As I begin to write this, it is 11:53. Joy. I should be writing up historical context on John Keats, but he was kind of lame. He produced a little bit of really mediocre poetry for about 3 years and then died of tuberculosis. He's overshadowed by Percy Shelley. What else is there to say? Learning about all these British poets is like learning about the impressionist painters other than Monet and Van Gogh. If they were important, we'd have heard of them already, or there would be a ton of readily accessible information about them. I'm basically transliterating the wikipedia article onto Microsoft word with a little bit of a biography from onlineliterature.com integrated in so that I don't feel quite so bad.
But I guess the meat of this post would have to be the idea that the internet is too expansive to imagine. Honestly, the human race is to the internet as god is to the cosmos. We control an ever expanding, unconquerable domain. And just think about the miniscule fraction of the internet that the average American (not the average human, considering the assumed fact that most humans will never have access to the internet) will explore. I spend my internet time on facebook, wikipedia, and a tiny bit of last.fm. It's kind of interesting to categorize the different types of sites too. Galaxies would be divided into the social networking or the reference, the shopping or the professional. Planet facebook is a web of interconnected elements, each with the characteristics of the divine, yet just as inanimate as the wind or the waves. I guess the question (that only surfaced as this post developed) is the same one that religious fanatics and scientific researchers have debated for centuries: if that spark of life does come, will it be from us, the divinity, or will it spawn through events beyond our control and understanding?
That's some matrix shit right there.