Hi Ted,

I hope that having had my morning cup of coffee (and cocoa) helps here...

I had to ask myself if your own approach is too heavy-handed...in the sense of reading far too much into the poem and from the wrong direction. Or maybe it isn't, and the thicket of verbiage keeps me and OneArt from seeing the forest for the trees. Let me run with that thought.

First: Sure, we are being handed a landscape poem here, but from the point of view of what landscapes are meant to do: provoke in us a feeling of wonder, and then the question, "Is this material life all there is?" "Holy light" is no accidental presence in this poem -- God or some metaphysical equivalent is implied, whether He is stated or not. What happiness is, and who can receive it, is one of the most fundamental metaphysical questions there is. So is the question of purpose...for things such as landscapes, animals and human beings, for example.

Second: I know all too well of the limits imposed on any organized system (short of the Metalanguage that is God Himself) by Godel's Theorem. In effect, any organized system poses questions that cannot be answered "yes" or "no" (in terms of truth value) within the limits of the system. But actually, one can -- and one must -- step outside the limits of the system (again, including human language) to answer such questions. The implication is that human beings (like our poem's worthy narrator) can't answer such questions of meaning and purpose on their own, but the One Who is outside of all created systems can -- and He can reveal those answers on His initiative, yes, even in terms that human languages can convey to humans (either directly or metaphorically). (There is an interesting mathematical-lingustic proof that speaks to this issue -- leaving aside the nature of the evidence relating to religious texts as such.)

Third: All that said, the problem with the poem is not with the limitations of human language and perception, but with the poet's rather ineffective use of its capabilities. Language can describe accurately anything that human beings experience, and some things that they can't - including the longing for higher purpose and meaning. The fact that the human condition has paradoxes happens to be one of the things that human language expresses accurately, by the very parallel fact that human language itself has paradoxes.) So much would've been added to the poem if the poet had just used the normal laws of grammar and syntax more...normally (and the power of metaphor and simile more effectively). Doing this isn't linguistic rocket science, and if a hack writer like me could do it, then so could Ms. Ball.

Finally: In an additional comment, you remark at some length on what is really a common and complete misunderstanding that our antinomian world has of Genesis 1:28. This command is balanced by the ecological and agricultural stewardship implied by Genesis 2:15, and by so many other detailed statements in both the Hebrew and the Christian Scriptures. You might be surprised at the number of verses that speak in the strongest of terms against the destructive scenario you paint (one which unhappily is believed, usually as a pretext, by far too many). The Book of Revelation, though writen in Greek, is thoroughly Hebrew in grammar and thought pattern, and one class it pointedly condemns is called "the destroyers of the earth" (11:18, RSV) -- those who are the end result of choosing the wrong Tree in Genesis 3, in the Bible's theological terms.

wr ()()