural” mathematics Einstein shares with them. Consider this passage from
Lawson’s accurate translation of Einstein’s Relativity: Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and
B) which are simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also
simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the answer
must be in the negative. When we
say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to be
embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where the
lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-point M of the length AB of the
embankment. But the events A and B also correspond to positions A and B on the
train. Let M1 be the mid-point of the distance AB on the traveling train. Just when the flashes (as judged from
the embankment) of lightning occur, this point M1 naturally coincides with the
point M but it moves…with the velocity…of the train.[27]
This passage is by now so
familiar that we think there can be nothing new to be seen in it. But there is: it is the term,
“naturally coincides.”
This term (“fällt zwar…zusammen” in the German)
leaps out at us because we are looking at it with twenty-first century eyes,
not twentieth-century eyes; indeed, perhaps the most difficult cultural task
now before us is simply to realize that we are not living in the twentieth
century. “Natural” coincidence is
otherwise known as a spacetime point.
Einstein has already spent twenty-odd pages of this very brief book
laying out the assumptions which underlie the train experiment. He is very careful about being
consistent with them, and he is a devoted and very strict Euclidean. But Einstein was not, it appears, quite
careful enough. We know that he is
assuming, along with Euclid, that the definition of the coincidence of two
points is a point. However, we have
never gotten (and never get, in any of Einstein’s writings) a definition
of a “natural” coincidence of two points. This alone prevents us from going on and
this argument, which defined the twentieth century, abruptly ends. We also have a problem if we try to
resolve the issue ourselves. If we
simply drop the term “naturally” we run into a situation in which
Einstein has told us to assume two Cartesian coordinate systems, but now leaves
us with one, since, following from the definition of the coincidence of two
points, if two parallel coordinate systems coincide at one point, they coincide
at all points and are one coordinate system, not two. We have been led to a
contradiction. It is alarming to
reflect that this “natural” coincidence miscalculation is the essence
of each and every argument of quantum electrodynamics. Surely now that it has been identified
and explain, it will be corrected. A comment by Einstein illustrates his
unprompted conflation of “natural” mathematics and geometry: It is clear that the system of concepts
of axiomatic geometry alone cannot make any assertions as to the relations of
real objects of this kind, which we will call practically-rigid bodies. To be
able to make such assertions, geometry must be stripped of its merely
logical-formal character by the co-ordination of real objects of experience
with the empty conceptual frame-work of axiomatic geometry. To accomplish this,
we need only add the proposition:--solid bodies are related, with respect to
their possible dispositions, as are bodies in Euclidean geometry of three
dimensions. Then the propositions of Euclid contain affirmations as to the
relations of practically-rigid bodies.[28]
It is important to note
that these statements play no logical role at any stage of the relativity
theory—in particular, they are not among the assumptions of the
relativity of simultaneity. Indeed,
they are completely idiotic—if Einstein hadn’t made them, we
wouldn’t give them a moment’s notice, because they play no logical
role in any argument. However, they play a vastly important
cultural role—the examination of which is beginning with the new
mathematical historical research—in the theory of relativity and in an
increasingly large number of other important ideas. It hardly needs pointing out that not
only is there no “stripping” in the train experiment; there is no
“adding,” either.
Einstein shows in this passage that he has imbibed “natural”
mathematics; the train experiment itself, however, merely shows an internal
inconsistency. Perhaps Einstein would not
have made this mistake had he inquired into the background of
Poincaré—having a good opinion of Einstein, we like to think that
he would have realized it was rubbish.
On the other hand, he never did make this inquiry, and he lived for fifty years after the 1905 papers. That’s not so
excusable—it’s laziness, and self-satisfaction. Today, Einstein’s statement looks
to be an astonishingly inept basis for a world-renowned argument. As a point of view, it is nonsense. We like to think that can only ever have
been accepted as a basis for relativity because it seemed to create no problem for
relativity. And yet it is not
surprising that Einstein’s acceptance of Poincaré’s point of
view should have led to a logical error in relativity. Poincaré may have had other
virtues, but logic was not his forte.
As the historian of set theory Ivor Grattan-Guinness points out,
Poincaré had a “contempt for logic (and also ignorance of
it)….” Poincaré
understood mathematical logic “not very deeply….”[29] And yet it needs to be clearly
understood that those who find internal consistency in relativity have one
opponent with whom to contend: Einstein.
We see now that he never intended relativity to be internally
consistent, and he made sure that it was not internally consistent. The question is, why anyone ever thought
it was internally consistent? How
can the manifestly insupportable protocol of inserting a statement arbitrarily
in an argument, have gained acceptance?
First, it becomes ever clearer that it has been accepted in mathematics
itself as far back as recorded history takes us: precedent sanctioned it. Also, it gave acceptable results, both
within mathematics and in disciplines which used mathematics, and the procedure
itself was not identified. It was
sanctioned by highly regarded thinkers.
There was not sufficient strength of mind to resist it. Finally, there was ignorance and
misunderstanding of the history of all the disciplines—above all, of
mathematics on the part of specialists in disciplines which employed
mathematics. A spacetime point is no
longer a physical fact, it is an outmoded doctrine—a twentieth-century
expression of Newton’s ether.
This is the first occasion we have to note a logical mistake in
Einstein’s fundamental ideas.
As it happens, we know how he came to make it. As pointed out recently, Einstein was
enormously impressed by Poincaré’s Science and Hypothesis (1902), making a “careful
reading” of it.[30] Alarmingly, we have very recently been
told that Sraffa “studied intensively” this same book.[31] That’s not a good sign; indeed, it
makes us wonder if Sraffa’s idea of the “abstract” is the
same as Einstein’s view of the “natural.” What they were totally unprepared for
was the “natural” mathematical point of view Poincaré was trying
so hard to sell them. As
Garciadiego points out, Poincaré used the book to set out “numerous
inconsistencies arising from set theory....Poincaré was hunting for
‘paradoxes’ because he was trying to discredit both Cantor’s
theory of sets and Russell’s logicism.”[32] But there were no paradoxes. The young Einstein faced
both a well-developed mathematical debate and a polemic. He had no idea of this. Note that at no time did Einstein ever
question the status of the set theory, or other paradoxes, or the historical
approach developed to deal with them (neither did Kimura or Sraffa). Instead, he felt comfortable expressing
the relativity of simultaneity through “natural” mathematics
without ever examining it, with disturbing consequences for his theory. In Poincaré he read and accepted
the idea that “the mind has a direct intuition of this power
[“proof by recurrence” or “mathematical induction”],
and experiment can only be for [the mind] an opportunity of using it, and
thereby of becoming conscious of it.” In geometry “we are brought to
[the concept of space] solely by studying the laws by which…[muscular]
sensations succeed one another.”[33] These ideas were developed in order to
deal with paradoxes which did not exist.
Thus, they had no object—they related to absolutely nothing. Poincaré is such an unreliable
guide that we have to look very skeptically at the work of anyone who was
influenced by him. This idea of
“succession” was vital if the “standstill” to which the
“paradoxes” had brought mathematics, was to be overcome. As we shall see, this logically empty
notion was applied with damaging results. We now understand, however,
why we never find “natural” coincidence among Einstein’s
postulates or definitions or among his conclusions: those are not its job. Its job is to float free of all context—depending
on shared prejudices or simple uninquisitive ignorance in order to stay
afloat—serving as a facilitator of arguments which cannot be carried out
logically. Thus, we see exactly why the term occurs where it does in the relativity of simultaneity: it
“allows” one point to “succeed” another, in conformity
with the demands of “natural” mathematics. For the first time, we see
Einstein—not as our contemporary—but rather, as a figure out of the
past. He is hobbled by that by
which we distinguish all figures out of the past: by the infirmity of his
intellectual appartus. Where is
“natural” coincidence in Gödel? in Sraffa? in Kumura? Einstein also used
“natural” mathematics in his earlier comments on Brownian motion,
with disturbing effect: “Einstein begins with an assumption whose status
is still problematic and troubled his contemporaries: that there exists
‘a time interval τ, which shall be very small compared with
observable time intervals but still so large that all motions performed by a
particle during two consecutive time intervals τ may be considered as
mutually independent events….’” As the author of this passage notes,
“[t]his is essentially a very strong Markov postulate. Einstein makes no attempt to justify
it….[W]here mathematics ends and physics begins is far from
clear….”[34]
We also see emerging in
Einstein’s thought a tenet of “natural” mathematics not
usually associated with him: he believed that reality is progressive. That, of course, is not an acceptable
stand today in any scientific argument; it was dismissed during the twentieth
century, which is the Age of the Term of Art. It required perspective on
“natural” mathematics in order to realize that it nevertheless is
part of Einstein’s thought. One of the tenets of
“natural” mathematics is that it either is one of the natural
sciences, or is intimately related to them. Cantor expressed his devotion to
“natural” mathematics in his belief that chemistry and mathematics
are the same thing. Of all his
formulae, the most important is: chemical valence=cardinal number. Einstein himself seems to regard the
shift to Darwinian biology—effected, in his view, by a substitution of
assumptions—as paradigmatic of the shift, again in his view, from
Newtonian to relativistic mechanics: regarding the paradigm, “[a]s an
example, a case of general interest is available in the province of biology, in
the Darwinian theory of the development of species by selection in the struggle
for existence, and in the [earlier] theory of development which is based on the
hypothesis of the hereditary transmission of acquired characteristics.”[35] Is relativity a biological theory? Sraffa’s is another example of
this tendency to regard theory as some sort of shift or shuffling about, as a
substitution or a “translation.” These are deceptively ad hoc, informal pronouncements. They not only make us wonder whether
these thinkers had any basis at all for relating one term to another, but also,
they make us wonder about the role of such pronouncements in any relationships
they claim to have found? For
example, it is fair to ask if Sraffa believed that reality is progressive? Is his system quantum
electrodynamics? Both Sraffa and
Einstein are here being the dutiful students of Poincaré: their notions
of substitution or translation are his “succession.” It is important to note that, for
Einstein, “natural” coincidence is the shift “from Newtonian
to relativistic mechanics”—we are supposed to be able to see it
with our own eyes. What is the term
in Sraffa which is the “translation?” The basis of supposed need
for substitutions, “translations” or shifts of any kind in
twentieth-century thought, is “paradoxes” which are not
paradoxes. These shifts turn out to
be unprompted strategies. Perhaps
if Sraffa and Einstein had made some inquiry into Poincaré’s
project, they would have developed a meaningful strategy. But I think they were simply too
ambitious to make the necessary inquiries.
As it is, their arguments are identical—the identification wished
for in the early twentieth century—but pointing this out is a rather
melancholy achievement. Interestingly, and not
surprisingly given his general inquisitiveness, Feynman visited
“natural” coincidence when, apparently apropos of renormalization,
he remarked: “perhaps the idea that two points can be infinitely close together
is wrong—the assumption that we can use geometry down to the last notch
is false. If we make the minimum
possible distance…the smallest distance involved in any experiment
today…, the infinites disappear, all right—but other
inconsistencies arise….”[36] But who does he think is trying to do
that? No one I know of. In any event, today we would have to say
that that’s rather good, and very nearly hits the mark. But not quite.[37] In the event there is
nothing to be done about the contradiction in which, due to this
“natural” coincidence of points, we are led from an assumption of
two Cartesian coordinate systems to a conclusion of one such system. What “paradox” is the
relativity of simultaneity designed to avoid, and what is the
“paradox” it tries to express?
It may well turn out that natural selection=natural coincidence, thus
unifying biology and physics on the basis of an error. These new questions and formulation
indicate a change in the direction of science. Einstein’s whole
proceeding—avoiding a definition of “natural” coincidence by
way of providing a method for obtaining the “natural” coincidence,
thereby conjuring up “natural points” of coincidence—looks
suspiciously like Cantor’s avoidance of a definition for a cardinal
number while giving a procedure by which a cardinal number can be
obtained. Then Einstein’s use
of “zusammen” resembles the “zusammenfassung” which is
Cantor’s notion of a set; Einstein even uses “m,” which is
what Cantor calls the elements of his set.[38] Is relativity simply a
gloss on set theory, a rejiggering of the terms which nonetheless runs afoul of
other rules? Is Sraffa doing the
same thing by turning the labor theory of value into the value theory of labor,
and renormalizing again and again?[39] There is comfort in the idea that there
are tangible boundaries which will always force logic through our
arguments. However, if that turns
out not to be the issue (even though Cantor appears to have believed it), are
we then entitled to pose to Einstein and Sraffa the fundamental question which
is always posed to set theory: in what sense are the elements considered
together in the first place? Cantor engaged in what was
felt to be unrestrained renormalization.
The “natural” mathematicians seem to feel that if that unrestrained
renormalization is what generated paradox—above and beyond the
renormalization and consequent “paradox” to which the disciplines
have always been addicted—then any renormalization is sanctioned in order
to restrain set theory. There must
be limits, so feel free to intervene where you please as you please. That this misconceives the entire
project, is beside the point—or rather, is unknown—to
“natural” mathematicians.
Their response has always been: if Einstein can do it, they can. At the same time, it may be instructive
to consider the attitude of Feynman to renormalization. He called it a “shell game,”[40]
and he should know—he played it all his life, won a Nobel Prize for
playing it and, in the opinion of his peers, should have won it again for
playing it again. It had a
devastating effect on physics, and Poincaré made sure to enumerate a
series of laws for enforcing it, laws which he says are summed up as a
“group.”[41] Would Sraffa, Gödel or Kimura ever
have been brave enough to regard their endeavors as a shell game? Apparently as long as there was nothing
wrong with Einstein, there could be nothing wrong with renormalization,
especially in such a good cause!
Well, as long as….But no longer than. Like Kimura and Sraffa,
Einstein suffered from an Achilles’ heel: mathematics. Like them, he needed—or felt he
needed—a mathematical expression for his ideas, and was seduced by the
same intuitionist-style mathematics.
What did these researchers know of the mathematical politics which lay
at the foundation of their ideas?
Absolutely nothing. And for
all their curiosity, they made no effort to find out. Instead, they were entranced by the
apparent speed and finality of the results. This certainly hampered the later
collaboration between Gödel and Einstein: they couldn’t discuss the
one thing they had in common—“natural” mathematics. Actually, all these thinkers had in
common something even more important to them than “natural”
mathematics: ambition. But when
ambition outstrips inquiry, there are bound to be problems with the results. The idea of a
“natural” mathematics as a part of perception, reflects doubt that
geometry or other forms of math express propositions, and a belief that
perception and expression are one.
We find it not only in economics, biology, mathematics and
physics—and more evidence of it in chemistry than simply Cantor’s
yearning. The foundation of
contemporary chemical theory is the “natural” mathematics of
Condillac which found its way to chemistry, through Lavoisier, where it
expresses Condillac’s idea of “‘analysis’ as
originating in simple sensory experiences, followed by the process of
‘synthesis’ in which the ideas were reconstructed in such a way
that the relations between them were clearly revealed.”[42] What “paradox” is Condillac
attempting to avoid as well as to express, by this formulation? Whatever the independent
validity of the notion of “natural” mathematics, it is not
logically incorporated in any of the arguments it seeks to express. It may well be that Richard’s set
E—that infinitely definable set which betrayed his apparently discrete
“paradox”—comes alive in the theories of the thinkers whose
works we have mentioned, and becomes the unifying feature of these works. This understanding would mark the clearest
break with twentieth-century civilization.
At the very least, the exposure of “natural” mathematics has
begun a revolution in chemistry, physics, economics and biology. As for mathematics, the Pythagorean
theorem is itself probably an attempt to avoid as well as to express a
“paradox.” Which
one? Why is it relevant in the
present discussion, to inquire as to the status of the Pythagorean theorem? Einstein said that he hoped
his work would provide a few hours’ diversion. Perhaps we should have taken him at his
word. Perhaps individuals we
marginalized—and ideas we thought had been synthesized out of the
argument—are now waiting to contribute something relevant. If “noise” matters, perhaps
we should bring Bartók, Schoenberg and Webern into the discussion (but
how?). Perhaps we can finally bring
into alignment two concepts which rattle around in the twentieth century like
two peas: chance and infinity.
Einstein famously said that God does not play dice with the
universe. What does he mean by chance
(assuming he thinks dice is an example of chance) and God? In short, we need a much
more dynamic approach to what we consider the principal monuments of the
twentieth century. Every educated
person, during the nineteenth century, was presumed to read widely and be up to
date in the research of all areas of inquiry, including art. With the advent of
specialization—that is, with the development of terms of art within the
disciplines—intellectual life lost that character because, to the extent
there was internal consistency within any two given disciplines, it became
increasingly difficult to build logical bridges between concepts in the two
disciplines. There aren’t
twenty people in the world who have read both Production of Commodities and The
Neutral Theory. Have you? And yet no highly educated person in the
latter eighteenth century could have claimed to be so without having read both
Newton and Smith. During the
twentieth century, we “couldn’t” or
“shouldn’t” read both Production
and The Neutral Theory. Who had time? And anyway, it would have been like
professing two religions. Perhaps
this essay will make possible an ecumenical approach. Today, advances in
understanding the rhetoric of the twentieth century have led us to be much more
cautious about the caution of twentieth-century thinkers, and hopefully much
more direct and demanding than our own twentieth-century selves. Those selves are no longer with us, we
left them at the door of this century.
We understand more of the prejudices which went into the thinking of
people in the twentieth century, and that is part and parcel of the endless
process of building up and tearing down ideas. We also freely grant influence within
certain groups such as the Vienna Circle or through such well-connected figures
as Frank Ramsey, whose ideas found expression in works as apparently diverse as
those of Gödel, Wittgenstein and Sraffa. And then there is the ubiquitous
Poincaré. We will go much
further in this direction, and much faster, if we try to understand
how—regardless of the barriers which specialists felt surrounded their
disciplines—they nevertheless communicated in internally consistent ways
across those barriers: and built bridges over them!
4. “Discovering
relativity beliefs: towards a socio-cognitive model for Einstein’s
Relativity Theory formation,” Mind
& Society, Volume 3, Number 5 (2002), 93-109. See also D. Howard and J. Stachel, eds.,
Einstein the Formative Years 1879-1900,
Basel 2000.
6. Cambridge 1960. 7. Heinz D. Kurz and Neri
Salvadori, “Representation of the Production and Circulation of
Commodities in Material Terms: On Sraffa’s Objectivism,”
http://econ.em.tsinghua.edu.cn/CRPE114701.kurz&salvadori.pdf, 82-85.
9. I take his remarks on
experiments to be criticisms of relativity, but perhaps I am assuming too much
about his knowledge.
11. Kurz and Salvadori,
88.
14. Pierangelo
Garagnani, “On a turning point in Sraffa’s theoretical and
interpretative position in the late 1920s,” in Heinz D. Kurz, Luigi
Pasinetti and Neri Salvadori, eds., Piero
Sraffa: The Man and the Scholar (London and New York 2008), 92-96. 15. Alejandro
Garciadiego, Bertrand Russell and the
Origins of the Set-Theoretic ‘Paradoxes’, Basel 1992. 16. Garciadiego,
24. 17. Princeton
1985. 18. Kimura,
50. 19. Penelope Maddy,
“Three Forms of Naturalism,” in Stewart Shapiro, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and
Mathematics (New York 2005), 450.
See also her Naturalism in
Mathematics, New York 2005. 20. Garciadiego, 134 and note 3. 21. See A. and
S. Feferman, Alfred Tarski: Life and
Logic, (New York 2004); Jérôme Dokic and Pascal Engel, Frank Ramsey: Truth and Success (Cambridge
2002); Alonzo Church, The Calculus of
Lambda-Conversion (Princeton 1951), 1-2; Alonzo Church, Introduction to Mathematical Logic (Princeton 1958), notes 541,
550; Garciadiego, 9. 22. José
Ferreirós, “The Motives behind Cantor’s Set
Theory—Physical, Biological, and Philosophical Questions,” 17 Science in Context 1/2 (2004), 67. 23. Darwin’s
physical ideas should be looked for, in part, among his theological ideas. See Dov Ospovat, The Development of Darwin’s Theory: Natural History, Natural
Theology, and Natural Selection, 1838-1859, New York 1981. 24. Kimura, 327. 25. Kevin
Anderson, “Uncovering Marx’s Yet Unpublished Writings,” in
Scott Meikle, ed., Marx, Abingdon
(U.K.) 2002. 26. It
is, of course, Artistotle who tells us early on that searching for a way to
“solve” or “avoid” paradoxes is a task we must
undertake: “Aristotle does not want to expose,but to kill off the paradoxes. This
stance is exemplified in the basic axiom shoring up both his metaphysics and
his logic, the Principium Contradictionis
or contradiction principle…: it is not admissible that something is
and is not in any sense at the same place at the same time….For Aristotle
paradoxes are a problem most urgently in need for a solution.” But look at Zeno’s paradox: “if
they are many [things], they by necessity are as many as they are, not more nor
less. But if they are as many as they are, they will be finite [bounded,
peperasmena]. But if they are many, they will be infinite [unbounded,
apeiron]. For there will always
[aei] be others [hetera] in between [metaxu] of the beings, and there again
others in between.” The
problem is that Zeno does not define “they,” failing which there is
no argument. Quoted in Karin
Verelst, “Zeno’s Paradoxes,”
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0604/0604639v1.pdf, 34, 3. 27. New York (Fifth
edition, 1952), 19-20. 28. Sidelights on Relativity (New York, 1983), 31-32. 29. Grattan-Guinness,
129, 356. 30. Howard and
Stachel, Einstein, 6.
34. Sahotra Sarkar,
“Physical Approximations and Stochastic Processes in Einstein’s
1905 Paper on Brownian Motion,” in Howard and Stachel, 211, 220-221. Alexander Markov’s important role
in “natural” mathematics is discussed in Haskell Curry, Foundations of Mathematical Logic, New
York 1977.
36. Feynman,
129. 37. Thomas
Ryckman also came rather close to identifying “natural” coincidence
as the objection, in his The Reign of
Relativity (New York 2005), 60 et seq. In retrospect, it will be seen that just
prior to the identification of “natural” coincidence, there was
renewed interest in the mechanics of Einstein’s construction. His discussion of
coincidence (21-22) comes close to understanding the issues. However, his analysis is hampered by a
half-conscious assumption that “practical geometry” plays a logical
role in relativity, which it does not.
40. Feynman, 128. 41. David Pickering, Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History
of Particle Theory, Chicago 1984.
Poincaré, 64. 42. Grattan-Guinness,
15. [1]
A. S. Troelstra, “A History of Constructivism in the 20th Century,”
[2]
James K. Galbraith, “Keynes, Einstein and Scientific Revolution,” The American Prospect, Volume 5, Number
16 (1994), 62-67. [3]
Motoo Kimura, The Neutral Theory of
Molecular Evolution ( [4]
“Discovering relativity beliefs: towards a socio-cognitive model for
Einstein’s Relativity Theory formation,” Mind & Society, Volume 3, Number 5 (2002), 93-109. See also D. Howard and J. Stachel, eds.,
Einstein the Formative Years 1879-1900,
Basel 2000. [5]
See Peter Woit’s horribly funny account of truly farcical string theory,
which has made physics the laughingstock of the intellectual world: Not Even Wrong, New York 2006. The
elaborations of this bad joke are a sure sign that we are at the end of an era.
And Woit’s work doesn’t even take into account the incorporation of
“natural” mathematics in physics! [6]
Cambridge 1960. [7]
Heinz D. Kurz and Neri Salvadori, “Representation of the Production and
Circulation of Commodities in Material Terms: On Sraffa’s
Objectivism,” http://econ.em.tsinghua.edu.cn/CRPE114701.kurz&salvadori.pdf,
82-85. [8]
He may have had nearly first-hand exposure to “natural” mathematics
through the work of G. Vivanti, who reviewed works by Cantor and with whom
Cantor corresponded. See H. Kurz and N. Salvadori, “Sraffa and the
Mathematicians,” in T. Cozzi and R. Marchionatti, eds., Piero Sraffa’s Political Economy (New
York and London 2001), 256; I. Grattan-Guinness, The Search for Mathematical Roots 1870-1940 (Princeton 2000), 112,
122. [9]
I take his remarks on experiments to be criticisms of relativity, but perhaps I
am assuming too much about his knowledge. [10]
Quoted in Kurz, “Sraffa’s Reception of the German Economics
Literature: A Few Examples.”
Previously, but no longer, found on the web. Contact: www.kfunigraz.ac.at/vwlwww/kurz/kurz.html. [11]
Kurz and Salvadori, 88. [12]
Heinz D. Kurz and Neri Salvadori, “Removing an ‘Insuperable
Obstacle’ in the Way of an Objectivist Analysis: Sraffa’s Attempts
at Fixed Capital,” http://www.kfunigraz.ac.at/heinz.kurz/pdf/SraffaOnFixedCapital.pdf,
24. [13]
V.I. Przhesmitsky, “On the Operational Logical Apparatus Imperative in
Karl Marx’s ‘Capital’ and ‘Mathematical
Manuscripts,’” in Karl Marx, Mathematical
Manuscripts, ed., by V. Parisad (Calcutta 1994), 428. [14] Pierangelo Garagnani, “On a turning point in Sraffa’s
theoretical and interpretative position in the late 1920s,” in Heinz D.
Kurz, Luigi Pasinetti and Neri Salvadori, eds., Piero Sraffa: The Man and the Scholar ( [15]
Alejandro Garciadiego, Bertrand Russell and the Origins of the Set-Theoretic
‘Paradoxes’, Basel 1992. [16]
Garciadiego, 24. [17]
Princeton 1985. [18]
Kimura, 50. [19]Penelope
Maddy, “Three Forms of Naturalism,” in Stewart Shapiro, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and
Mathematics (New York 2005), 450.
See also her Naturalism in
Mathematics, New York 2005. [20]
Garciadiego, 134
and note 3. [21]
See A. and S. Feferman, Alfred Tarski: Life and Logic, (New York 2004); Jérôme
Dokic and Pascal Engel, Frank Ramsey:
Truth and Success (Cambridge 2002); Alonzo Church, The Calculus of Lambda-Conversion (Princeton 1951), 1-2; Alonzo Church, Introduction to Mathematical Logic (Princeton 1958), notes 541,
550; Garciadiego, 9. [22]
José Ferreirós,
“The Motives behind Cantor’s Set Theory—Physical, Biological,
and Philosophical Questions,” 17 Science
in Context 1/2 (2004), 67. [23]
Darwin’s physical ideas should be looked for, in part, among his
theological ideas. See Dov Ospovat,
The Development of Darwin’s Theory:
Natural History, Natural Theology, and Natural Selection, 1838-1859, New
York 1981. [24]
Kimura, 327. [25]
Kevin Anderson, “Uncovering Marx’s Yet
Unpublished Writings,” in Scott Meikle, ed., Marx, Abingdon (U.K.) 2002. [26]
It is, of course, Artistotle who
tells us early on that searching for a way to “solve” or “avoid”
paradoxes is a task we must undertake: “Aristotle
does not want to expose,but to kill off the paradoxes. This stance is
exemplified in the basic axiom shoring up both his metaphysics and his logic,
the Principium Contradictionis or
contradiction principle…: it is not admissible that something is and is
not in any sense at the same place at the same time….For Aristotle
paradoxes are a problem most urgently in need for a solution.” But look at Zeno’s paradox: “if they are many [things], they by necessity
are as many as they are, not more nor less. But if they are as many as they
are, they will be finite [bounded, peperasmena]. But if they are many, they
will be infinite [unbounded, apeiron].
For there will always [aei] be others [hetera] in between [metaxu] of
the beings, and there again others in between.” The problem is that Zeno does not define
“they,” failing which there is no argument. Quoted in Karin Verelst,
“Zeno’s Paradoxes,”
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0604/0604639v1.pdf, 34, 3. [27]
New York (Fifth edition, 1952), 19-20. [28]
Sidelights on Relativity (New York,
1983), 31-32. [29]
Grattan-Guinness, 129, 356. [30]
Howard and Stachel, Einstein, 6. [31]
Kurz and Salvadori, “Representation of the Production,” 82. [32]
Garciadiego, 140. [33]
Poincaré, Science and Hypothesis (New York, 1952
edition), 13, 58. [34]
Sahotra Sarkar, “Physical Approximations and Stochastic Processes in
Einstein’s 1905 Paper on Brownian Motion,” in Howard and Stachel,
211, 220-221. Alexander
Markov’s important role in “natural” mathematics is discussed
in Haskell Curry, Foundations of
Mathematical Logic, New York 1977. [35]
Einstein, 142. [36]
Feynman, 129. [37]
Thomas Ryckman also came rather
close to identifying “natural” coincidence as the objection, in his
The Reign of Relativity (New York
2005), 60 et seq. In retrospect, it will be seen that just
prior to the identification of “natural” coincidence, there was
renewed interest in the mechanics of Einstein’s construction. His
discussion of coincidence (21-22) comes close to understanding the issues. However, his analysis is hampered by a
half-conscious assumption that “practical geometry” plays a logical
role in relativity, which it does not. [38]
Garciadiego, 3; Grattan-Guinness, 112. [39]
Kurz and Salvadori, “Representation of the Production,” 80;
Giancarlo de Vivo, “Sraffa’s Path to Production of Commodities By
Means of Commodities,” 22 Contributions
to Political Economy (2003), 1-25. [40]
Feynman, 128. [41]
David Pickering, Constructing Quarks: A
Sociological History of Particle Theory, Chicago 1984. Poincaré, 64. [42]
Grattan-Guinness, 15. |