What a fine and well-developed question!
Let me start with the simplest part of it first. You mentioned the use of colloquialism. That in itself would not make this poem scientific. That simply means the language used is common or ordinary.
No, rather than that, there are several elements that show empirical observation is used. Look at the first lines. They reject verbal labels, showing the gap between language and reality (and therefore pushing readers...
What a fine and well-developed question!
Let me start with the simplest part of it first. You mentioned the use of colloquialism. That in itself would not make this poem scientific. That simply means the language used is common or ordinary.
No, rather than that, there are several elements that show empirical observation is used. Look at the first lines. They reject verbal labels, showing the gap between language and reality (and therefore pushing readers toward direct sensory observation).
The third stanza takes this rejection of human, social, and linguistic classification further, saying that the view exists without color, shape, etc. All of these things exist only in the human mind.
The fifth stanza may be the most explicit rejection of human conceptual structures. It is easy to think of something like a second as being objective, existing in the world, but as this stanza indicates, seconds only exist for humans, and only in the human mind. This peeling away of imposed concepts is almost Zen in its implications, removing misconceptions in order to push us to see clearly. In that sense, the poem walks all readers to direct observation.
No comments:
Post a Comment