[MD] What all is about.

[Heather Perella]

Ron Excellent!  I agree.  Spot-on!  Also, what do we
notice in the universe.  How much do we see, and once
seen this universe informs us daily, moment by moment.

SA


> [Ham]
> 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".  
> 
> [ron]
> And that is the problem we face in SOM. This sort of
> thinking has become
> A stumbling block in understanding at the molecular
> level.
> You feel the universe is there waiting to be
> discovered.
> >From what I understand this is true, but human
> beings
> Must create metaphors to describe and understand
> observable phenomena.
> Can't get around it, I think I stated before that
> the 
> The difference seems to be a matter of precision.
> Logic is all about precision in expression to attain
> a 
> Level of certainty about observable phenomena.
> 
> Think of all the engineers and designers you'd be
> putting out of work in
> your world. Not only that, but all that which they
> create using art and
> science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On
> Behalf Of Ham Priday
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 6:14 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] What all is about.
> 
> 
> 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."
> 
> 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
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
>
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
>
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com