We're caught in the middle of a war of the ages,
Transcending journalistic bombs, and explosive propaganda.
The soldiers crouch on either side, the tension is contageous,
Cause they know their bullets can't bring down the misplaced paranoia.
Reason and belief,
At odds with one another,
A battle-field like no other.
The lines have been drawn,
Repeatedly erased and reapplied,
Then splattered with the blood from when decency died.
(to be continued...I'm kind of a slow writer :P )
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Viewpoint Pending
For as long as anyone cares to remember, science and religion have been at odds with one another and for the most part, both parties continue to hold stubbornly true to their respective values. In recent years, voices from both sides have grown louder, as science continues to make new discoveries about the wonderful intricacies of life. Many religious fundamentalists perceive such advances as a threat to humankind’s belief in God. As a result, the choices are thus: humankind turns its back on science to preserve the sanctity and mystery of God’s will, or humankind turns its back on faith as science has rendered the spiritual life unnecessary. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project states that both of these choices are “profoundly dangerous,” as they “both deny truth,” and “both are unnecessary.” (Collins 211) A unity between science and faith is not well-known, but it does exist, and it renders the battle between science and religion utterly meaningless.
Ironically, one of the first well-known playing fields for this standoff was a partnership between Pope Gregory XIII and Nicolas Copernicus to establish today’s modern calendar and to define the rules for determining the date of Easter, which required a considerable degree of scientific insight. At first, this unlikely enterprise seemed to be a harmonious cooperation of faith and reason, working together in the name of better knowledge and understanding. However, despite Copernicus’ scientific revelations about the motion of the Earth around the sun, rather than the sun around the Earth, church scholars still maintained that the true structure of the Earth can only be interpreted through Scripture, not science. So they simply assumed the motion of the Earth to be little more than a convenient mathematical equation, the uses of which extended little past making celestial predictions (Lockitch). Not too long afterwards, Galileo caused quite a row with rather outspoken defense of Copernicus’ theories about the Earth’s motion. The resulting uproar forced the Church leaders to take a side; science or faith. Ultimately, they chose to uphold the teachings of the Scripture, and excommunicated Galileo (Lockitch).
For the most part, the playing field didn’t shift until the Enlightenment Era, when people started to question the principles of first causes – most famously, the foundation behind King James VI’s set of governing laws for the American Colonists. This groundbreaking way of thought was a major contributing factor in influencing the events that ultimately led to the American Revolution. Following the revolution’s success, during the drafting of the constitution, the Founding Fathers agreed that it was in the best interest of the people to keep the church and the state entirely separate (Zindler). This idea brought new light to the purpose of government and more importantly, opened up a new freedom for mankind. People now had a right to believe as they choose to; a profound victory for reason and science. However, this victory was relatively short-lived as the United States then began to lock horns with the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Even at that time, it was well known that the set of governing rules for the Communist regime included the disestablishment of all organized religion in that sector. Inevitably, in the eyes of the American people, Communism became associated with atheism, and Communism was un-American. And so by extension, atheism became un-American (Zindler).
The battle rages between science and religion on to the present day, as religious fundamentalists continue to remain faithful to their indoctrinated beliefs and atheistic scientists continue to maintain that religion is little more than man’s early attempts to fill in the gaps of their understandings on the first principles of life, and that any “honest person wants solid evidence to support assertions, and is leery of baseless claims” such as a god creating an entire universe. More support for this claim lies in the vanishing of past gods and religions, such as the ancient Greeks’ belief in Zeus’ Pantheon on Mount Olympus. Based on this history of ancient deities’ comings and goings, one could be forgiven for wondering whether “today’s deities [are] any more substantial.” (Haught) One may also consider the cruel nature of past and present undertakings of some religious sects, such as “human sacrifices, holy wars, Inquisition torture chambers, massacres of heretics, Crusades against infidels, witch hunts, Reformation wars, pogroms against Jews, Jonestown, Waco, nerve gas in Tokyo’s subway, suicide bombings by today’s Muslim fanatics – all these undercut the kindly image of believers.” (Haught) Many frustrated atheists believe “the signals of science and reason [to be] swamped by the noise of religion, superstition, [and] willful ignorance.” (Zindler) What both sides fail to realize, however, is that religion seeks not to refute scientific evidence, nor does science seek to dethrone God. From a religious scientist’s standpoint, to understand the nature of first principles is to understand the will of God, and to further admire His genius. Does this perspective contradict the foundations of science or religion in any way?
To even remotely understand the nature of first principles, one must become familiar with the laws of motion according to Aristotle. In the eighth book of his Introductory Readings, titled “Motion and the Unmoved Mover,” he states that “everything that is moved is moved by something,” but there must have been something that “by means of itself, initiated motion in everything else, otherwise there will be an infinite regress.” (64) He elaborates further on this by stating that “motion is everlasting and must never fail, [so] there must be some everlasting first mover [that is the] principle of motion for the [unmoved] things (66-67). In other words, in 323 B.C, Aristotle was already familiar with the most profound principle of the universe, which would later be reiterated by Einstein; that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Whatever this “primary mover” might have been is still anyone’s guess, as Aristotle never elaborated on its identity – only that it must exist. Obviously, this theory and its potential implications are still fiercely debated among scientists, philosophers, and religious scholars alike. That aside, Aristotle proved that, even in 323 B.C, scientific theory can coincide with theology. His conclusion about the “primary mover” continues to be one of the foundations of modern philosophy.
Despite Aristotle’s theory, the question of the beginning of the universe had never been brought into the realm of science until Edwin Hubble observed that distant stars are constantly and rapidly moving away from us. This led to the notion of an expanding universe, which in turn led to the notion that at one time in the distant past, everything in the universe was much closer together. In fact, it seemed that about ten or twenty thousand million years ago, everything was in exactly the same place. Hubble’s observations suggested that at that time, the universe was infinitesimally small, and therefore, infinitely dense. If anything happened before that time (perhaps, other times when that same universe expanded and collapsed in on itself, then expanded again), then they could not affect what happens at the present time, so observations about such events cannot be made (Hawking 14). To some, this may include the presence of God, or God initiating the Big Bang, and it is for this reason that many agnostics believe that His existence cannot be proved or disproved.
With thanks to Edwin Hubble, among other modern-day scientists and astronomers, the Big Bang theory has sort of become common knowledge. Having said that, Francis Collins, in his book “The Language of God” asks the reader to consider the following three observations:
1. The existence and substance of the universe is entirely dependent on the asymmetry of matter and antimatter. The fact that this asymmetry exists is anything but natural, for in nature, everything is balanced. But if there had been a complete balance between matter and antimatter, the universe would have quickly devolved into pure radiation in its early stages, and life as we know it would not have existed.
2. If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by one part in one-hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. Conversely, if the rate of expansion had been greater by one part in a million, stars and planets could not have been able to form. In short, the existence of a universe rests on a tight-rope of improbability. The existence of a universe that can support life rests upon a knife-edge of improbability.
3. If the constant nuclear force that holds together protons and neutrons had been slightly weaker than what it is, then only hydrogen would have been able to form. Conversely, if the nuclear forces had been slightly stronger, all the hydrogen would have converted to helium, instead of the 25 percent that occurred in the early stages of the Big Bang, and thus the fusion furnaces of stars would not have taken place, nor would have their ability to form heavier elements. Also, this universally consistent nuclear force appears to be tuned just sufficiently for carbon to form, which as per general knowledge, is critical for the formation of life. Had that force been slightly stronger, all the carbon would have been converted to oxygen.
All in all, there are fifteen universally physical constants, whose values are simply given and never change. The list includes the speed of light, the strength of the nuclear forces discussed earlier, various parameters associated with electromagnetism, and the force of gravity. The probability of all of these constants taking on the values necessary to form a universe that is capable of sustaining life is almost infinitesimal (Collins 71-75). Basically, life is the greatest of all improbabilities.
If one defines nature by probability, then life in of itself is highly unnatural. On this basis, some may argue that some conscious being that transcends the physical constants of the universe was, and is, the “primary mover” that Aristotle was talking about. Francis Collins refers to this viewpoint as theistic evolution, or BioLogos as he chooses to name it. The premises of BioLogos rest on the following observations:
1. The universe came into being out of nothingness approximately fourteen billion years ago.
2. Despite massive and almost inconceivable improbabilities, the universe appears to have been precisely tuned for life.
3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time.
4. Once evolution got under way, no supernatural intervention was required.
5. Humans are a part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
6. But humans are unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the knowledge of right and wrong, the natural curiosity about the principle causes of life, and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history (Collins 200).
BioLogos presents a unity of scientific theory and natural theology. It does not contradict science or the presence of God, nor does it try to force evidence of the existence of God. A true theist knows that if God transcends the observable universal constants that He created, then by extension, He transcends what is observable by nature. Hence, the existence of God, whether through the use of science or faith, cannot be absolutely proven or refuted. On this basis, one may be forgiven for wondering why the feud between science and religion ever existed in the first place. Francis Collins concludes in the tenth chapter of his book that “[God’s] creation is majestic, awesome, intricate, and beautiful – and it cannot be at war with each itself. Only we imperfect humans can start such battles. And only we can end them.”
Ironically, one of the first well-known playing fields for this standoff was a partnership between Pope Gregory XIII and Nicolas Copernicus to establish today’s modern calendar and to define the rules for determining the date of Easter, which required a considerable degree of scientific insight. At first, this unlikely enterprise seemed to be a harmonious cooperation of faith and reason, working together in the name of better knowledge and understanding. However, despite Copernicus’ scientific revelations about the motion of the Earth around the sun, rather than the sun around the Earth, church scholars still maintained that the true structure of the Earth can only be interpreted through Scripture, not science. So they simply assumed the motion of the Earth to be little more than a convenient mathematical equation, the uses of which extended little past making celestial predictions (Lockitch). Not too long afterwards, Galileo caused quite a row with rather outspoken defense of Copernicus’ theories about the Earth’s motion. The resulting uproar forced the Church leaders to take a side; science or faith. Ultimately, they chose to uphold the teachings of the Scripture, and excommunicated Galileo (Lockitch).
For the most part, the playing field didn’t shift until the Enlightenment Era, when people started to question the principles of first causes – most famously, the foundation behind King James VI’s set of governing laws for the American Colonists. This groundbreaking way of thought was a major contributing factor in influencing the events that ultimately led to the American Revolution. Following the revolution’s success, during the drafting of the constitution, the Founding Fathers agreed that it was in the best interest of the people to keep the church and the state entirely separate (Zindler). This idea brought new light to the purpose of government and more importantly, opened up a new freedom for mankind. People now had a right to believe as they choose to; a profound victory for reason and science. However, this victory was relatively short-lived as the United States then began to lock horns with the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Even at that time, it was well known that the set of governing rules for the Communist regime included the disestablishment of all organized religion in that sector. Inevitably, in the eyes of the American people, Communism became associated with atheism, and Communism was un-American. And so by extension, atheism became un-American (Zindler).
The battle rages between science and religion on to the present day, as religious fundamentalists continue to remain faithful to their indoctrinated beliefs and atheistic scientists continue to maintain that religion is little more than man’s early attempts to fill in the gaps of their understandings on the first principles of life, and that any “honest person wants solid evidence to support assertions, and is leery of baseless claims” such as a god creating an entire universe. More support for this claim lies in the vanishing of past gods and religions, such as the ancient Greeks’ belief in Zeus’ Pantheon on Mount Olympus. Based on this history of ancient deities’ comings and goings, one could be forgiven for wondering whether “today’s deities [are] any more substantial.” (Haught) One may also consider the cruel nature of past and present undertakings of some religious sects, such as “human sacrifices, holy wars, Inquisition torture chambers, massacres of heretics, Crusades against infidels, witch hunts, Reformation wars, pogroms against Jews, Jonestown, Waco, nerve gas in Tokyo’s subway, suicide bombings by today’s Muslim fanatics – all these undercut the kindly image of believers.” (Haught) Many frustrated atheists believe “the signals of science and reason [to be] swamped by the noise of religion, superstition, [and] willful ignorance.” (Zindler) What both sides fail to realize, however, is that religion seeks not to refute scientific evidence, nor does science seek to dethrone God. From a religious scientist’s standpoint, to understand the nature of first principles is to understand the will of God, and to further admire His genius. Does this perspective contradict the foundations of science or religion in any way?
To even remotely understand the nature of first principles, one must become familiar with the laws of motion according to Aristotle. In the eighth book of his Introductory Readings, titled “Motion and the Unmoved Mover,” he states that “everything that is moved is moved by something,” but there must have been something that “by means of itself, initiated motion in everything else, otherwise there will be an infinite regress.” (64) He elaborates further on this by stating that “motion is everlasting and must never fail, [so] there must be some everlasting first mover [that is the] principle of motion for the [unmoved] things (66-67). In other words, in 323 B.C, Aristotle was already familiar with the most profound principle of the universe, which would later be reiterated by Einstein; that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Whatever this “primary mover” might have been is still anyone’s guess, as Aristotle never elaborated on its identity – only that it must exist. Obviously, this theory and its potential implications are still fiercely debated among scientists, philosophers, and religious scholars alike. That aside, Aristotle proved that, even in 323 B.C, scientific theory can coincide with theology. His conclusion about the “primary mover” continues to be one of the foundations of modern philosophy.
Despite Aristotle’s theory, the question of the beginning of the universe had never been brought into the realm of science until Edwin Hubble observed that distant stars are constantly and rapidly moving away from us. This led to the notion of an expanding universe, which in turn led to the notion that at one time in the distant past, everything in the universe was much closer together. In fact, it seemed that about ten or twenty thousand million years ago, everything was in exactly the same place. Hubble’s observations suggested that at that time, the universe was infinitesimally small, and therefore, infinitely dense. If anything happened before that time (perhaps, other times when that same universe expanded and collapsed in on itself, then expanded again), then they could not affect what happens at the present time, so observations about such events cannot be made (Hawking 14). To some, this may include the presence of God, or God initiating the Big Bang, and it is for this reason that many agnostics believe that His existence cannot be proved or disproved.
With thanks to Edwin Hubble, among other modern-day scientists and astronomers, the Big Bang theory has sort of become common knowledge. Having said that, Francis Collins, in his book “The Language of God” asks the reader to consider the following three observations:
1. The existence and substance of the universe is entirely dependent on the asymmetry of matter and antimatter. The fact that this asymmetry exists is anything but natural, for in nature, everything is balanced. But if there had been a complete balance between matter and antimatter, the universe would have quickly devolved into pure radiation in its early stages, and life as we know it would not have existed.
2. If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by one part in one-hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. Conversely, if the rate of expansion had been greater by one part in a million, stars and planets could not have been able to form. In short, the existence of a universe rests on a tight-rope of improbability. The existence of a universe that can support life rests upon a knife-edge of improbability.
3. If the constant nuclear force that holds together protons and neutrons had been slightly weaker than what it is, then only hydrogen would have been able to form. Conversely, if the nuclear forces had been slightly stronger, all the hydrogen would have converted to helium, instead of the 25 percent that occurred in the early stages of the Big Bang, and thus the fusion furnaces of stars would not have taken place, nor would have their ability to form heavier elements. Also, this universally consistent nuclear force appears to be tuned just sufficiently for carbon to form, which as per general knowledge, is critical for the formation of life. Had that force been slightly stronger, all the carbon would have been converted to oxygen.
All in all, there are fifteen universally physical constants, whose values are simply given and never change. The list includes the speed of light, the strength of the nuclear forces discussed earlier, various parameters associated with electromagnetism, and the force of gravity. The probability of all of these constants taking on the values necessary to form a universe that is capable of sustaining life is almost infinitesimal (Collins 71-75). Basically, life is the greatest of all improbabilities.
If one defines nature by probability, then life in of itself is highly unnatural. On this basis, some may argue that some conscious being that transcends the physical constants of the universe was, and is, the “primary mover” that Aristotle was talking about. Francis Collins refers to this viewpoint as theistic evolution, or BioLogos as he chooses to name it. The premises of BioLogos rest on the following observations:
1. The universe came into being out of nothingness approximately fourteen billion years ago.
2. Despite massive and almost inconceivable improbabilities, the universe appears to have been precisely tuned for life.
3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time.
4. Once evolution got under way, no supernatural intervention was required.
5. Humans are a part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
6. But humans are unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the knowledge of right and wrong, the natural curiosity about the principle causes of life, and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history (Collins 200).
BioLogos presents a unity of scientific theory and natural theology. It does not contradict science or the presence of God, nor does it try to force evidence of the existence of God. A true theist knows that if God transcends the observable universal constants that He created, then by extension, He transcends what is observable by nature. Hence, the existence of God, whether through the use of science or faith, cannot be absolutely proven or refuted. On this basis, one may be forgiven for wondering why the feud between science and religion ever existed in the first place. Francis Collins concludes in the tenth chapter of his book that “[God’s] creation is majestic, awesome, intricate, and beautiful – and it cannot be at war with each itself. Only we imperfect humans can start such battles. And only we can end them.”
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Flying With Us Is Cheaper Than Dying
Stuck in a grid-lock at a thousand miles an hour,
A whirlpool of color, a maelstrom of terror.
The starship was due to fly today,
I parked at the invisible flight-tower.
The terminal was a name-branded convenience store,
Selling overpriced perpetual debt.
Provided you have a soul, you don't need common sense,
So drink up, and why not buy some more?
I looked at the shattering mirror,
And I saw you at the check-in desk.
There was nothing I could do, it was all because of you.
They all sat down at the terminal,
For the starship to the afterlife.
They closed the gate behind me,
I left myself on the other side.
So here I am now on this voyage of the damned,
A starship that never left the ground.
I wished with all my might that this was just a dream...
...I'm still waiting for that wish to come true.
A whirlpool of color, a maelstrom of terror.
The starship was due to fly today,
I parked at the invisible flight-tower.
The terminal was a name-branded convenience store,
Selling overpriced perpetual debt.
Provided you have a soul, you don't need common sense,
So drink up, and why not buy some more?
I looked at the shattering mirror,
And I saw you at the check-in desk.
There was nothing I could do, it was all because of you.
They all sat down at the terminal,
For the starship to the afterlife.
They closed the gate behind me,
I left myself on the other side.
So here I am now on this voyage of the damned,
A starship that never left the ground.
I wished with all my might that this was just a dream...
...I'm still waiting for that wish to come true.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Heaven and Hell
I can feel the ground shaking beneath us. I can almost sense the frailty of the world on which we stand. Soon, that world, in ways that I cannot comprehend, will disappear forever.
In stark contrast to the immeasurable fear that I now feel in these final moments, the scenery is, for lack of a better word, beautiful. The sunset...the last sunset my family will ever see...is almost too picturesque to be believable. I wish I could describe this. Just the sight of it is actually making me tear up for the first time since she died, but judging by the ferocity of that last tremor, I'd say I don't have much time left.
My son and daughter are on either side of me. We're sitting on a cliff edge next to a waterfall that I used to hike around when I was a kid. The graffiti that used to be here seems to have been chipped away by the tremors. I'm okay with this. The graffiti may have made for some interesting Photoshop experiments, but it wouldn't have been what I wanted to see on my last night on earth.
I'd been quite blunt with my children's upbringing, so they most likely know as well as I do that we're all about to die. Right now, the way my son is gazing pensively into the distance, I feel as though he's somehow less fearful than I am. Perhaps he thinks that this whole thing is some elaborate joke. Nah, he's smarter than that.
My little girl is far from ignorant too. Not to mention, she's been as tough as nails since the day she was born. But now I can see the beginnings of tears in her eyes. It feels like I'm seeing her cry for the first time in her life. In some ways, the sight of her tears is more heart-wrenching than the fact that I'll never see her again. I'm starting to tear up a little bit again...
Like me, my kids were taught to see the world from all it's peoples' perspectives, so they know of the possibility of an afterlife, and they know the atheists' take on things. To this day though, we had all remained for the most part undecided. Right now, I'm kinda hoping there is an afterlife. Maybe we can all be together as a family again. I wonder if my children are thinking the same thing; perhaps they're wondering if we can have that Super Smash Brothers tournament that was supposed to happen yesterday.
Turning back to the sunset, which is almost over, I can feel more tremors. Not from the ground, but from my little girl. She's crying...a lot.
I almost started crying along with her. You know that constricted feeling in your throat that you get when you're trying to hold back a raging cry-fest? Yeah...that's happening.
Steadying myself, I try to tell her that there's nothing to worry about. Our family had always thrived on the adventure of exploring the unknown; hiking around this waterfall, horse-back riding in the rain-forests of Costa Rica, scuba diving around the sunken pier in Maui. For us, death would be our last great adventure. Whatever we may find on that adventure, only God knows...if He does in fact exist.
To be honest, telling her that did very little to calm her down. It didn't help me in any way either. I wonder, why do we fear death as we do anyway? It's ironic that we revel in the possibilities of discovering the unknown, but with death, we'd rather not think about it.
Either way, I hope that my last words to my kids weren't complete bullshit.
Looking into my daughter's eyes for...the last time as it turns out, I see what I had been dreading for the past four hours reflected in her eyes. She's now looking directly at it, so I pull her face back towards me and hold her tight.
...you know, I'm almost glad that all this waiting is over. But still, I was really enjoying that scenery.
My son is holding my hand, and squeezing...as though he's promising never to let go. I squeeze back. I feel the ground shaking even more now. I can no longer hear the waterfall next to us. I feel the wind picking up. It's now getting quite hot. I can feel my head buzzing. The buzzing is getting duller. Quieter.
.........
In stark contrast to the immeasurable fear that I now feel in these final moments, the scenery is, for lack of a better word, beautiful. The sunset...the last sunset my family will ever see...is almost too picturesque to be believable. I wish I could describe this. Just the sight of it is actually making me tear up for the first time since she died, but judging by the ferocity of that last tremor, I'd say I don't have much time left.
My son and daughter are on either side of me. We're sitting on a cliff edge next to a waterfall that I used to hike around when I was a kid. The graffiti that used to be here seems to have been chipped away by the tremors. I'm okay with this. The graffiti may have made for some interesting Photoshop experiments, but it wouldn't have been what I wanted to see on my last night on earth.
I'd been quite blunt with my children's upbringing, so they most likely know as well as I do that we're all about to die. Right now, the way my son is gazing pensively into the distance, I feel as though he's somehow less fearful than I am. Perhaps he thinks that this whole thing is some elaborate joke. Nah, he's smarter than that.
My little girl is far from ignorant too. Not to mention, she's been as tough as nails since the day she was born. But now I can see the beginnings of tears in her eyes. It feels like I'm seeing her cry for the first time in her life. In some ways, the sight of her tears is more heart-wrenching than the fact that I'll never see her again. I'm starting to tear up a little bit again...
Like me, my kids were taught to see the world from all it's peoples' perspectives, so they know of the possibility of an afterlife, and they know the atheists' take on things. To this day though, we had all remained for the most part undecided. Right now, I'm kinda hoping there is an afterlife. Maybe we can all be together as a family again. I wonder if my children are thinking the same thing; perhaps they're wondering if we can have that Super Smash Brothers tournament that was supposed to happen yesterday.
Turning back to the sunset, which is almost over, I can feel more tremors. Not from the ground, but from my little girl. She's crying...a lot.
I almost started crying along with her. You know that constricted feeling in your throat that you get when you're trying to hold back a raging cry-fest? Yeah...that's happening.
Steadying myself, I try to tell her that there's nothing to worry about. Our family had always thrived on the adventure of exploring the unknown; hiking around this waterfall, horse-back riding in the rain-forests of Costa Rica, scuba diving around the sunken pier in Maui. For us, death would be our last great adventure. Whatever we may find on that adventure, only God knows...if He does in fact exist.
To be honest, telling her that did very little to calm her down. It didn't help me in any way either. I wonder, why do we fear death as we do anyway? It's ironic that we revel in the possibilities of discovering the unknown, but with death, we'd rather not think about it.
Either way, I hope that my last words to my kids weren't complete bullshit.
Looking into my daughter's eyes for...the last time as it turns out, I see what I had been dreading for the past four hours reflected in her eyes. She's now looking directly at it, so I pull her face back towards me and hold her tight.
...you know, I'm almost glad that all this waiting is over. But still, I was really enjoying that scenery.
My son is holding my hand, and squeezing...as though he's promising never to let go. I squeeze back. I feel the ground shaking even more now. I can no longer hear the waterfall next to us. I feel the wind picking up. It's now getting quite hot. I can feel my head buzzing. The buzzing is getting duller. Quieter.
.........
Monday, April 12, 2010
See You Around
I was sitting near the sky,
But you had to raise the ground.
You made your point a thousand times,
So this time, hear me out.
You had it all your way,
Since I started up this hill.
You dragged me back the way I came,
But all your effort was for nil.
You took me by the arm,
You refused to let me go.
You left a couple marks,
That I hope will never show.
And now you're just some abstract form,
Of my former personal hell.
I followed you down before,
But I'd rather see the end myself, cause
It's a lifelong walk back to the foothills,
Cause what goes up has got to fall.
But until that day comes,
I'll just hang out here for a while.
You obviously don't understand,
I expected nothing more.
Cause it's a tricky thing to comprehend,
when your foot's between the door.
So I'd love to stay and talk,
But I got better things to do,
Cause life's too short,
To waste it all with you.
So let me once and for all,
Bid you this final farewell.
I still got a long way to walk,
And I can get there by myself.
..so I'll see you around.
It's a lifelong walk back to the foothills,
Cause what goes up has got to fall.
But until that day comes,
I'll just hang out here for a while.
But you had to raise the ground.
You made your point a thousand times,
So this time, hear me out.
You had it all your way,
Since I started up this hill.
You dragged me back the way I came,
But all your effort was for nil.
You took me by the arm,
You refused to let me go.
You left a couple marks,
That I hope will never show.
And now you're just some abstract form,
Of my former personal hell.
I followed you down before,
But I'd rather see the end myself, cause
It's a lifelong walk back to the foothills,
Cause what goes up has got to fall.
But until that day comes,
I'll just hang out here for a while.
You obviously don't understand,
I expected nothing more.
Cause it's a tricky thing to comprehend,
when your foot's between the door.
So I'd love to stay and talk,
But I got better things to do,
Cause life's too short,
To waste it all with you.
So let me once and for all,
Bid you this final farewell.
I still got a long way to walk,
And I can get there by myself.
..so I'll see you around.
It's a lifelong walk back to the foothills,
Cause what goes up has got to fall.
But until that day comes,
I'll just hang out here for a while.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)