[MD] What all is about.

[Ham Priday]

Welcome back, Platt --


> Quoting Ron Kulp <RKulp at ebwalshinc.com>:
> Science observes and creates from observation
> Art observes and creates from observation.
>
> The difference seems to lie within precision in relation to function.

[Platt]:
> Pirsig also explained the why science and art are unified in contrast
> to Ham's view that the two pursuits have little in common:
>
> "In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance art was defined as
> high quality endeavor. I have never found a need to add anything to
> that definition. But one of the reasons I have spent so much time in
> this paper describing the personal relationship of Werner Heisenberg
> and Niels Bohr in the development of quantum theory is that
> although the world views science as a sort of plodding, logical
> methodical advancement of knowledge, what I saw here were two
> artists in the throes of creative discovery. They were at the cutting
> edge of knowledge plunging into the unknown trying to bring something
> out of that unknown into a static form that would be of value to 
> everyone."

I appreciate the thoughts, gentlemen, but I still think Science and Art are 
incompatible disciplines, each aimed at an entirely different objective. 
Aside from the fact we expect quality from both sources, technically, man 
does not "create" science.  Information about the universe is a "discovery" 
or "revelation" rather than a creation.  When we say Science is "created", 
we are talking about the codification of knowledge gleaned from 
investigating nature.  The facts of this body of knowledge are not created 
by the researchers; they are part of the cosmic design waiting to be 
discovered.  Most scientists I know would be insulted by Pirsig's phrase 
"the throes of creative discovery".  Scientists don't want their discoveries 
to be creative; they want them to be objective if not totally random or 
"accidental".  Creativity implies that scientific facts are being selected 
subjectively to substantiate a preconceived agenda.  That would put Science 
on a highly speculative footing.

In contrast, Art is subjective from beginning to end.  Its created product 
is not facts but a total creation of the artist -- his or her subjective 
"expression" of nature whose value is also subjective.  The structure or 
design of art -- whether it is music, literature or painting -- is 
fundamental to its style or genre.  So the products of art intentionally 
follow a certain pattern, which is really what an art form is.  And we 
evaluate works of art in terms of how well the notes, strokes, or words 
fulfill the requirements of the pattern.  This is exactly how we do NOT want 
the scientist to proceed.  Consider the typical things Science does with 
information: Investigate, Observe, Classify, Measure, Calculate, Systemize. 
If Science suddenly got "creative" with any of these steps, it would soon 
find itself caught in a backlash of conflicting facts and technological 
tragedies like railroad cars jumping the tracks and nation-wide computer 
crashes.

In my book, Philosophy would be better off not allowing itself to be unduly 
influenced by either Art or Science.

> Like other divisions intellect imposes on direct experience,
> at the higher level of Quality the divisions collapse into one.

When you you can no longer distinguish art from science, Platt, you will be 
high on something (not Quality, I expect) or else totally out of this world.

Best regards,
Ham