Poem: Eve of the Empty Apocalypse

Posted May 21, 2011 at 8:49 pm, 5tein

It’s been a long time since I’ve had time, let alone will, to sit and draft a poem. Let’s credit this one to intolerable psychic pressure and leave it at that. Thankfully, only that part of the poem is true.

Eve of the Empty Apocalypse

We've turned away from the sun; In the East, the Rocky Mountains loom, their tallest painted purest white. They say these, too, will shake apart or crumble down to dust. I leave, driving east, hoping to slip between the mountains before the lunar oracle proclaims their doom, instructs their snowy crowns to haunt the valley. And if I'm never seen again, oh well, I'll any some day break in their abyss, so why not now? And seal our final argument, which conjured Christ and Sartre, Camus, Prince, my father, and the Buddha. And yet I kept Everett's Schrodinger's secret safe, galvanized|encouraged by my squinting son, who's blue eyed smile says, "Bye-bye," to prophecy that I'll return with certainty so perfect that it quakes the ancient church across the street. I feel its stone walls leaning, I bear its weight, but no meaning, and burn what scion faith I can't refute.

Notes

Two things I know I don’t like: the imprecision/abstraction of the final line, and the fact that “Eve” is only implicitly in the poem.

I originally had “Schrodinger” instead of “Everett”, which has a better poetic ring to it, and is probably less obscure, but I couldn’t tolerate the knowledge that Schrodinger didn’t necessarily endorse literal conclusions from his famous thought experiment. If I can be corrected here, I’d be thrilled to change it back.

4 Responses to “Poem: Eve of the Empty Apocalypse”

  1. Chris Lott Says:

    Wait… didn’t endorse *which* conclusion. Schrodinger certainly thought enough of his conclusions that he felt it refuted the Copenhagen Interpretation. But I would go with Schrodinger just for the reasons of sound and because it will give many more readers a clue. If I hadn’t spent many hours reading lay physics books and too many days researching the (mis)application of scientific hypotheses as metaphors, I would have NO idea who Everett was.

  2. Jared Says:

    Thank you for the reassurance. I sometimes over-analyze things, fretting over the possibility that someone more learned will overturn my haphazardly arranged applecart. I’m still consistently surprised when that doesn’t happen.

    Re. the hesitancy/uncertainty itself, first, I think a lot of folks simply familiar with the famous thought experiment may be led to believe it supports or even “proves” a many-worlds hypothesis, without regarding other possibilities. I didn’t want to infer that Schrodinger himself believed this to be the only conclusion by necessity, and in fact I have (somehow, from somewhere) the idea that Schrodinger may have contested such interpretations as missing the point, and, obviously, when I wrote this I didn’t take the time to follow-through on the question. In the end, I wanted to suggest the paradox, but also suggest a kind of irony of decoherence, and the absurdity of spousal arguments relative to other very personal, even existential challenges.

  3. Chris Lott Says:

    If I can dig it up, I will share my Philosophy undergrad thesis on the misappropriation of scientific metaphor and analogy in poetry and fiction. You may be the only person on the planet that could approximate enjoying it!

  4. admin Says:

    Give it over. Oh, will I approximate! If anything, I’m good at approximating.

    And forgive the post-hoc editing of the previous comment.

Leave a Reply

Anti-Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree