turtles all the way – er – in.



i’ve listened to the scientists and this is my reply;

respectfully i must advise, we don’t see eye to eye.

my animistic atoms making predetermined shapes,

mechanically intending everything from stars to apes,

just flout the simple sanity of your established science

and seem to treat the ‘evidence’ with cavalier defiance.


you say that planet earth is really not a living being;

it doesn’t grow or reproduce – going by what you’re seeing.

but eggs and pupae, they don’t grow, nor do they reproduce

and who knows what this earth will do when we’re no further use?

it goes beyond the evidence to say: ‘it is alive’,

but just as much to say: ‘it’s not’, however you contrive.


astronomers with bated breath observe that stars evolve.

they explicate the physics in equations that they solve.

the time-scale is enormous, so we shouldn’t judge too soon –

it won’t be long before our genes ‘inseminate’ the moon!

we don’t know how the planets form – we’ve only made a guess

but why assume that they are lacking sexual prowess?


some scientists talk of termite mounds, made by, but not, biota

suggesting earth’s inanimate: i’m not fazed one iota.

our bones are inorganic things, secreted by our cells,

just like a beetle’s carapace, or nautiluses’ shells.

our sial, like a carapace, protects the inner flows

that roil so metabolically; and life upon it grows!



another speaks of darwin, in defence of whom she says

all creatures are accounted for, all qualities and traits.

that gives me pause until i see that yes! she’s partly right –

continuum from go to whoa – a brilliant, brave insight!

if sentimental purpose crafts the atoms in a star

why not what’s in big bangs themselves? that isn’t so bizarre!


my viewpoint’s still post-modern (not yet moved to what comes next)

but I still maintain that matter should be seen in terms of ‘text’

with networks just like world-wide-webs jam-packed with brawling memes

(or, since my term’s more general, perhaps we’ll call them  ‘emes’,

a healthy little suffix that can serve us as a word)

a ‘textrichness’, articulate? that isn’t so absurd.


genes craft all traits of plants and beasts and do so from within.

but processes are just as smart within an atom’s skin.

so each big bang, when first it starts to outwardly explode

is explicating latent text according to a code.

and now that’s said, it looks to me so simple and so plain –

i s’pose it does to you, too, so i’ve no need to explain.


to sum up, with a metaphor: a gene is hawking’s turtle

sustained by inner turtles (now, look deep – try not to hurtle

precipitately inward) with each subatomic one

sustained by other inner ones, and when all’s said and done

this turtle soup inside a gene can ‘quark’ ad infinitum.

it’s turtles, going in not down! come on! they’re there! why fight ’em?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s