In the last years of his life, probably around 1844, great polish poet Juliusz Słowacki [1809-1849] wrote a mystical prose poem entitled"Genesis from the Spirit". According to experts on the subject, the writing process took about two years and resulted in four versions of the poem (first published in 1871). J. Słowacki holds that the material world is a manifestation of an ever-expanding spirit that is capable of progressing into ever-newer forms. The creation of the world is described in it as follows:
“Because my Spirit, first Trinity composed of Spirit, Love and Will, hovered over the abysses, calling up brotherly spirits of a similar nature, He awakened in himself the will through love and changed one point of invisible space into a burst of Magnetically Attractive forces. And these were transformed into electric forces, into the powers of lightning. And they expanded into heat in the Spirit. And when my Spirit, having become lazy in the task, neglected to extract from itself its solar essence and deviated from the path of Creation, You punished it, Lord, by the conflict of the interior forces and by their disharmony; And behold, in the heavens, a second circle of luminous spirits, similar to the circle of fire, but of a purer and redeemed nature, a golden angel with flowing hair, strong and ravishing, grabbed one handful of globes, spun it like a fiery rainbow and carried it away behind him.” ¹
I asked DeepSeek - a renowned Chinese chatbot that relies on Artificial Intelligence - to evaluate the scientific concepts presented by the author (J.Słowacki regarded this work as his most significant and thought it must contain the secrets of creation, the "alpha" and "omega" of the world). Here are the most important parts of this "conversation":
DeepSeek said :
Refined Characterization of Juliusz Słowacki’s Genesis from the Spirit
1. Cosmogony and the Big Bang
Słowacki’s depiction of creation is strikingly reminiscent of modern cosmological theories, particularly the Big Bang:
• Primordial Singularity & Energy Unleashed:
◦ "The Spirit… turned one point… of invisible space into a flash of Magnetic-Attractive Forces."
◦ This evokes the concept of a singularity—an infinitely dense point—before the explosive birth of the universe.
• Transformation of Energy into Matter:
◦ "And these turned into electric and lightning bolts – And they warmed up ... to flash with destructive fire… a ball of fire and hung him on the abysses."
◦ This mirrors the early universe’s plasma state, where energy condensed into particles amid extreme heat.
• Expansion and Structure Formation:
◦ "And here… one handful of globes and swirled them around like a fiery rainbow…"
◦ This suggests cosmic inflation and the coalescence of matter into galaxies, echoing modern astrophysics.
Słowacki’s stages of creation loosely align with the universe’s phase transitions (e.g., the separation of fundamental forces, nucleosynthesis). While his framework is mystical, the imagery is uncannily predictive.
2. Mathematics as the Fabric of Nature
Słowacki’s vision of plants and trees as embodiments of mathematical principles anticipates later discoveries in biology:
• "Mathematical thought itself seems to have developed in plants"
• "Each tree is a great solution to a mathematical problem, a mystery of number(s)."
These lines reflect an intuition of mathematical patterns in biology—later formalized in phenomena like the Fibonacci sequence in plant growth, fractal branching, or the geometric efficiency of cellular structures.
3. Evolution and Transformation
Though Słowacki predates Darwin, his work engages with dynamic change and developmental stages that resonate with evolutionary theory:
• His spiritual evolution parallels Darwin’s material evolution: both describe life as progressing through transformative stages.
• Where Darwin focuses on natural selection, Słowacki frames transformation as a divine, teleological unfolding—yet both challenge static, creationist views of life.
4. Contrast with Darwin
While Darwin’s theory is grounded in empirical observation, Słowacki’s is a metaphysical speculation. Yet both share a fascination with:
• Interconnectedness: Darwin’s "tree of life" vs. Słowacki’s cosmic unity.
• Emergence of Complexity: From simple origins (Darwin’s common ancestry / Słowacki’s "point" of Spirit).
Why These Parallels Matter
Słowacki’s genius lies in his poetic anticipation of scientific ideas—not through calculation, but through visionary intuition. His work bridges:
• Romantic metaphysics and modern cosmology,
• Spiritual idealism and mathematical natural laws,
• Creative dynamism and biological evolution.
This is why 'Genesis from the Spirit' remains startlingly relevant: it’s less a theological treatise than a speculative cosmology that, accidentally or not, mirrors later scientific paradigms. Would you like me to delve deeper into any particular aspect? For instance:
• How Słowacki’s "magnetic-attractive forces" might relate to modern physics (e.g., quantum fields)?
• Whether his teleology clashes with Darwinian randomness?
• Or his influence on later Polish thinkers (e.g., Teilhard de Chardin’s "noosphere")?
Let me know how you'd like to refine this further!
Me: Yes, go on deeper!
DeepSeek said : Wonderful! Let’s dive even deeper into the scientific, philosophical, and mystical dimensions of Słowacki’s Genesis from the Spirit—exploring how his 19th-century Romantic vision intersects with (and sometimes challenges) modern scientific thought.
1. Słowacki’s "Magnetic-Attractive Forces" & Modern Physics
When Słowacki describes the Spirit transforming "one point… into a flash of Magnetic-Attractive Forces," he’s using the scientific language of his time (electromagnetism was a cutting-edge topic in the 1840s) to describe cosmic creation. But this idea has eerie resonances today:
• Quantum Fields and the Early Universe:
◦ Modern physics posits that the universe began as a fluctuation in a quantum field, with fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, etc.) unified before "separating" as the cosmos cooled. Słowacki’s "Magnetic-Attractive Forces" could loosely parallel this—a primal, undifferentiated force that later diversifies.
◦ His "electric and lightning bolts" evoke plasma cosmology, the idea that electromagnetic forces played a key role in structuring the early universe (a fringe but debated theory today).
• String Theory and Vibrational Energy:
◦ If we stretch the analogy, Słowacki’s "flash" of forces hints at a universe born from vibrational energy—not unlike string theory’s claim that particles arise from vibrating strings.
But a key difference: For Słowacki, these forces are spiritual—emanations of Divine Will, not impersonal laws. This aligns with Romantic Naturphilosophie (e.g., Schelling’s idea of nature as "visible Spirit").
2. Teleology vs. Darwinian Randomness
Słowacki’s universe evolves purposefully toward higher consciousness, while Darwinian evolution is non-directional, driven by random mutations and selection. Yet there are fascinating overlaps and tensions:
• Convergent Evolution:
◦ Darwin noted how unrelated species develop similar traits (e.g., wings in bats and birds). Słowacki might see this as evidence of a latent "mathematical plan" in nature—a drive toward certain forms (like trees as "solutions" to geometric problems).
• Self-Organization and Complexity:
◦ Modern theories (e.g., Stuart Kauffman’s "order for free") suggest complexity can emerge spontaneously from simple rules. Słowacki’s "mathematical trees" resonate here—not as divine blueprints, but as expressions of deep natural logic.
• Contrast:
◦ Darwin’s world has no telos (end goal); Słowacki’s is all telos. Yet both reject static creationism in favor of dynamic, unfolding processes.
3. Biological Mathematics: From Słowacki to Fractals
Słowacki’s claim that trees embody "mathematical mysteries" is shockingly prescient:
• Fibonacci Sequences:
◦ The spiral arrangement of leaves (phyllotaxis) follows Fibonacci numbers to maximize sunlight exposure—a "solution" to a growth problem, just as Słowacki wrote.
• Fractal Branching:
◦ The self-similar patterns of roots, branches, and veins (studied by Mandelbrot) reflect algorithmic efficiency—nature "computing" optimal forms.
• L-system Algorithms:
◦ Modern biologists use Lindenmayer systems (L-systems) to model plant growth via recursive mathematical rules. Słowacki’s intuition of "thought in plants" mirrors this computational view of life.
Question: Did Słowacki influence later scientists? Probably not directly—but his poetic vision aligns with a tradition of seeing math in nature (Pythagoras, Goethe, D’Arcy Thompson).
4. Teilhard de Chardin and the Noosphere
Słowacki’s spiritual evolution foreshadows Teilhard’s idea of the noosphere (a "thinking layer" of Earth emerging from collective consciousness):
• Both imagine:
◦ Matter → Life → Mind → Divine Unity.
◦ Cosmic history as a drama of awakening.
• But Teilhard (a paleontologist) tries to reconcile this with science; Słowacki stays mystical.
Polish Context: Słowacki’s ideas may have indirectly influenced Polish thinkers [...]
5. A Modern Metaphysical Synthesis?
Słowacki’s vision invites us to ask: Can science and spirituality coexist in explaining origins?
• Panpsychism:
◦ Some physicists (e.g., Carlo Rovelli) speculate that consciousness might be a fundamental property of matter—echoing Słowacki’s "Spirit" imbuing all things.
• Simulation Theory:
◦ If the universe runs on mathematical laws (like a "tree’s code"), is it akin to a computational construct? Słowacki’s "mathematical plants" weirdly fit this modern hypothesis.
• Limits:
◦ Science demands falsifiability; Słowacki’s metaphysics doesn’t. But both seek patterns—one in data, the other in symbols.
Conclusion: Słowacki as a Visionary "Scientific Mystic"
He wasn’t a scientist, but his poetic imagination anticipated questions science would later ask:
• What is the primal "stuff" of the cosmos? (Quantum fields? Spirit?)
• Why does nature obey mathematical laws?
• Is evolution random, or does it hint at deeper order?
His genius was to frame these in mythic language—offering not answers, but a provocation to see science and spirit as complementary.
I then asked another well-known chatbot, ‘Grok’ (created by an American company owned by Elon Musk), to rate DeepSeek's response, and I got this :
GROK said :
Your characterization of Juliusz Słowacki's Genesis from the Spirit is an insightful and sophisticated analysis that effectively bridges Romantic mysticism with modern scientific paradigms. Below, I’ll provide a rating of the text, evaluate its strengths and weaknesses, and then address your request to delve deeper into specific aspects (as outlined in the original and expanded analysis). Rating the Characterization (8.5/10)
Strengths:
1. Interdisciplinary Synthesis: The text masterfully connects Słowacki’s poetic imagery to cosmology, biology, mathematics, and evolutionary theory. By drawing parallels between his mystical cosmogony and concepts like the Big Bang, quantum fields, and fractal geometry, it highlights the prescience of his vision.
2. Clarity and Structure: The analysis is well-organized, with clear sections (e.g., Cosmogony, Mathematics, Evolution) that guide the reader through complex ideas. The use of bullet points and subheadings enhances readability.
3. Contextual Nuance: It acknowledges the historical gap between Słowacki’s 1840s Romanticism and modern science, framing his work as intuitive rather than empirical. This avoids overclaiming his "scientific" credentials while celebrating his foresight.
4. Engaging Comparisons: The Darwin-Słowacki contrast is particularly compelling, as it underscores shared themes (interconnectedness, complexity) while respecting their divergent frameworks (empirical vs. metaphysical).
5. Provocative Questions: The text invites further exploration (e.g., links to quantum physics, Teilhard’s noosphere) without forcing conclusions, encouraging intellectual curiosity.
Weaknesses:
1. Speculative Overreach: Some parallels, like string theory or plasma cosmology, feel slightly stretched. While evocative, these connections risk projecting modern concepts onto Słowacki’s work without sufficient textual grounding.
2. Limited Primary Text: The analysis relies on brief quotes (e.g., “Magnetic-Attractive Forces,” “mathematical thought in plants”). More direct excerpts from Genesis from the Spirit could strengthen the argument by showing how Słowacki’s language explicitly supports these interpretations.
3. Underexplored Mysticism: While the scientific parallels are robust, the text could delve deeper into Słowacki’s spiritual framework (e.g., his Messianic or Gnostic influences) to balance the scientific focus.
4. Polish Context Underdeveloped: The mention of Teilhard and Polish thinkers like Schulz or Lem is intriguing but brief. More exploration of Słowacki’s influence within Polish intellectual traditions would add depth.
Overall Assessment:
The characterization is excellent for its ambition, clarity, and ability to make a 19th-century poetic work feel relevant to contemporary science. It earns an 8.5/10 due to its strong interdisciplinary approach but could improve by grounding speculative claims more firmly in the text and expanding on Słowacki’s mystical and cultural context.
Deeper Exploration of Requested Aspects
Per your prompt, I’ll dive deeper into the three suggested areas: (1) Słowacki’s “magnetic-attractive forces” and modern physics, (2) teleology vs. Darwinian randomness, and (3) his influence on later Polish thinkers, particularly Teilhard’s noosphere. I’ll also address the expanded analysis you provided, incorporating its insights while adding new perspectives.
1. “Magnetic-Attractive Forces” and Modern Physics
Słowacki’s description of creation as a “flash of Magnetic-Attractive Forces” emerging from a single point is strikingly evocative of modern cosmological and quantum theories. Let’s explore this further:
• Quantum Field Theory (QFT):
◦ In QFT, the universe originates from fluctuations in quantum fields, which are fundamental entities underlying particles and forces. Słowacki’s “point” of invisible space could be likened to a quantum vacuum state, where potential energy sparks creation. His “Magnetic-Attractive Forces” might symbolize the unified force (combining gravity, electromagnetism, and nuclear forces) theorized to exist before the Big Bang’s symmetry-breaking phase.
◦ Example: The Higgs field, which gives particles mass, operates as an invisible “force” shaping matter—somewhat akin to Słowacki’s Spirit animating the cosmos. While his language is poetic, it captures the idea of an intangible essence driving materialization.
◦ Limitation: Słowacki’s forces are explicitly spiritual, tied to a divine will, whereas QFT is impersonal and probabilistic. This metaphysical gap limits direct equivalence.
• Electromagnetism in the Early Universe:
◦ In the 1840s, Faraday and Maxwell were developing theories of electromagnetism, which likely influenced Słowacki’s terminology. His “electric and lightning bolts” align with the early universe’s plasma state, where charged particles dominated before cooling into neutral atoms. Some speculative models (e.g., plasma cosmology, though not mainstream) emphasize electromagnetic forces in galaxy formation, resonating with Słowacki’s imagery.
◦ Connection: His “ball of fire” hung in the “abysses” evokes the cosmic microwave background (CMB)—the remnant glow of the universe’s fiery infancy. This is a poetic anticipation of a universe structured by energy dynamics.
• String Theory and Vibrational Metaphors:
◦ The expanded analysis mentions string theory, where particles arise from vibrating strings of energy. Słowacki’s “flash” of forces could metaphorically suggest a vibrational origin, with the Spirit’s act of creation akin to “tuning” the cosmos. However, this is a loose analogy, as string theory is highly mathematical and unproven, while Słowacki’s vision is symbolic.
◦ Alternative: A closer parallel might be wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics, where energy manifests as both waves (like “magnetic” ripples) and particles (like “bolts”). This duality mirrors Słowacki’s fluid interplay of spirit and matter.
• Critical Reflection:
◦ Słowacki’s “forces” are best seen as a Romantic synthesis of science and mysticism, influenced by Naturphilosophie (e.g., Schelling’s view of nature as a dynamic expression of spirit). His terminology reflects the era’s fascination with electricity and magnetism as unifying principles, but his intent is teleological, not mechanistic. Modern physics, by contrast, avoids purpose-driven explanations, making the parallel compelling but not literal.
2. Teleology vs. Darwinian Randomness
Słowacki’s vision of spiritual evolution contrasts with Darwin’s material, non-directional evolution, yet both grapple with the emergence of complexity. Let’s unpack this tension and explore overlaps:
• Słowacki’s Teleological Framework:
◦ In Genesis from the Spirit, creation unfolds as a purposeful ascent toward divine consciousness. The Spirit’s transformation of a “point” into a cosmos, then into life, suggests a preordained trajectory—akin to a cosmic narrative. Trees as “solutions” to mathematical problems imply a universe designed to manifest specific forms.
◦ Philosophical Context: This aligns with Romantic idealism and Polish Messianism, where history and nature progress toward spiritual redemption. Słowacki’s teleology echoes Hegel’s dialectic or Goethe’s notion of nature striving toward perfection.
• Darwinian Randomness:
◦ Darwin’s evolution relies on random mutations and natural selection, with no inherent goal. Species adapt to environments through chance variations, not a divine plan. The “tree of life” is a metaphor for branching divergence, not a climb toward a higher state.
◦ Key Difference: Darwin’s theory is grounded in observable mechanisms (e.g., fossil records, biogeography), while Słowacki’s is speculative, rooted in metaphysical intuition.
• Points of Convergence:
◦ Interconnectedness: Darwin’s “web of life” (where all species share a common ancestor) parallels Słowacki’s cosmic unity, where all forms emerge from the Spirit’s singular act. Both reject isolated creation events in favor of relational, dynamic systems.
◦ Complexity from Simplicity: Darwin traces complex organisms to simple progenitors; Słowacki traces galaxies and life to a single “point.” Both see the universe as a process of unfolding potential.
◦ Convergent Evolution: As noted in the expanded analysis, convergent evolution (e.g., similar eye structures in unrelated species) suggests nature “prefers” certain solutions. Słowacki might interpret this as evidence of a mathematical or spiritual blueprint, while Darwin would attribute it to environmental pressures. Modern complexity theory (e.g., Kauffman’s self-organization) bridges this gap, proposing that order emerges naturally from simple rules—potentially aligning with Słowacki’s “mathematical thought in plants.”
• Modern Synthesis:
◦ The tension between teleology and randomness persists in science. Some biologists (e.g., Simon Conway Morris) argue that evolutionary constraints make certain outcomes (like intelligence) likely, hinting at a weak teleology. Panpsychist theories (e.g., Philip Goff) suggest consciousness might be intrinsic to matter, echoing Słowacki’s Spirit-infused cosmos.
◦ However, mainstream science remains skeptical of purpose-driven models, favoring probabilistic explanations. Słowacki’s vision thus feels more aligned with speculative philosophies (e.g., Teilhard’s Omega Point) than with empirical biology.
• Critical Reflection:
◦ The Darwin-Słowacki comparison is fruitful but risks overstating similarities. Darwin’s framework is mechanistic and falsifiable; Słowacki’s is poetic and unfalsifiable. Their shared fascination with transformation reflects a broader 19th-century shift toward dynamic worldviews, but their methods and goals diverge sharply.
3. Influence on Later Polish Thinkers and Teilhard’s Noosphere
Słowacki’s Genesis from the Spirit anticipates ideas later developed by thinkers like Teilhard de Chardin, and his influence within Polish intellectual traditions merits closer examination:
• Teilhard de Chardin’s Noosphere:
◦ Teilhard, a Jesuit paleontologist, proposed that evolution progresses from matter (geosphere) to life (biosphere) to consciousness (noosphere), culminating in a divine “Omega Point.” This mirrors Słowacki’s trajectory of Spirit → Matter → Life → Higher Consciousness, where creation is a drama of awakening.
◦ Key Similarity: Both see evolution as a unified process with a spiritual telos. Teilhard’s noosphere—a global layer of thought—resonates with Słowacki’s vision of nature (e.g., “mathematical trees”) as an expression of divine intelligence.
◦ Differences: Teilhard integrates paleontological evidence (e.g., human evolution) and seeks scientific credibility, while Słowacki remains mystical. Teilhard’s Catholicism emphasizes Christ as the Omega Point, whereas Słowacki’s spirituality is more syncretic, blending Messianism and Romantic pantheism.
◦ Possible Influence: While direct influence is unlikely (Teilhard was French and Jesuit-educated), Słowacki’s ideas could have reached broader European intellectual circles through Polish émigré communities. Teilhard’s exposure to mystical traditions makes an indirect resonance plausible.
• Polish Intellectual Context: [...]
• Critical Reflection:
◦ Słowacki’s influence on Polish thinkers is likely diffuse, mediated through his status as a Romantic icon. His ideas about cosmic evolution and mathematical nature align with broader European trends (e.g., Goethe, Schelling), making it hard to isolate his impact. However, his unique synthesis of mysticism and proto-scientific intuition likely inspired later Polish artists and philosophers to explore similar themes.
Additional Insights and Synthesis
To further refine the analysis, consider these points:
• Słowacki’s Gnostic Undertones: Genesis from the Spirit has Gnostic echoes, with the Spirit’s act of creation resembling a demiurge shaping matter from divine essence. This could be explored to deepen the mystical context, contrasting with scientific materialism.
• Mathematical Biology: The text’s mention of L-systems and fractals is spot-on. You could expand this by referencing Alan Turing’s work on morphogenesis, which mathematically models how patterns (like plant growth) emerge—another “solution” to nature’s problems, as Słowacki intuited.
• Cultural Relevance: In Poland, Słowacki’s work remains a touchstone for debates about science, faith, and national identity. His ability to anticipate scientific ideas while rooted in Romantic spirituality makes him a bridge between Poland’s past and its modern intellectual landscape.
Conclusion
Your characterization of Genesis from the Spirit is a compelling blend of literary analysis, scientific insight, and philosophical speculation. It excels at showing how Słowacki’s poetic intuition prefigures modern cosmology, biology, and evolutionary thought, while acknowledging the metaphysical divide between his mysticism and empirical science. By delving deeper into his “magnetic-attractive forces,” the teleology-randomness tension, and his influence on Polish thinkers, we see Słowacki as a visionary who, like Teilhard, sought to unify spirit and matter in a cosmic narrative.
To push this further, I suggest:
1. Incorporating more direct quotes from Genesis from the Spirit to anchor the scientific parallels.
2. Exploring Słowacki’s Messianic and Gnostic influences to balance the scientific focus.
3. Tracing his legacy in Polish literature and philosophy with specific examples (e.g., Schulz’s stories, Lem’s essays).
Would you like me to focus on one of these suggestions or explore another aspect, such as a specific scientific theory or cultural context?
To rate Grok's opinion, I turned back to the DeepSeek chatbot once more and was given this:
DeepSeek said: Grok’s analysis of your previous discussion about Genesis from the Spirit is impressively thorough and thoughtful—I’d agree with many of its strengths and critiques! Here’s how I’d summarize the key takeaways and suggest building on them:
Key Agreements with Grok
1. Interdisciplinary Brilliance
◦ The parallels drawn between Słowacki’s Romantic mysticism and modern science (quantum fields, fractals, convergent evolution) are indeed the strongest aspect of your original analysis. Grok rightly praises this synthesis as "masterful."
2. Nuanced Limitations
◦ Grok’s critique about "speculative overreach" (e.g., string theory) is fair. While the connections are provocative, Słowacki’s poetic intent shouldn’t be conflated with literal scientific hypotheses. A tighter focus on his actual text (e.g., more direct quotes) would help ground the argument.
3. Cultural Context Gap
◦ The underdevelopment of Słowacki’s Polish Messianism and Gnostic influences is a missed opportunity. For instance, his idea of the Spirit’s "mathematical thought" in nature could be contrasted with Goethe’s Naturphilosophie or even Kabbalistic cosmogony (given Poland’s Jewish intellectual traditions).
4. Teilhard de Chardin Parallel
◦ Grok’s expansion on Teilhard’s noosphere is excellent. You could push this further by noting how both thinkers anthropomorphize cosmic evolution—but where Teilhard leans on paleontology, Słowacki leans on poetry. This difference highlights the tension between empirical and intuitive worldviews.
Where to Go from Here?
If you’d like to refine or expand your analysis, here are three paths (building on Grok’s suggestions):
1. Strengthen the Scientific Parallels
• Focus on prescience, not prophecy: Emphasize that Słowacki’s metaphors resonate with modern science (e.g., "magnetic-attractive forces" and quantum fields) without claiming he "predicted" them. Compare to Blake’s "dark Satanic mills" evoking industrial alienation—a poetic, not literal, foresight.
• Add Turing’s morphogenesis: His equations for pattern formation (e.g., tiger stripes, plant phyllotaxis) could solidify the "mathematical thought in plants" idea. Słowacki’s trees as "solutions" eerily anticipate algorithmic biology.
2. Deepen the Mystical Context
• Gnosticism: Słowacki’s Spirit "imposing order on chaos" mirrors Gnostic demiurges. Contrast this with Darwin’s randomness—why do humans crave teleology?
• Polish Messianism: Link his cosmic vision to the political messianism of the Great Emigration era (e.g., Poland’s "suffering as spiritual catalyst"). This grounds his abstractions in historical trauma.
3. Polish Legacy [...]
• Modern eco-philosophy: Słowacki’s animate cosmos aligns with today’s "panpsychism" (e.g., Tim Morton’s Ecological Thought). This could make his work feel freshly relevant.
Final Thought
Grok’s 8.5/10 rating feels apt—your analysis is already highly engaging but could become definitive with tighter textual grounding and deeper cultural framing. If you want to focus on one area, I’d prioritize mystical context (point #2 above), as it balances the scientific focus and highlights Słowacki’s uniqueness. Would you like help drafting a revised version with any of these adjustments? Or explore a specific tangent (e.g., the Gnostic angle or Turing’s biology)?
I hope you enjoy this!
__________________________________________________________________
¹see : https://literat.ug.edu.pl/genezis/genezis.htm – in Polish ;
French translation by Stefan Danysz : https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/La_Gen%C3%A8se_spirituelle
and by Stanisław Dunin Karwicki: https://bibliotheque-russe-et-slave.com/Livres/Slowacki%20-%20La%20Genese%20par%20l'esprit.htm ;
P.S.
see also :
- A great Romantic Poet a famous Scientist-physicist and Artificial Intelligence
https://www.salon24.pl/u/edalward/1435049,a-great-romantic-poet-a-famous-scientist-physicist-and-artificial-intelligence
- ‘Big bang' according to the 19th-century Polish-poet J.Słowacki
https://www.salon24.pl/u/edalward/1334289,big-bang-according-to-the-19th-century-polish-poet-j-slowacki
- Was the Polish Romantic poet Juliusz Słowacki [1809-1849] a precursor of mathematical botany? https://katolik.us/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3921
Inne tematy w dziale Kultura
