Exploding light

In cosmic, molten shudderings
the sun is brought to birth,
embracing all the universe;
exploding light as truth.

About rosross

Editor, writer, poet.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to

  1. Sabio Lantz says:

    Suns, if I understand correctly, are born in from clouds of dust and gas (mostly hydrogen) that, because of gravity, condense into sphere. The gas sphere, condenses and it slow spin increases (like an ice skater). In some of these, the condensation brings hydrogen nuclei close enough and under enough heat to fuse and this nuclear fusion begins the star.

    So their is no “molten” component to the birth of a sun. It appears like that, we be have to be careful to assume that the world is similar to what we are familiar with.

    Since light isn’t truth, perhaps this poem is an analogy — though I am not sure to what. But I thought I’d share an experience where a ball of light exploded in me, expanded hugely — making me more than I am — and giving a sense of deep truth.

    See my post here.

    But I think such events — while inspiring and useful — are illusory and can be replicated in non-mystical ways. But I just wanted to share that my world may not be as narrow, dry and sterile as you’d expect from a “materialist” — as you continually label me.

    • rosross says:

      As I am sure you are aware Sabio poetry is more metaphorical and symbolic than literal and is the source of the term ‘poetic licence.’
      Everything is in a start of ‘becoming’ and evolving which involves both death and re-birth and given that the sun consists of hot plasma and scientists are well aware of the rivers of molten lava which flow across the sun’s surface I think the reference is both correct and apt.
      Poems are not always, but often, symbolic and mine certainly are. I see light as truth because in a way this world is comprised of light and we associate light with understanding and knowing and truth.
      In reality we do not know for sure just how the sun was born and much of what we believe is no more than theory, as is the way with science a lot of the time. However, reading the poem as a literal explanation of the sun’s literal birth was never intended although poetry can be read by anyone in any way that they choose. It’s often a good idea with poetry to read both literally and metaphorically, just as it is a good way to see the world through both prisms.
      It is also ‘dangerous’ to ‘put words into other people’s mouths.’ I do not recall referring to the materialist mindset as dry and sterile. Narrow yes, and limited, because it is. But so would a mindset at the other end of the polarity be narrow and limited. I have also said that the materialist mindset and mechanical approach it encourages have brought valuable insights and understandings but because of its limitations there are many insights and understandings which it cannot and does not have.

    • rosross says:

      I read your post on your mystical experience. I suppose transcending human understanding is a reasonable definition for mystical and yet still not quite right. Anyone who has read widely and deeply about meditation, the etheric body etc., chakras and mind would not see this experience of yours as transcending human understanding. Anyone who had not would perhaps have trouble understanding it.
      I think a lot of what is called mystical, or miraculous for that matter, is no more than things which our current methodologies of explanation and understanding cannot explain and so see as paranormal when, in truth, they are very normal.
      In times past, before the era of the materialist mindset, and still within spiritual circles, such experiences were not considered unusual, nor beyond understanding.
      I am not well suited to meditation but unlike you I can’t be prodded on pride. If it doesn’t work for me I don’t bother with it. Having said that, I do meditate, occasionally and have done for many years but not to any level of skill, nor for any length of time. I believe some people are more suited to it than others and it does not make sense to me that meditation is a must when it comes to spiritual awareness and development. There are many meditative practices (gardening, knitting, listening to music, cooking) which don’t require sitting in one place for hours chanting. But good luck to those who do.
      I do believe that meditative practices help to balance and align body and brain function and some people are more in need of this than others and some need it more sometimes than at other times.
      I don’t believe experiences such as you had or those reported by skilled meditators are illusory – I just don’t believe they are as important as some might believe. They represent aspects of the human body and being which science does not understand and often rejects but they are very real. Studying them can only increase our understanding of the human body and mind but I don’t see it as necessary that everyone has the experience.

  2. Sabio Lantz says:

    I enjoy when poem which use analogies, especially science analogies, show that they actually understand an event. So it would be possible to have the same poem with non-literal allusions but with a more accurate analogy. Using analogies from Iron Age understanding of the sun just seems odd.

    Lots of the other stuff you wrote, we probably agree on.

    I do find a common pattern in your writing. You said:

    Anyone who has read widely and deeply about meditation, the etheric body etc., chakras and mind would not see this experience of yours as transcending human understanding.

    You will often try to imply that if someone studied long and as deeply as you, they would agree with you. On my blog you started by playing the age-card until you realized I am your age.

    People can have shallow learning and still be more correct than those with deep learning. Young inexperienced people can teach the elderly who want to think they are wise.

    To think otherwise (a tendency of yours, I feel) is to commit a subcategory of the “Genetic Fallacy” called “argumentum ad verecundiam” or “Appeal to Misleading Authority”. I see it often on blogs. Understanding the fallacies of rhetoric is valuable. Though I remember you put down this sort of knowledge when commenting on my blog. Maybe this example can illustrate the value of understanding pitfalls in thinking.

  3. rosross says:

    @Sabio,

    I wasn’t using a science analogy.

    you said: You will often try to imply that if someone studied long and as deeply as you, they would agree with you. On my blog you started by playing the age-card until you realized I am your age.

    Not in the least. You misinterpret. I made the comment because it is true. It is not about how much I have read but the reality that anyone who has read widely would know such experiences do not transcend human understanding.

    I don’t play cards, age or otherwise. This is your misinterpretation. If I mention age it is simply because one can pack a lot of experience and reading into years and it can make a difference. Not necessarily though.

    You said: People can have shallow learning and still be more correct than those with deep learning. Young inexperienced people can teach the elderly who want to think they are wise.

    I agree although I don’t think many elderly people do think they are wise. My experience of the elderly is that most decide the older they get the less they know. I shall see what I think in 20 or 30 years.

    Some of the least intelligent people I have met have extensive academic qualifications and some of the most have none.

    You said: To think otherwise (a tendency of yours, I feel) is to commit a subcategory of the “Genetic Fallacy” called “argumentum ad verecundiam” or “Appeal to Misleading Authority”. I see it often on blogs. Understanding the fallacies of rhetoric is valuable. Though I remember you put down this sort of knowledge when commenting on my blog. Maybe this example can illustrate the value of understanding pitfalls in thinking.

    Given your comments on how posts are not personal this feel very personal. But I don’t take it personally. Understanding people will always get your further than attempting to understanding something called the fallacies of rhetoric.

  4. Sabio Lantz says:

    Hey, suggestion. Since you are using WordPress, you might want to learn how to use the “BLOCKQUOTE” tags in HTML to make your long comments more readable – Especially since the “you said” format is your favorite. Got to go to work. Good day

  5. rosross says:

    Glad to have advice on how to Blockquote. Or to use bold or italics. I guess I could write in Word and copy and paste over but yes, I agree, clarity is good. You Said works well I find but I am more than happy to hear about options. Take care.

  6. Sabio Lantz says:

    No, no, no — don’t write in Word. The code copied over is horrendous and will cause problems or not work.

    I did a post to teach basic HTML. I just updated the post for you and included the blockquote code. Take a look at it here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s