after i wrote that in the last post i thought about it over and over. scientific. romantic. the two don`t go together at all. maybe bell was the first scientific romantic, certainly the first since the renaissance, but i realised that there haven`t been any since.
scientists tend to be a rigourous, disciplined bunch with leanings toward dogmatism and tautology. the big bang is good example of that. dogmatic in that this unproven and unproveable event is the basis for any other cosmological thinking, and tautological in the way it`s described....... a bang that was big. because that`s all that science has in the matter. it was invented in someone`s mind as a reason for everything happening, exept spinning, but that`s a whole other question..............and this invention has been clung to as an answer for people who ask.
"mom, dad, how was the unniverse created?"
"well, son, there was a big bang one day....................."
you have to be asleep to accept this as an answer to how we got here. if you are on your second esspresso it makes no sense.
a big bang. well, thanks science, for taking my question so seriously as to answer it that way.
dogmatic tautology.
i`ll take romance for a thousand, alex.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment