he of the gaps

invoked over mysteries
far beyond the stars
in ever receding pockets of knowledge
before and after all time, he resides
as the man of the gaps
not in, or among time to acknowledge
the sacred

the unattainable

in front of us

never next to us

our god of ignorance
our god of tomorrow

is an ever receding pocket of knowledge

far beyond all the stars

far before every yesterday

Author's Note

Reviews

[KWP]

this morning I was walking out on the cliffs next to the ocean and I had a thought 'everybody strives to be something, whereas isn't the real key to know the nothing?' that's how I perceive the gaps you speak of here - although with your brain you will probably disagree with me, but with my brain it makes perfect sense :) there is a saying in meditation - feel the space at the end if every breath - it is tiny, a disjointed fragment in time, but it is there - and what does it possess? I believe it possesses all you mention above and more - but the think is, the minute we start to acknowledge of stiff for it with the perception of this reality we share, it quickly dissipates into the elusive inaccessible gap it beams out to the world you and I live in.

Inherent knowledge ( although I may be completely off topic ) holds all of the answers ...

Happy day X

[Davidgeo]

Embracing the unknowable does not preclude a scientific approach. It's actually kinda the whole point. If you get deep into the whole physics thing you will find that all the good one's agree... there are things we can never know. But that should never blunt our attempts at trying to understand the rest of it.

I'm a really big Thomas Merton fan. I always disagree with him at the end but his process is honest... so his thoughts are valid to me. At the end of the day we're all just swimming in a pool without knowing where the edges are. How you swim is more important than where you intend to swim to. Or maybe I'm not making sense tonight... eh, I refuse to edit this response so, yeah, lets call that a disclaimer. I don't always make sense on Saturdays nights.

[Davidgeo]

Inherent curiosity... holds the answers.

[KWP]

I know you are a Merton Fan - I think Saturday nights make you forget what you have told me :D
read moreI know you are a Merton Fan - I think Saturday nights make you forget what you have told me :D

I like that quote ....
At the end of the day we're all just swimming in a pool without knowing where the edges are.

... and then ... there are things we can never know ... what? why? ...

I dunno - I still have a feeling we already know it all, seeing that everything has come from the same starting point ... does that makes sense on your Saturday night?

[KWP]

Inherent curiosity is the most beautiful gift me thinks :D

[KWP]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlEhlw_d5N8

[Davidgeo]

I like that one. Jim Carrey is far more complex than people give him credit for. His best movie to me isn't among his comedies, it's "eternal sunshine of the spotless mind".

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEefSxc8kag

[John the Baptist]

In this offering the poet seems to be speaking of a deity, though that deity is never identified. Possibly the subject is just the concept of a deity itself, which is "receding" as science continually reveals more mysteries of the universe as time passes. The "gaps" referred to are probably those mysteries that yet remain. Interestingly, the poet does not say this "god" (emphasis on small g) does not exist, only that it continues to recede "far beyond all the stars/far before every yesterday." This may the poet's way of stating that we will always need the god concept to cover our ever existing gaps in knowledge. Well written and thought provoking work.

[Davidgeo]

That was more or less what the poem was about. I don't believe in a religious type of god, I do believe that the human species originally invented them (god's in general) to explain the unexplainable and bring a measure of hope in the face of unavoidable tragedy. In the latter sense I have no problem with others calling fundamental realities of nature the result of 'god'... to me it is irrelevant what you call it as long as you still seek objective truths and don't use the "god did it" cop out to remain ignorant in the face complex natural phenomena. Mainstream modern day religion (the past 2,500 years or so) has included socially and institutionally coercive means which perverted the original, more "natural" ends of what 'religion' once was. There is an Italian friar named Giordano Bruno that inspired me to write that poem. . . he's an interesting fellow who came to a very tragic end; you should look him up.

[H L Rose]

I find this poem quite elusive and have no idea if I am interpreting it as intended, but that's no insult to it, elusive poems are great. This is just a disclaimer that I know I could have it wrong.

“invoked over mysteries
far beyond the stars
in ever receding pockets of knowledge”
I like these lines because they draw me in as a reader and I like the contrast between major things like “mysteries” and “beyond the stars” with something small like “pockets”.

“before and after all time, he resides
as the man of the gaps”
I think “the gaps” is a unique way to get your point across and is an interesting paring with the idea in the line before it.

“not in, or among time to acknowledge”
This line is kind of where I get confused. I'm not sure who is or isn't acknowledging.

“the sacred
the unattainable
in front of us
never next to us”
This is where the elusiveness makes it interesting. It feels like you are showing a kind of contempt for an idea of righteousness too great for man to obtain, though he must try through religion.

“our god of ignorance
our god of tomorrow
is an ever receding pocket of knowledge
far beyond all the stars
far before every yesterday”
I can't tell just how much of this could be said in contempt, but if I am right that it is mostly said in such a manner, than the “ever receding...” line, I think, is a unique way of getting that across. I feel like the last two lines are perfect for what you saying and gets the point across well.



I'm hesitant to go here...again. But seeing as you send a read request and used that video, heck I can't help it. I 'm easy to bait. This is my point. They are reconcilable. I have no desire to prove that creationist theories are more probable(perhaps I should and as I continue to study it, perhaps one day I will), just that recognized scientific theories do not disprove the bible and make it an opposite of Christianity, so don't make kids grow up thinking that. It makes it hard to enjoy science class when you tell someone science, in and of itself, directly, without a doubt contradicts their world view, and there is no point in making kids hate science if it does not do that.

Side note: Yes Moses (a human being who wrote Genesis) did not know science. Heck Joshua told the sun to stop obviously not knowing the earth was the one needing to stop. God decided it was best not to give all the answers about the universe to us thousands of years before we had the honor of discovering them ourselves...so?

[Davidgeo]

That was a beautiful review... thank you for that.

This was about the reality of never being able to understand everything and how (in my opinion) religion is our species' metaphorical answer to those questions.

I don't believe in a personal god myself but I recognize that given our inherently limited understanding (we are temporary creatures) it is unwise to assume that sort of thing is outright impossible.

I think the true folly with respect to believers is assuming an anthropomorphic orientation to the origins of creation. Fully modern humans are less than 200,000 years old... the universe is at least 12ish billion years old - that means we've been around for less than 1 percent of 1 percent.

God may be real... but "he" certainly doesn't have anything to do with being human. (in my opinion)

[H L Rose]

Of course!

That's an interesting perspective that I definitely respect. I don't think we can have all the answers.

And of course I don't think one can expect someone who doesn't believe in the bible and living by faith to except it's explanations of the universe over the more scientifically plausible explanation.

That being said, I don't think science can be stated as definite proof that God has nothing to do with creation and humanity. I really don't think there is enough proof for that.

[Davidgeo]

I accept the bible (etc.) as moral philosophy and I accept religion in general as an evolutional advantage with respect to social behavior. The only religious kinds of attitudes that I take issue with are those who take their religious text as literal fact, because that can justify some pretty abhorrent behavior... which I had the "pleasure" of witnessing first hand during my extensive time spent in Iraq at the height of sectarian violence in the early and mid 2000's. Most of all that s**t was/is motivated by archaic interpretations of religion not the actual religion itself. On a slightly unrelated note - how do you feel about that whole Westboro Baptist Church thing?

[H L Rose]

I get the whole problem with inconsistencies in interpretation thing (and I may be wrong, but it sounds like you're hinting towards the whole Voltaire-like idea of the world being too terrible). In my own opinion, I do think that when it comes to the bible, there is a correct way to interpret it (pretty literally)if it is being read in context. I know that sounds like an interpretation thing, but I don't think it can be left open for much interpretation if one were to read the bible academically.

It's a terribly sad example of being too afraid to love. It is hard to love and build relationships with people who one believes may be going to hell, so instead they build walls and demonize such people, portraying a false representation of the gospel and Jesus. Their own prejudices makes it easier for them to do so and easier for the devil to step in and entice them. .

[Davidgeo]

Are you familiar with some of the recent comments that Pope Francis has made concerning hell? (essentially stating that hell/satan doesn't actually exist in terms of "going to hell" or being "sent to hell") "They don't send you to hell, you go there because you choose to be there. Hell is wanting to be distant from God because I do not want God's love. This is hell" - P Francis; April, 2018

Another issue is - "portraying a false representation"... to say that requires to first have an absolutely true representation in your mind which would negate the entire concept of having "faith" and "believing". If you "know" than you can't "believe" - because you already "know", which is not the same thing.

The inconcistincies that present themselves when you take religious text's "pretty literally" are obvious and occasionally even dangerous if you objectively look at things (9/11 was the result of a pretty literal interpretation of religion).

[H L Rose]

That's fair. Let me do some specifying,
But first, the Pope.

I don't entirely disagree, but I do think Hell does exist. There are plenty of people who act like hell is "simply" separation from God, however, according to the bible, God is all things good so in other words, hell is separation from all things good. That's not so simple anymore. Not to mention, Jesus painted a much darker picture of hell than the simplistic version many may try to paint. While it is easier to explain hell in terms that seem less scary, it simply isn't backed up by the bible. According to the Bible, Hell is a real and horrible place.

On Satan: One of Satan's greatest lies is making us believe he doesn't exist.

"Faith" and "Hope" are tricky words in biblical context. When we talk about "faith", “hope”, and "believing" we are focusing on a type of "knowing". The original language portrays this better. "Hope" would perhaps be better translated as "waiting" and "faith" as a sure faith based on truth. However the type of "knowing" that these words convey is still not concrete, simple knowledge, because knowing the knowledge of God's existence isn't the point. Even demons "know" God exists. The "true representation" we have in our mind, is one that we can see through His character shown in the bible. God teaches the Israelites to have faith all throughout the old testament by showing them his character over and over again. They were not following God simply because Moses said "there's this God that is here to help you, believe everything I say, follow these rules, and everything will work out". The Israelites had God's character proven to them throughout the old testament and this is what their faith was based off of.

I shouldn't use the phrase "pretty literally". I'll give you that. And I don't disagree with your point about 9/11. I mean the literal text of the Koran kind of supports that kind of action. I know of course the majority of Muslims would never want to participate in that kind of action, but it is in their scriptural text.
And yes, Biblical text does suggest a radical approach to life just not in the same violent way. Instead we have radical stuff like drop everything for Jesus and find Joy in suffering.

To be fair, Christianity isn't Islam. In fact, I would argue it is fundamentally different from other religions.

[Davidgeo]

Fair enough.

Islam is kind of a violent religion. Mohamad was a sort of warlord. But so were a lot of popes over the centuries. How we look at the papacy today is not what the papacy was about way back when. They had wives, they had children and they waged war...(crusades?), and for centuries they did this. It wasn't until the 1100's that priests started to take vows of celibacy and even later for the pope.
The rules are forever changing and that kinda undermines the whole "divine text" mantra. As we see drastic changes with respect to organized religion it undermines the fundamental concept of a literally divine anthropomorphic deity. The question presents itself as such - were they wrong then or are they wrong now? You can't have it both ways.

[H L Rose]

The difference would be that the theology dependent on a Pope(or any ordinary man) is not biblical. It has never been Biblical. The early church wouldn't have supported it, the Bible has never supported it, and many Christians today do not support it. It hasn't been the Bible that has changed. The rules aren't changing. The Bible only supports one truth. That is kind of what makes the Biblical God so cool. He in unchanging despite the ever changing world.

It is the people who change proving the inability of man to be like God and consistent with God no matter how hard we may try.

[Davidgeo]

All of it depends on how early you go back with the church. 325 AD was the first council of nicea and the beginning of modern Christianity. As recently as 1546, at the council of trent, they were still essentially putting the modern bible together. The biblical "rules" have indeed changed over the centuries, that's just the objective reality of the situation no matter what we do or do not believe in. That you aren't aware of that kinda makes me not want to talk about this with you any further. No offense to you personally but it becomes clear you don't have a fully objective understanding of history in general when you claim things like that.

[H L Rose]

But that history doesn't really change things. The early church was being ministered to by the same people who wrote the bible. The documents they decided to make up the bible at the council of Nicea had already been circulated throughout the churches since they had been written. "Modern Christianity" is the same as "Old Christianity, because it is defined and lead by the same principles. It's not like a bunch of men came together in 325 AD and were like "alright let's write some books and make a religion".

The council of Trent is just an example of what I mentioned before about men changing things. It was also Catholic's telling protestants how they were wrong for focusing solely on the Bible.

I understand having frustrations with inconsistencies and their are definitely many inconsistencies in the Catholic Church's doctrines and beliefs throughout history and today, but I don't think it works to base all the arguments on the Catholic Church cause it was Christians in the reformation who pointed out the Catholic Church's inconsistencies.

[Davidgeo]

I implore you to honestly explore the objective history of your religion (all the way back even before there was a new testament). You are getting some things wrong that is distorting your understanding, which is a common issue with modern interpretations of anything really. Let's just leave it at that, shall we? I respect your commitment to faith but this conversation has taken a turn down an unintellectual avenue. To slightly change the subject, have you ever read anything written by a Trappist Christian monk named Thomas Merton? He's a fellow I think you might find to be completely f*****g awesome. He was a person who truly bridged philosophies of religion while remaining true to his Christian roots. Since you're a poetry fan let me recommend "The Way of Chuang Tzu" by him... it's a really good interpretation of Chinese poetry with a westernized religious mind. But his real contribution (in my opinion) are two non poetic books... one called "The Seven Story Mountain" another called "Seeds of Contemplation". As you can tell I'm an atheist but the knowledge that fella was capable of articulating transcends all of that s**t.

[H L Rose]

Thank you for those reading suggestions!

I do study the history of my faith and at the moment especially, I am studying the history of the Old Testament. One way to see the connection between the old and New Testament actually is looking at The Bible Project on YouTube. They offer great explanations on a lot of the Bible as a whole, and it’s context and history.
I don’t mind leaving it, but you say I am getting things wrong, but haven’t explain what I’m getting wrong.

Thomas Merton is part of the whole “all religions are the same” thing. Taking someone else’s analogy:

Religion sees God at the top of the mountain and everyone else at the bottom, and you may go this way up the mountain, and I may go this other way, but we are all trying to get to the same place.

But what if the God at the top of the mountain didn’t wait for us to get to him and instead came down to were we are. That would be great right? That’s where Jesus comes in. This is a fundamental part of Christianity that separates it from Christianity and it’s hard to say Merton “[remained] true to his Christian roots” while he undermines the sufficiency of Jesus’s sacrifice and puts his trust in the ability of man to get to God.

It’s not too surprising that James Merton has this interfaith ideology because...wait for it...he’s Catholic.

I can’t help but notice some clues that hint at assumptions you seem to have of me as a Christian. I implore you to honestly consider some of your initial assumptions of me and Christianity.

[Davidgeo]

Thomas Merton. His name Thomas Merton. Dive deep into him. There's a TS Eliot poem I want to dissect with you but you have to internalize the Merton stuff first. ("fear in a handful of dust" kinda stuff)

[H L Rose]

. 👍

[Chris Shaw]

Creation/ Creator, man of the gaps. There are some things we will never know, but I put science first. Scientific evidence is more important to me, than some of the wacky explanations put forth by religion. I could never be led by blind faith.
Chris

[TerryDarcy-Ryan akaSh..]

A very powerful and humbling poem. It takes you away and sums you up. It is bold and expressed simply. I will return to read it again. Your imagery incites a stellar write.

Sheer Terror