- Non-Erotic Poetry
- gödel
Note: You can change font size, font face, and turn on dark mode by clicking the "A" icon tab in the Story Info Box.
You can temporarily switch back to a Classic Literotica® experience during our ongoing public Beta testing. Please consider leaving feedback on issues you experience or suggest improvements.
Click herelanguage is a scalpel
sharp and hard as a toadstool
poisons what it can't cut
clustered axioms, however
grind a keen and tempered blade
to slice through mist
how strange this instrument
so holy pure
must always live with ghosts
- COMMENTS
Bill Dadaabout 16 years agoAnother 3 cheers for clever dickery and the toadstools aren't nearly as confused as whoever is waiting for godel.
twelveooneover 16 years agothree cheers for clever dickery; the sharp and hard toadstools confused me though. Is this the gödel everyone is waiting for?
KOLKOREover 16 years agoNot so, my friend LeBroz. You never prove a negative. you always show that any thing that supposedly states or defines something POSITIVE about the world is disprovable and Godel humbly did just that. As a person of a scietific thought he was not a deductionist and thus not platonist the way you seem to think he was.
LeBrozover 16 years agoAnother from the 5/5 thread, though not as much fun as the first two I read. Your explanation helped and confirmed the gut reaction I was feeling. Quite spot on about Gödel; he sounds so very Platonic which, in my universe, is just about the foulest, most obscene indictment. Whether in the realm of language or numbers, you are forced to use the same to 'prove' their shortcomings; if language is inadequate, prove it without using language, even a made up language. It can't be done because then the made up language is itself inadequate. You end up with a progression of made up languages, each used to 'prove' the shortcomings of the antecedent language. The ultimate result can only be that so very Platonic concept of a 'higher' hidden realm which mere mortals can never fully grasp. Anyways, getting off my rant, a most thought provoking little piece. Hope we're done with Gödel for awhile.
LeBrozover 16 years agoAnother from the 5/5 thread, though not as much fun as the first two I read. Your explanation helped and confirmed the gut reaction I was feeling. Quite spot on about Gödel; he sounds so very Platonic which, in my universe, is just about the foulest, most obscene indictment. Whether in the realm of language or numbers, you are forced to use the same to 'prove' their shortcomings; if language is inadequate, prove it without using language, even a made up language. It can't be done because then the made up language is itself inadequate. You end up with a progression of made up languages, each used to 'prove' the shortcomings of the antecedent language. The ultimate result can only be that so very Platonic concept of a 'higher' hidden realm which mere mortals can never fully grasp. Anyways, getting off my rant, a most thought provoking little piece. Hope we're done with Gödel for awhile.
