Secular Metaphysics from Silent Noise

I thought I would share an excerpt from my first published book, Silent Noise. This is the second chapter. If you like what you read, you can download a free sample on the Goodreads page, and find the book here: http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Noise-Ph...

I’ve been on my own for about a day now. By now, as you can imagine, the feeling from church has indeed faded. But that’s honestly okay with me. My inspiration is still there. I’m not going to lose that inspiration. Inspiration is my life force, my life source, and without that, I would be nothing.

No one has stopped for me so far. I’m guessing it’s because they don’t speak my language. A lot of people look at me confused, when I start signing to them, asking if they want to hear some poetry. The rest, when I write down on paper what I’d like to do for them, just look disinterested (and not in a Matthew Arnold sort of way). My spiritual calling has faded a little, because, while I’m not discouraged, per se, I’m still not sure if this is the right thing for me. People don’t really understand what it is I’m trying to do.

But that’s when I begin to think about poetry in a secular way. I begin to ask the tough questions. How do we know when we’ve penetrated beauty? And not just beauty, but Beauty? How do we know that what we’ve touched is the Real Thing? Plato says we can apprehend these Forms with thought, but I have to admit, what I like about theological metaphysics in the vein of Aquinas is the idea that God is the actual Form, because then you have your Perfect Being, your Perfect Source.

I don’t like it completely, though. Not because I’m ambivalent towards believing in God, because I’m really not. It’s just that I like the points that Plato brings up. They are indeed secular, but I like his idea that we can just reminisce and understand higher concepts like Beauty and Love and Truth.

That’s why I like poetry, though. I think I really agree with Sir Philip Sidney’s claim that poetry gets closer to Plato’s Forms than any other form out there. History is fascinating, yes, and so is philosophy, but poetry can break so many rules, simply by letting its language penetrate into deep and deeper spaces. Though I of course am not so sure I like him calling the Medieval times the “misty times.” That’s a little too derogatory and deprecatory for me.

I’m in a minor city, and the cars are driving by casually. It’s not too busy now. I continue to walk, and that’s when I see someone else, walking on the streets.

They are wearing all white, the person, and they are a kid at least five years older than me. However, I can’t help but wonder if they might want to listen to my poetry.

I approach the kid, and begin to sign.

Did you want to hear a poem?

The kid looks confused for a moment. Then he signs, Can you repeat your question?

Do you want to hear a poem? I sign, feeling excited that he speaks my language at least. He could not listen to my poem and I’d be happy that he at least speaks my language, and spoke it for a moment. I hadn’t realized how lonely I was getting. My question was poetry, anyway, and in that way, I still got to share with him.

The kid thinks about this, then signs, I don’t like poetry.

I’m a little taken aback by this, but not because I’m surprised by the claim: tons of people have said they don’t like poetry. Poetry is often considered an elite form of art, and thus inferior, and people already don’t like art, so why would they like an elite form of art? It’s just because I have a feeling that this kid is going to go into a deep and philosophical diatribe against poetry, though I can’t explain why I think that.

I feel like he’s going to attack poetry, the way Plato does.

And that’s exactly what he does, when he sees I’m silent: It’s the basic theory of Mimesis.

Mimetics are synthetics, I sign, smiling to try and catch my anti-poet and opponent off guard a little.

Mimesis is more real than poetry, the kid signs. I don’t like poetry for the reasons that Plato mentions, and more.

I wonder if I want to hear this attack on poetry. I know the whole theory of Mimesis. Poetry is a copy of reality, a mere imitation, the reality of which is merely a copy of Plato’s Forms, of things that are better than the copy below. Thus, making poetry that much more fake. I know he thinks poetry is bad for people, because it makes them bad people, because they start to get their heads in clouds.

And in fact, this is exactly what the kid signs. I can tell he’s studied Plato carefully, though, because he brings up other points I wouldn’t have considered, ranging from many different texts.

But why would he attack the poor poets? I sign. The way he attacks that poor bard. Why does Plato have to hate on a whole group of people? Poets can indeed attack philosophy just as much as philosophers can attack poetry. We have the language, obviously.

You have to attack what you have an antipathy toward, the kid says through sign. And not only that, but I agree: poetry can be very dangerous.

Yeah, because everyone wants to go on a killing spree the moment they read Emily Dickinson.

The kid takes my point, and smiles again. Well, even a poet like Emily Dickinson. No, maybe they won’t get all sociopathic all the sudden, but they might start to get obsessed with death and lock themselves in their room all day, which of course could never be healthy.

I smile, and then sign, I can attack philosophy just as much as you attack poetry. Don’t forget that.

Go for it, the kid urges me.

Well, philosophy is boring. It refuses to use language for the purpose of exciting wonder and beauty and even experimentation. There are some exceptions, like Jacques Derrida of course, but philosophy tries to be precise with its language, to have its precise definitions and precise concepts, to the point to where philosophy tries to become math. And we all know math is boring.

Hey, I like math, the kid signs. Besides, that’s another thing I don’t like about poetry. It’s useless. All you have are words on the page, while with philosophy, you have reason—which we can’t live without—and with math, you have precision, and you have proof.

I think Oscar Wilde would agree with you there, I sign back, almost enthusiastically because he’s fallen into a trap. Oscar Wilde thinks that art is useless. But that’s what he likes about it. He also likes that art tells lies, particularly poetry. We know Plato hates it, but Plato wasn’t a poet. Oscar Wilde was, though, and we don’t see Oscar Wilde’s beautiful poetry corrupting our youth.

Only because there haven’t been any scientific studies, the kid signs bitterly, but he’s lightened up some. Okay, okay. I see your point. Poetry can ride the line between fiction and reality, and to cool effects, while philosophy just has to be a boring straight-up attempt to get to truth. Okay, kid. I see your point. What’s your name by the way?

Micah, I sign.

I go by Socrates, even though I’m not, obviously. It’s a nickname.

We shake hands, and then continue our debate.

You say Plato isn’t a poet, right? says Socrates.

Yeah, I sign, wondering if I’m about to fall prey to the Socratic Method.

Well, I don’t know if I agree. Poets are trying to penetrate into the depths of illuminating concepts like Beauty and Truth.

Because beauty is truth, and truth beauty, I sign.

Yes, yes, Keats … I know that quotation. But my point is, what if philosophers actually get closer to Plato’s Forms than any mere poet, simply because they are apprehending things in a way that no one else can?

Well, there is considerable debate about Plato’s method of attacking poetry. He uses dialogue, which makes his attempt, his attack, look more artsy, and thus ironically and unwittingly encouraging one to be creative in the arts. But what you’re saying I reject completely, on the premises that that is what philosophy is supposed to do … and yet, has it? I hate to go all Postmodern on you, but have philosophers ever agreed with you, that because we’ve used philosophy, we’ve apprehended Forms? And yet you talk to a poet, and they have more confidence in their art, because everything they’ve done is so freeing and artistic, rather than cerebral and logical. How are those not Forms? I kind of stand by Hume, when he talks about the disagreements through time of reason but the more constant opinions of taste show that people seem to know what they like in art and agree on that more than they do points in philosophy and arguments, in rigid argumentation.

Aestheticism is overrated, signs Socrates, and I can tell that he’s at a loss for a moment. His words are simply a catch-all, because I’ve caught him in a trap. So why do you think that poetry is useful, or at least in tapping into the metaphysics of existence?

I think of a poem I’d written in the past, and then sign that poem:

The metaphysical is metapoetical,
the metapoetical metaphysical.
When you tap into this metaspace
it’s really rather kind of cool.

I know it’s not a great poem, but this snippet captures the anxiety of what we’re talking about and been talking about.

So you think poetry allows you to penetrate Plato’s Forms because metaphysics is the same as poetry? Socrates asks.

I nod. I think that’s exactly why. I think metaphysics and poetry are the same thing, just their function changes. Philosophy becomes about precision of thought and reason, while poetry becomes about precision of language, in a general scheme of things. But you’ve got writers like Heidegger who use poetry all the time in their philosophy, using everything from word play to simply beautiful language, and who is to say that their philosophy isn’t poetry, and vice versa?

The poetic is the abstract,
the abstract the poetic.
When you finally realize that,
everything seems to tick.

Socrates looks at me carefully, and then smiles cautiously. I can see your point, he signs. It is true, how much the two intersect without us realizing that. That’s why I like the Continental philosophers. I appreciate analytical philosophers, of course, but Continental philosophers are good at using language to prove their points, much the way a poet does.

My point exactly, I sign. It’s amazing how similar philosophy and poetry are. Plato was trying to break that barrier, but if you’ve ever read Lucian, you know that people can be just as skeptical of philosophy as they can of poetry … and Lucian was a philosopher!

Well Lucian was a satirist and iconoclast, so he was going to attack anything and everything, Socrates says. But okay. I see your point. I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

We don’t say anything for a moment, but then my friend signs, So … do you mind sharing more poetry? I’d like to hear something abstract, something that challenges the mind like philosophy, but something that tries to tap into Plato’s Forms. I want to see if Sidney was even close to being right.

Yeah, I don’t mind, I sign, and go into my poem:

Beauty falls like a pine needle to the pining forest floor,
the moments slipping by smoothly like rain droplets,
the hiss of the snake in the garden of the Fall
sounding the alarm of our waking days.

Everything is beautiful when contrasted
in dark illumination.

I see the days become a blur
as the moon becomes a haze on the horizon,
a smudge of reason.
It all dances with the subtle grace of forms unbounded,
of truth unseen, yet felt.

The poet takes his pen to compose these lines,
but the paper begins to fade beneath him.
None of it is real …

and yet, he feels it all.
He feels it,

as he touches the divine metaphysics
of a universe busily contemplating itself.

That’s beautiful, my friend signs, after some silence.

I have to admit, this has been a rather enjoyable conversation. I was able to brainwash a philosopher into thinking poetry was the finest thing since sliced bread.

Nah, just kidding. But I honestly thought I was going to lose the debate, when he started bringing in Mimesis. The Mimetic stance is hard to argue against, because, in my opinion, it’s hard to argue against such heated rationality. But that’s what’s cool, I think: people will always be poets, or they will always be philosophers, or in some cases, will always be both.

I’m wondering if I should even become a philosopher …

No, just kidding. But still. It’s cool. The metaphysics of poetry, the poetry of metaphysics.

Even if just a tad bit secular. Maybe poetry is how we find God, or as close as we can get to God.

Maybe that’s what Plato meant.