Quoted By:
'This poem uses a series of oppositional pairs to question the concept of “as above, so below” and highlight its paradoxical implications. By presenting opposing ideas side by side—hate and love, truth and lies, peace and war—the poem suggests that this ideology’s claim of mirroring can blur or even collapse distinctions between opposites. In this worldview, each element is seen as a reflection or inversion of the other, implying that what is experienced in one realm (above or below) is echoed in the other. However, this reflection can create confusion rather than clarity, as the pairs in the poem raise questions about whether such opposites can truly coexist or be equivalent.
The line “As below, so above?” is key. By adding a question mark, the poem casts doubt on the validity of this claim, implying that this ideology might dissolve crucial differences, turning what seems clear into a murky equivalence. For example, if love is reflected as hate or if truth is indistinguishable from lies, then how can we meaningfully pursue or identify what is good, right, or divine? The very structure of the poem, questioning pairs from every dimension of experience—emotional, moral, existential—points to the instability of a worldview that claims all things reflect each other without boundary.
The final line, “What is blindness, and what is sight?” brings this point to a climax, suggesting that if “as above, so below” collapses distinctions, then even our perception (sight) and ignorance (blindness) might be the same, rendering us unable to discern truth from illusion. The poem, in essence, critiques “as above, so below” as an ideology that risks reducing everything to ambiguous reflections, stripping away the possibility of meaningful differences that guide moral and existential understanding.'
