This poem by Ryokan seems very appropriate for this time of year.
Time passes,
There is no way
We can hold it back---
Why, then, do thoughts linger on,
Long after everything else is gone?
from Dewdrops on a Lotus Leaf
trans. John Stevens
Another view, perhaps?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
and never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
and auld lang syne?
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
and Happy New Year to you, also... nice choices from Ryokan and Burns...
ReplyDeleteMudpuddle,
DeleteThanks. I suppose I should have waited a day, but memories are a part of this entire holiday season, or so it seems to me.
R.T.,
ReplyDeleteAn enemy and sometimes a healer. Perhaps those other living things aren't aware of it in the same way we are.
Fred: or maybe... no, i'd better not say that, he said...
ReplyDeleteLast night I attended a party. There were people there who I knew as teenagers. I believe that I have not seen them since. We are all hovering around 50. This poem seems very appropriate.
ReplyDeleteHave a happy New Years Fred!
Brian Joseph,
DeleteI've never been able to attend one of those reunions, having left Chicago almost 50 years ago, but I'm not that sure I would go, even if I did have the opportunity.
Mudpuddle,
ReplyDeleteYou have me curious, now.
Happy New Year to you as well, Fred. Who knows what it will bring. Something good for all of us I hope. In spite of the election results. :)
ReplyDeleteYvette,
DeleteOne thing is certain: whatever happens will be different, I suspect.
change is the only constant in the immense vastness of the cosmos... at least that we know about... HAPPY NEW YEAR, FRED AND TIM AND YVETTE AND BRIAN!!!!
ReplyDeleteMudpuddle,
DeleteChange and the speed of light, according to the cosmologists or so I've read.
Mudpuddle,
ReplyDeleteThe speed of light--that should be according to Einstein, of course.
Einstein also said that God doesn't play dice with the universe, but sometimes I wonder.
i've been bemused by one of the characteristics of certain quantum particles: that is, two of one sort apparently can effect each other regardless of their distance apart; an action on the part of on will immediately affect it's partner on the other side of the universe just as if they were positioned close to each other... so.. how do they know? and how would such a phenomenon be measured?? see "Quantum Entanglement" in Wikipedia...
Deletei envision me warm and comfortable in my liquid home surrounded by lots of lovely soft mud, contemplating the vagaries of the environment, human and otherwise with a glint of interest in my froggy eye...
DeleteMudpuddle,
DeleteAt the ancient pond
a frog plunges into
the sound of water
-- Basho --
Fred: haha that's the haiku i got it from-i used to write many of them and once won a prize for one i entered in a contest given by a Japanese Zen monastery... in Japanese: furuikeya, kawazu tobi komo mizu no oto...
DeleteMudpuddle,
DeleteI didn't know that, but while reading your comment, I immediately thought of that haiku. I guess it's the references to the liquid and "froggy eye," especially the "froggy eye."
Mudpuddle,
ReplyDeleteYes, entanglement is a problem for me also.
How do they know? From what I've read and have difficulty understanding is that part of the theory that is illustrated by Shroedinger's cat. The cat is neither dead nor alive until one looks in the box. Our observation causes something to happen. The particle that's observed does not have the characteristics of spin or whatever until somebody observes at it. Since the other particle has the same characteristics as the first one observed, it must have gained those characteristics when the first was observed, otherwise there would be a random distribution of characteristics.
For example, spin is one of the characteristics. When the first particle is observed, it can have either a right-hand or a left-hand spin. When the other particle is then observed, it always has the same spin as the first.
It's been a while, so my memory may be playing tricks on me.
the only answer i've been able to come up with, (and it's in tune with my general understanding) is that when we think we're observing something, we're not... in other words, the universe is so strange that we, being part of it, are deluded in reference to consciousness; that due to how our brains are constructed, we function like very large computers: we process data and foist "reality" onto the gathered sensory data to suit our perceptions... really we are part and parcel of a greater whole and we are not aware, nor can we be, of the nature of "existence"... in other words, strange as it may seem, we are no more conscious than a rock... i know this seems nuts, but it's the result of quite intense research in a zen sort of way... and it may well be untrue, but it fits my personal observations...
DeleteMudpuddle,
DeleteI can see what you are saying, and my only disagreement would be the denial of consciousness. One has to be conscious to be able to deny consciousness.
Many years ago I read David Bohm's _Wholeness and the Implicate Universe_ and understood maybe 15% to 20% of it (on my good days). I think he was saying that the universe is a hologram and that our brains are processors which "construct" the universe the way beams of light process a hologram or something like that. This would provide the theoretical foundation for some ESP abilities. The book was published in 1980. He was ignored, of course, at that time. However, in Science News, last year I read an article in which his name was mentioned with the suggestion that his theories are, while not being accepted, being looked at and reevaluated..
Shortly afterwards, I read a novel by Dan Simmons, _The Hollow Man_, which features a man with some telepathic powers. The theory in the book supporting such powers is based on the universe being a hologram. I suspect Simmons also read the same book.
Bohm is an interesting person in his own right. He was tangentially part of the Manhattan project and later ran afoul of the government because of his youthful involvement with the Communist Party in the 30s. He was blackballed and finally ended up moving to Brazil and then England where he could continue working in his field. For more information the link below takes you to the Wiki article about him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm
OOOPS!
DeleteThe title should be _Wholeness and the Implicate Order_. I make that mistake every time I refer to the book.
many tx: i'll see if i can find a copy on Abebooks... Bohm's ideas sound a bit far out even for me, but they do seem interesting... tx again for the comeback; i think these kinds of idea are my version of exploring outer space... too much sci fi when young, maybe... just ordered it-should be here in a week or so; tx...
DeleteMudpuddle,
DeleteI would really like to hear what your reaction was.