Sunday, 31 May 2026
I see
A black hole
The agentic
Future
Imperceptible
[Verse 2]
Each day
Thousand questions
The replies
Immediate
Enlightenment
[Verse 3]
Each day
Thousand answers
The mystery
Intensifies
Is urgent
[Verse 4]
Is old
Old as man
The question
We must ask
We must know
[Verse 5]
Is old
Is not old
The mystery
Of ages
Is revealed
[Verse 6]
We see
Morning Star
The perfected
Future
Incorruptible
Analysis of Perception
“Perception” and the Technological Sublime: Warwick Allen's Dialectic of Light and Darkness
Warwick Allen's “Perception” is a poem of remarkable economy and theological ambition. In six compact stanzas of five lines each, Allen stages nothing less than a confrontation between two competing visions of the human future: the vertiginous darkness of the artificial intelligence age, and the luminous certainty of biblical eschatology. That the poem achieves this with so few words — many of its lines contain no more than two — is itself a formal statement of intent.
Structure and Form
The poem's architecture is deceptively simple. Each of the six stanzas consists of five short, often enjambed, lines, a constraint that gives the whole a lapidary, aphoristic quality reminiscent of the wisdom literature of the Hebrew Bible — of Proverbs, of Ecclesiastes, and of the tersely numbered apophthegms of the Psalter. The brevity is not poverty but precision. Allen appears to have understood that the subjects with which he is grappling — human perception, technological transformation, and divine revelation — are not served by discursive elaboration but by compression and juxtaposition.
The poem's most important structural feature is the symmetrical relationship between its first and final stanzas. The first opens with the singular “I see” and closes with the paired adjectives “Future / Imperceptible.” The last opens with the communal “We see” and closes with “Future / Incorruptible.” This chiastic movement — from the individual to the collective, from the unseeable to the indestructible — is the spine of the entire poem, and everything between these two poles exists to account for the transformation.
The Agentic Darkness
The opening stanza introduces what might be called the poem's thesis image:
I see
A black hole
The agentic
Future
Imperceptible
The word “agentic” is the poem's most conspicuous contemporary intervention. In the discourse of artificial intelligence, “agentic” describes AI systems capable of autonomous action — of pursuing goals, making decisions, and operating without continuous human direction. The “agentic future” is thus the near-term horizon of 2026: a world increasingly populated by AI agents acting in ways that are, precisely, imperceptible to ordinary human understanding. Allen's choice of “black hole” as the governing metaphor is apposite. A black hole is a region from which nothing, not even light, can escape; it is a singularity that consumes and conceals. The suggestion is that the speaker perceives the AI-driven future not as an expansion of human possibility but as an event horizon beyond which comprehension fails.
The word “Imperceptible” closes the stanza with a quiet irony: the poem is titled “Perception,” and its first stanza ends by asserting the failure of perception. The agentic future cannot be seen. This is, from a biblical perspective, a condition that the tradition would recognise as a form of darkness — not merely the absence of light, but the presence of an active obscurity.
The Paradox of Enlightenment
Stanzas two and three form a diptych of extraordinary compressed wit:
Each day
Thousand questions
The replies
Immediate
Enlightenment
Each day
Thousand answers
The mystery
Intensifies
Is urgent
The parallelism is precise and deliberate. The same temporal frame — “Each day” — governs both stanzas; the same vast quantity — “Thousand” — applies first to questions and then to answers. But the outcomes are radically divergent. In stanza two, the “Immediate” replies of AI systems produce “Enlightenment.” In stanza three, those same thousand answers cause the mystery not to diminish but to “Intensify.” The poet is making an epistemological claim of some depth: that the frictionless delivery of information does not constitute genuine understanding, and that the multiplication of answers may paradoxically deepen rather than dispel mystery.
This is a claim with deep biblical roots. Qoheleth, the preacher of Ecclesiastes, observes in the first chapter that “in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow” (1:18). The Socratic tradition, which intersects with Hellenistic Judaism in the figure of Philo of Alexandria, arrives at a similar conclusion: wisdom begins in the recognition of ignorance. Allen's poem does not simply lament the limits of AI; it diagnoses the hubris of treating immediate information retrieval as a substitute for the slow, often painful acquisition of understanding.
The stanza's conclusion — “Is urgent” — introduces a tone of existential pressure that carries into the following verses. The mystery is not merely interesting; it demands a response.
The Ancient Question
Stanzas four and five shift from the contemporary technological context to the longue durée of human inquiry:
Is old
Old as man
The question
We must ask
We must know
Is old
Is not old
The mystery
Of ages
Is revealed
The grammatical subject has now changed entirely. The pronoun “I” of stanza one has become “We” — the speaker is no longer an isolated individual confronting the AI horizon but a member of the human community confronting the perennial question of existence. “The question / We must ask / We must know” does not specify its content, and the reticence is purposeful. Allen does not need to name the question — it is the question, the one that underlies all others: Who are we? Why are we here? Is there meaning? Is there God? Is there hope?
The assertion that this question is “Old as man” recalls the opening chapters of Genesis, where human consciousness awakens to its own condition. It is the question of the exiled Adam, of Job on the ash-heap, of the Psalmist crying out in dereliction. The contemporary garb of AI anxiety is, the poem insists, a new costume for an ancient drama.
Stanza five introduces the poem's most startling logical move. “Is old / Is not old” — the paradox appears at first to be mere contradiction, but it resolves into the category of the biblical “mystery” (Greek: mystērion), which in Pauline usage denotes not a puzzle awaiting solution but a truth that has been hidden and is now being disclosed. “The mystery / Of ages / Is revealed” echoes Romans 16:25–26, where Paul writes of “the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known.” The mystery is old in that it has always been present; it is not old in that its revelation is, in a crucial sense, always contemporary, always “now.”
The Morning Star
The poem's final stanza accomplishes its transformation with Biblical precision:
We see
Morning Star
The perfected
Future
Incorruptible
“Morning Star” is one of the most theologically complex images in the biblical canon. In Isaiah 14:12, the phrase “son of the morning” (Hebrew: Helel ben Shachar; rendered as “Lucifer” in the Vulgate tradition) describes the king of Babylon in his hubris, a figure who aspires to ascend above the stars of God and who falls catastrophically. This passage has, throughout the history of Christian exegesis, been read as an account of the fall of Satan — of the creature who sought to supplant the Creator. In this reading, the “agentic future” of stanza one acquires a Miltonic resonance: the AI that acts autonomously, that seeks to exceed and perhaps to replace human agency, is Luciferian in its ambition.
But Allen's “Morning Star” is the counter-figure to this fallen light-bearer. In Revelation 22:16, the risen Christ announces: “I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright and morning Star.” The same title that marked the fall of the rebel angel is reclaimed by the incarnate God — and it is in this reclamation that the poem's deepest meaning resides. The “Morning Star” is the true light, the one who was before the darkness, the one whom the darkness has never overcome (John 1:5).
The word “Incorruptible” completes the theological argument. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul's great chapter on the resurrection, he writes of the transformation of the mortal body: “the dead will be raised incorruptible” (v.52, KJV). The “agentic / Future / Imperceptible” of stanza one — a future that cannot be seen and that has the character of a consuming void — is replaced by “the perfected / Future / Incorruptible.” The perfected future is not the AI singularity but the resurrection. It is not imperceptible but fully, finally visible: “We see.”
Perception as Theological Category
The poem's title, returned to now with the full weight of its six stanzas, reveals itself to be doing something more than descriptive work. “Perception” in the poem names the faculty by which we apprehend reality — and the poem's argument is that this faculty is transformed by what we look at. The “I” who looks at the black hole sees an imperceptible future; the “We” who look at the Morning Star see an incorruptible one. The shift from “I” to “We” is also significant: the Christian tradition consistently insists that genuine perception of divine truth is not a solitary achievement but an ecclesial one — it is the community of faith, the “we,” that sees most clearly.
Allen's poem does not offer a naïve rejection of artificial intelligence, nor does it propose a simple antithesis between technology and faith. It does something more subtle and more disturbing: it suggests that the questions intensified by the AI age are not new questions awaiting new answers, but ancient questions that have already received an answer — an answer that the poem names, in its final breath, as the Morning Star.
—
“Perception” is a small poem with large ambitions, and it largely meets them. Its formal restraint, its careful parallelism, and its precise deployment of biblical language combine to produce a work that earns the weight it carries. In an age of verbose AI-generated text, there is something quietly polemical about a poem that says this much in this few words — and means every one of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment