I n t e r n a t i o n a l    Z e i t s c h r i f t

About · Submissions · Archived Issues · Literature & Book Archives · Home

Volume 4

June 2008

Number 1


This following poem by John Ryskamp precedes his article.

Skip to 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Dissembled, proffered, recovered, withdrawn—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, mich reizt deine schöne Gestalt;

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 Byzantium

 

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
di pietra squadrata e liscia
per istoriarne la facciata…

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
                                   
past

 

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 ˆ.

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!

 

 

 

 

  1. A. S. Troelstra, “A History of Constructivism in the 20th Century,” University of Amsterdam, ITLI Prepublication Series ML-91-05 (1991), 1 (http: //staff.science.uva.nl~anne/hhhist.pdf).
  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 (Cambridge 1981), 20-21.

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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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 (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. 

  1. Kurz and Salvadori, “Representation of the Production,” 82.
  2. Garciadiego, 140.
  3. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. Garciadiego, 3; Grattan-Guinness, 112.
  2. 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.



[1] A. S. Troelstra, “A History of Constructivism in the 20th Century,” University of Amsterdam, ITLI Prepublication Series ML-91-05 (1991), 1 (http: //staff.science.uva.nl~anne/hhhist.pdf).

[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 (Cambridge 1981), 20-21.

[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 (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. 

[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.


Google
 

We believe the following organizations are making a difference for the better in this world and encourage you to consider supporting them.


Oxfam International

Red Cross International

World Vision International


Copyright 2007 International Zeitschrift