Spirituality: The Age of Aquarium
The Age of Aquarium
Schools of Fish and Thought
The theists prayed and said “Amen,” while atheists said “Ahem . . .”
“There’s no such thing, you silly goofs; you haven’t any proof.”
Panentheists sought elbow room, they tried to wriggle in.
That en’s a tricky syllable; it splices God’s hair thin.
“How do you know?” agnostic said, referring to the “en.”
“I see your point – and his, and hers – yet don’t know
“Which to choose.” “Wait, I know,” Ag’s friend piped up, “Try starting
“Your own school. Decide it’s all a paradox; become a panagnostic.”
Meanwhile, the atmosphere and sea
Continually grew hotter. A school of fish went belly up;
They never even muttered. A school of fish up-belly went
And not a word was uttered.
The nameless One did scratch his head, non-literally befuddled.
“What’s up with this?” God asked himself, “Creation’s gotten
“Muddled. These chat a lot and don’t do much; those never were my
“Wishes. Next time I’m in the mood to plan, I think I’ll stop at fishes.”
Paul Martin
Posted by Paul at 8:45 PM Permalink
24 Comments:
I assume the nameless one and God are one in the same - is GOD an acronym for Got Other Deities?
Also, it must be said in the interests of full disclosure: “fishes” was chosen because it rhymes with “wishes.”
VISHESH: I had no idea. I was vaguely aware that the fish was a symbol in early Christianity but hoped nobody would notice since I wasn’t trying to make the point that the world will eventually be taken over by early Christian symbolism and/or Christians, lol. Also, in Christianity the symbol doesn’t have negative connotations.
Hmm - fishes, wishes, and Vishesh kind of go together . . .
HAZZBUZZ: As per my reply to Vishesh, I (that is, Kermit) had no idea about the Nazis. The only serious point to me in this basically silly verse is that we really need to do something about global warming. The whole thing is happening faster than scientists originally predicted, and we’re not putting on the brakes.
PAULINE: Hmm… Can’t help but notice your phrase of God as “one in the same” instead of the usual “one and the same.” Panentheist?
KARIN: The only serious thing in the post to me was about global warming per my reply to Hazzbuzz. I very much agree with everything you say here.
And mused
Idle chatting is as poisonous as meaningful actions
The ten organs and the mind that rules over them
Were created by me to express myself
Now they have become self centered
And cries hoarse for their personal satisfaction
I did indeed commit an error
When I delegated a great part of my job to them
They simply generate a lot noise
And contribute to the shooting up of entropy
Now let me take the reins again in my hands
And anchor these guys in their assigned posts
Then he went back to the fundamentals
And started afresh from the pristine roots
He sought and discovered within himself
The many productive couplets
Eager to participate in the process of production
He put them in an arc
And pushed the arc into the gooey waters of reason
And the mess started all over again
Perhaps with a little difference
Anyhow, I was chuckling over the fact that you named the nameless one. I haven't found a religious label that fits me.
btw..i have written a new "story"....
here is an interesting article i thought you'd like:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?ex=1351742400&en=bdf120e4cf4bf442&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
AVGW: Hmm… I don’t entirely follow but at least with no fish going belly up, it sounds somewhat hopeful!
PAULINE: Just glad it was you and not me. Seems like every several years I come out with something that it turns out I’ve always misheard, usually with a family member pointing it out. I’ll never learn the language.
VISHESH: Will try to look in soon, full plate this week… Meanwhile, of course:
Besh Vishes . . .
Paul
KEVIN: Thanks, Kevin. Interesting and unusual story – someone allegedly converted to theism by reason. And after all these years, finally getting the teleological argument (from design) to work!
To pursue my own metaphor, it sounds a bit fishy . . . I’ve encountered other books purporting to finally prove God’s existence via logic that didn’t work.
The essential problem with such attempts, it seems to me, is that God’s existence is finally an empirical question. Any proof would have to be in the domain of some form of experience. I don’t follow how one proves the existence of anything at all through logic.
If we could figure out a thing’s existence through logic, then, for example, scientists – for that matter, why would we need them . . . rather, logicians – could sit around a table and decisively conclude whether or not intelligent life exists on other planets. Why bother with the expensive telescopes or spacecraft?
MISTIPURPLE: I don’t know if that’s really such a god theory . . .
Keshi.
KESHI: I'm aghast . . .
LOVESEA: Azamazing!
Somewhere I had read the story of Noah and his famous arc. It had fascinated my young mind at that time. The image of an arc filled with a bevy of newly married couples of all species set out on a voyage with no destination seemed very romantic to me.
Later on in Hindu mythology I came across a very similar character indulging in the pairing business. Brahma, the presiding deity of creation was going through the motions of creation. At some stage he created the eleven rudras, the consummators corresponding to the five sense organs, the five organs for action and the mind that controls all of them and delegated the proliferation of beings to them. The creations of these rudras were as insatiable as themselves and the universe was fast turning into a nest of unrest. Brahma then restrained and thought of better ways. He divided himself into the male and female principles and left the continuation of the process of creation to them. And it continues on and on like that.
I guess rediscovery of the romance of being at all levels is the relevant theme always. When an atheist marries a theist it will only create a lot of heat. When a male atheist marries a female atheist or when a male theist marries a female theist they will beget beautiful children. Similar beautiful results happen also when a male atheist marries a female theist, or vice versa.
May be the problem encountered by Noah and Brahma were just the same…the drying up of the elixir of romance when the process of categorization got corrupted as compartmentalization.
Very entertaining and true. We know that fish are in schools, but do we even know what type of schools fish are in?
ALEXYS F: I think we can rule out swimming lessons, but beyond that I'm stumped.
(No fishy eschatology here, just an obscure pop culture reference - Zager and Evans c. maybe 1970?)
Good to see you around -
Thanks for your recent comment at my Blog of the Grateful Bear. I've added you to my blogroll of "Cyberfriends in the Blogosphere."
Can't wait to read your book!
~ Grateful Bear
>>>>>Theory gets a bad wrap because it is not seen as being "practical." But it is behind all action whether we articulate it or not.<<<<<
Excellent!
Paul, if there is in fact some function like "law of attraction", you are blessed with it.
I AM
Lantern Bearer
Post a Comment