[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[118]

Hi Tim,
About art and its lead as you mention below, I thought I would add
something.  There have  been a few books written that portray art as
preceeding scientific theories.  The premise is that what is depicted in art
later becomes depicted by physics.  Now this may sound kind of supernatural,
and indeed one has to use his imagination a bit when reading the books.  But
it is not difficult to see and the books are convincing.  If this is true,
what does this mean?

To go there, one must view physics as a description of reality.  In fact one
even has to consider physics to be a painting describing our sense of
reality.  This can be a hard leap if there is a lot of indoctrination
through education into the reality of science.  However, physics puts things
together as a system.  Whether or not this is the only system possible is
doubtful since even accepted physics can be argued with convincingly by
other physicists.  However, the nature of agreement in science is pretty
strict, and usually those that do not agree do not receive funding from the
government.  Gone are the days of the rich scientist.

So if we accept that physics paints a picture, where does that picture come
from?  Well it must come from our interaction with nature (or reality).  In
Science, there are certain theories that seem to come out of nowhere, but
develop rapidly and are carried forth to interpret data.  This interaction
with reality doesn't only happen in the field of physics but everywhere of
course.  It is possible, that some artists have a very sensitive feeling for
this interaction.  Therefore it is possible that certain art can precede the
scientific interpretation.  What does this mean?

Another way to look at this is that as humans we are responding to Quality
(or whatever word you want to use}.  As such, the Quality we respond to is
the Quality of the moment (maybe it is sun spots or the juxtaposition of
stars who's gravity has impact on the mind).  In other words, Quality pulls
out of us a certain understanding, in the same way that a wind would pull
out the sensation of cold.  This may sound mysterious and implausible,
however, if you look at history this way, many things make sense.  For
example the co-arising of pyramids in different places.  The co-arising of
religions in different places that seem similar (many religions arose around
500 BC to 100 AD), in other words, people began to think differently.   The
rise and fall of civilizations seems like a tide.  These do not happen
necessarily through communication, but possibly in response to something.
 Not everything needs to be explained by cause and effect as we know it, and
history is very biased by a few scholars.  We have no idea how the gravity
affects us, but many believe in astrology.  The Zodiac symbols represent the
juxtaposition of the Earth, the Sun and the rest of the universe in a yearly
cycle; of course it also brings in the planets and such.  We also do not
know how electromagnetism or neutrinos affect us so anything is possible.

Now, I'm not saying this is the correct way of interpretation, I am simply
pointing to another way of looking at what happens.   Sometimes this frees
up the mind a bit.  Before I say something is impossible, I try to think
about it a bit and imagine it to be real.  Then try to interpret things in
that way.  OK, so I'm a bit nuts, but it's fun.  It's not all that serious,
just the mind wandering around a bit.  There are many ways to think.  I
could twist your mind a bit away from evolution as reality too, maybe.  I am
a biologist after all.

Cheers,
Mark

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 6:26 PM, <rapsncows at fastmail.fm> wrote:

>
>
> about art, and its being the leader, well, I'm skeptical.  I can
> understand beauty as an accompaniment, and even perhaps as the quickest
> (maybe fear is faster though) route to active perception of what's
> 'important', but I don't see beauty in itself as a sufficient goal.  I
> haven't spoken with Platt yet, but I wonder... nevermind.  The garden of
> eden was great and all, but man needed the bone of his bone, and flesh
> of his flesh.  And, the garden of eden was great and all, but God was
> building up to Man - if I can use this resource.
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>