Which Guy? (half listening)
The Singularity of the Sun and other Stars of the Night Sky - A Möbius by planksip
Which Guy? (half listening)
Inspired by Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)'s quote, "The brain is wider than the sky". The titled responsion is...
Confusing the sky with this guy, failures in communication are sometimes comical, other times they are disastrous. Blind faith is one alternative, the other is better listening and perspective sharing with an altruistic act or two. As the game theory calculations teach us, beneficial outcomes are preferred when we work together to mutually beneficial ends. Do you see what I mean? The average person placates their own passions and tempers illusions of will in a blind fury of gratification and ego construction.
Something which verse is so acceptable at doing is taking the theoretical and delivering it in concrete and unmistakable terms – in making noticeable, and visual, what is normally 'simply' reasonable. Emily Dickinson deftly does this here, in the capturing opening line of her sonnet: obviously, it's ridiculous and truly false that the cerebrum is more extensive than the sky, however on the off chance that we substitute the more physical word 'mind' for the theoretical thought of the psyche, at that point we see this is valid. For Gerard Manley Hopkins, the psyche had mountains and 'bluffs of fall'; for Emily Dickinson, his contemporary over the Atlantic (and another artist who might just turn out to be notable and completely distributed after death), the brain is more extensive than the sky, and more profound than the ocean, in light of the fact that these things, while huge, have just a physical measurement: it is the psyche, which is similar to 'the heaviness of God', that loans them otherworldly broadness and profundity, and the psyche can extend far more extensive than the skies, and far more profound than the seas.
Similarly as the cerebrum is more extensive than the sky due to the expansiveness of human creative mind, so it is more profound than the ocean since it can contain and convey contemplations of the apparent multitude of seas, much like a wipe absorbing the water in a can. (The examination works particularly well: it's not the selective territory of the artist, as any individual who's depicted a companion with a head for realities as having a mind like a wipe will authenticate.)
At long last, Dickinson says that there is a connection among awareness and God in light of the fact that 'The Brain is only the heaviness of God'. Both human cognizance and the intensity of God are weightless in one sense: existing separated from the physical universe but then equipped for impacting and influencing the physical world in amazing manners. Yet, in the event that there is a distinction between the human brain and the desire of God, it resembles the contrast between a syllable and a sound: a syllable is essential for sound, yet can't incorporate all that sound is. It's hard to know precisely how to decipher this: a yapping canine is a sound, however is anything but a 'syllable' in the typical sense. Or then again another method of breaking down this is to state that the word 'banana', for example, is a sound when spoken, however it requires three separate syllables to be voiced. Thus, we may recommend that Dickinson is mentioning that the human psyche needs the brain of God to make the supernatural occurrence that is human awareness conceivable in any case.
The mind is more extensive than the sky in spite of the sky's marvelous size on the grounds that the cerebrum can fuse the universe into itself, and accordingly even to ingest the sea. The wellspring of this limit, in this sonnet, is God. In an amazing examination Dickinson compares the brains capacities to "the heaviness of God", contrasting from that weight just as syllable varies from sound.
This last refrain peruses effectively, yet is very unpredictable—it is hard to know definitely what Dickinson implies. The cerebrum varies from God, or from the heaviness of God, as syllable contrasts from sound; the distinction among syllable and sound is that syllable is given human structure as a feature of a word, while sound is crude, unformed. Accordingly Dickinson appears to consider God here as a substance that takes its structure from that of the human brain.
Dickinson's strict conviction was an unpredictable thing, however, and it's conceivable to offer another understanding: that she is stating there is no genuine contrast between them. 'What's more, they will vary — on the off chance that they do — ': that rehashed 'if' is very tenacious, and one needs to accentuate the second, stress it in one's brain figuratively speaking: 'And in the event that they contrast – and it's a major "if"… ' And to state that a syllable is unique in relation to a sound is to dwelt on petty distinctions. Maybe.
Murmurs of Twilight
Inspired by T.S. Eliot (1888-1965)'s quote, "This is the way the world ends, not with a bang, but a whimper". The titled responsion is...