a positivist genesis myth

[This is a very long post. I considered breaking it down into 2 but did not like the results so here it is. Having read the previous post would be helpful and acquaintance with some of the threads running through my blog may help this post be more understandable. Thanks in advance to anyone who reads to the end.]

What do you call a genesis myth without the supernatural? Au naturel, of course. And I use the term myth loosely, meaning an allegorical narrative symbolically capturing an explanation of nature that is, when objectively considered, unexplainable in its totality. Thus we have gods creating each other and the cosmos and humans. We also have the mystic apprehension of the unexplainable universe; one of the first and to my mind still one of the best is the Tao Te Ching (and I really love the translated rendition by sci-fi hero, Ursula K. LeGuin).

I have written here about the ocean of experience surrounding each of us, meaning that domain where the two great genetic watersheds (Solving World Problems (SWP) and Conspecific Relations (CR): see post 4/7/17 ) run to confluence and form an estuarine island of life and mind. A mystic stands on the shore, a being nakedly aware of the generational and temporal flow through to this moment, then this one, and oh, you know, and watches the weather, tides and the waters wave and glisten on the shore, content with just that apprehension, finding that experience a full one, and assured that the knowledge mirroring the experience is meaningful and insignificant. A genesis myth is valuable, even necessary for carrying that apprehension forward into meeting life’s probabilities and necessities.

Though a positivist genesis myth may be paradoxical, when we consider the scientific basis of our genesis presented below, I think that mythic aspect will be apparent because our understanding has come through increasingly sophisticated mathematics and information processing. Most of us cannot really comprehend how the numbers show their truths as the mathematically keen scientists do see them. In this sense scientists are like the seers, shaman and priests who created and developed the supernatural myths: only the initiated have access to the genesis esoterica as gleaned from either the mathematical domain or that learned through communication with the supernatural divine. Scientists talk with numbers and priests with angels. (I pass over the crucial differences in replication, falsifiability, and transferability between the two). We may not usually think of science in this way but in truth the majority of the people on Gaia evaluate positivistic myths and find them much less comprehensible than their religious mythology.   Conversely those of us initiated into this scientific world view, both the lay and the practitioners, can still find some truth about humanity in the old myths but little fact, certainly not enough to guide our pursuit of knowledge. Religious myths are at this point best seen from without, i.e., as data as we seek to understand our humanity.

In my last post I talked about Monod’s ethic of knowledge, and so to journey even further above my pay grade, this constitutes an epistemological effort that needs some supporting concepts about reality; about what is it we are learning? How did it come to pass and what is my relation with it? My bias is that any statement about the ultimate nature of reality, i.e., metaphysics, ultimately and necessarily given the scale and scope of our capabilities relies upon, revolves around and devolves intellectually into mystic apprehension. The question here is how from a cold, mechanical and valueless though lawful universe can life evolve with its values, as it has clearly done here with us on Gaia? That is, how to account for both our knowledge (true knowledge formed from an ethics of knowledge based upon empiricism) about the world and our values as both are clearly, as Monod demonstrated, sociobiological in origin. So again, what is it we know and value?

Human culture, though composed from both knowledge gained and values held, is a virtual world imagined among group members that helps to govern or to channel how each individual goes about life and supports the group. Over the past few thousand years, cultural parsing has held knowledge as more secular and values as coming from a supernatural divine. The ancient Greeks attributed some values, e.g., hospitality to strangers, respect for the dead, obedience to the king, acceptance of fate, to their gods, while they initiated a grand tradition of intellectual effort, i.e., philosophical and scientific knowing. The ancient Israelites certainly attributed their values to Yahweh and I believe follow a more secular and pragmatic approach to knowing. The Taoists stand on the shore and seek the Way. We don’t know about the people who painted the caves 40,000 years ago, much less about the earliest Hominids who buried their dead, but we do know that from them and since the advent of agriculture, civilized knowledge and values have grown to compose today’s cultural worlds.

Accept for a moment that all culture is learned and that we acquire culture through mirroring, empathy and symbolization. Assume even further that we can understand how we benefit from experience in such a way that cultural invariants form inter- and intra-personally that then guide how we relate, communicate symbolically, conceptualize with words, use metaphor, govern individual actions and relationships, organize socially, etc. Understand that early groups form on the basis of kinship which yields a natural historical narrative through their ancestry, while other groups form through social roles irrespective of kinship, and so must bond through constructing and sharing relevant narratives, some literal or empirically based, e.g., a flood, and some mythically based, e.g., the afterlife. All this to say that our philosophy as currently conceived results from a long history of cultural development (or is that evolution? Erwin Schrodinger, for one, wondered if humans were done evolving, i.e., we would stay in roughly the same biological form now into the future, sort of like sharks and insects have been the same for roughly 200 million years, so any further evolution for us would have to be cultural).

John Locke said the human infant was a tabula rasa, i.e., a blank slate, upon which experience writes its tale. Today we understand much more about what the child brings to the table and that there is no ontogenetic blank slate. But this idea covers only a very short time scale of one life. Monod from his scientific perspective seems to endorse John Locke’s tabula rasa, i.e., blank slate, but says the blank slate has been written on by the entire history of life, i.e., “the experiences accumulated by the entire ancestry of the species.” So our capabilities flow from incipient life some 3.5 billion years ago. Yeah, it was a blank slate then, but much has been written on it since and much has been edited, erased and replaced.

As I discussed in the previous post on Monod’s book, our evolutionary experience has led to two cultural facets from which mythic values seem to arise. One is an inborn fear of solitude; we are social animals and do not do well in isolation. Our contemplation of the cosmos along with our knowledge gleaned so arduously through empirical efforts indicates that our place in the universe is indeed lonely; we are warm-blooded strangers in a cold place, each conscious of our irrevocable solitude within our own MEMBRAIN, and constantly filling our mental void with all kinds of energies. The other facet derives from the first; we have, Monod says, a “need for a complete binding explanation” of our existence, and that includes the gaps before birth and after death. How have we come here now to stand on the beach of the ocean of experience? Both of these facets are inherent in life as it has developed on earth; they are inherent in Gaia’s character, i.e., they follow from life holding forth through negentropy amidst a universe flattening out in entropy. Each soma operates to replicate the passage of genes while mitigating exigencies and exploiting chance opportunities until its lapse into the final entropy of death.   This view of life is consistent with Susanne Langer’s idea that human consciousness arrived with the understanding that our life is one act that begins and ends and that within that frame each of us lives alone. Also consider Camus’s Absurd and the myth of Sisyphus and most especially Chris Hitchens’ proposal to separate the noumenal from the supernatural (see post 4/13/17).

It is as I have pondered Monod’s Chance and Necessity and sought its relations to other readings, e.g., Langer, Dawkins, James, Whitman, Hawking, etc., that I have developed a frail metaphysical myth to support this ethical epistemology, keeping consistent with my basic approach to the biological roots of our humanity and moving forward through a dialectic between positivism and mysticism (see posts beginning 11/15/15). To be clear, I believe any truth of which we are capable of apprehending is a gem with many facets, some more transparent and therefore practical or at least knowable than others; the goal is to see the gem whole even given our limited access to various facets. The metaphysical and epistemological answers to the questions of solitude and significance that used to be answered by animist myth with reference to the supernatural (and these serve us well for some purposes still, like artistic imagery or, as indicated, anthropology) are now superceded by positivist myths with reference to the natural world (and these can serve us better if we develop and use an ethics of knowledge to organize our culture and civilization). So to give an abstract rendition of a positivistic genesis myth:

  • Consider the big bang, or any theorized notion of this cosmic course through time, e.g., expansion and contraction, parallel universes, multiple dimensions beyond 4, etc.
  • These refer to the void beyond our comprehension and how the universe developed in ways we can comprehend.
  • A void filled by energy that illumines no forms =>
  • Higgs field appears whereby energetic matter gains mass (see delightful illustration at: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/08/science/the-higgs-boson.html.)
  • Matter and mass, though we apprehend them through our senses on some macro level, actually operate on a micro level through quantum waves of probability =>
  • These waves swell, subside, interfere +/-, and break into present reality: this is the first level of chance and necessity, i.e., quantum probability reduces to a certainty, e.g., Schrodinger’s cat is either dead or alive but not both because that wave has crested and broken on the shore
  • Matter with mass coalesces and clumps even as the incipient energies undergo entropic dispersal
  • The clumps accrue in the spacetime continuum =>
  • Gravity is a manifestation we can discern of this negentropic building process, i.e., against or resisting entropy; the spacetime curves according to this history of amalgamation
  • Gravity assembles cosmic structures that become elemental forges, e.g., stars burn and synthesize heavier elements: this is a next level of chance and necessity in that cosmic structures, e.g., gas clouds, galaxies, stars, planets appear by chance and then follow a time line ruled by necessity
  • The next level still of chance and necessity is when some combination of the products of these elemental forges coalesce through a gravitational eddy to generate life, e.g., planet Earth becomes Gaia.
  • Once begun life evolves according to chance and necessity.

This would be our genesis story if it were constructed as an anthropomorphic narrative; it is more detailed than animist origin myths because it is empirical and dynamic; the big difference is, of course, that this genesis details a cold, mechanical, and valueless universe from which life evolves with its own sociobiological values. Religious people may find that a problem but those who pursue an ethics of knowledge do not, because we realize that any and all value appears through and from life. Consider these incipient values I find apparent in Gaia’s biosphere:

  • Of course the first value, though perhaps one of the last to be understood, is to understand the world through realistic means and action.
  • Life’s projection into the future through replication, e.g., procreation is good for many reasons
  • Generational replication via somas is quite conservative by necessity and its sensitivity to chance events allows evolution to proceed in two ways:
  • One, variant genes must fit coherently into the whole genome or they will not continue
  • Two, having done so these variants become invariant and must pass muster through environmental interaction by demonstrating the same or increased adaptability
  • Each and every soma operates to minimize exigencies and to exploit chance
  • Their capability to do so speaks to their evolutionary potential.
  • Somas with brains do better than those without, somas with strong social relationships, i.e., have MEMBRAINS, do the best.
  • All life is interconnected
  • All life is local and Gaia is the location; each soma participates in the ecological balance
  • We must respect Gaia, understanding that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and that our actions even if performed authentically with sound knowledge and conscious values have many intended and unintended consequences.
  • Our ignorance is greater than our knowledge, e.g., standard theory of physics about 10% of the universe and the rest dark
  • Finally, while we accrue our knowledge through scientific means, both empirical and theoretical, our values continually emerge from the ancestral history of our species. I hope to expound upon this more in later drafts.

With this first axiom of procreation (replication) and its two corollaries of mitigating exigencies and exploiting chance, our frail metaphysic grows strong enough to support a new domain of values instigated and developed through evolution with conspecific relationships. With our heightened empathy and symbolization, we become conscious of greater questions, that of our solitude and of our significance, that can find only partial answers through our ethics of knowledge and development of values.

We have no way of comprehending this richness of life on Gaia. We may work on constructing our ethics of knowledge based on a positivistic genesis myth for our metaphysics, which can lead to a knowledge of ethics and a better understanding of our values. That effort, for me, resolves to a dialectic between my biological mysticism and my intellectual pursuit of knowledge. If you have read all of this, I again thank you. Linger here if you like watching the ocean waters wave and glisten upon your shore or travel on the Way.

The purpose of sleep and the mnemonic forms of experience

 

So we have a science story in the NYT entitled ‘The purpose of sleep is to forget’: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/science/sleep-memory-brain-forgetting.html

Catchy but maybe not as summary a title as one would want. They cite some assiduous research showing that during sleep the brain decreases synapses in some areas, an action mediated by at least one particular protein that we know of. Some of this work was done by Guilio Tononi who collaborated with Gerald Edelman before his death. What a lot of good science is being done. The premise underlying the title is that loss of synapses equals forgetting. Not so fast there, my friends. Pruning improves and sharpens growth, helping forms to be articulated more coherently, as the story goes on to explain. Sure we may forget some details due to pruning, but we also forget without pruning, and the larger purpose is to remember (and imagine) more clearly. Let me explain myself better.

The NYT title refers simply to the ongoing debate about what is sleep is for. Why sleep? We know sentience and being awake helps exploit environmental resources, e.g., food. Some think sleep keeps us quiet at night when predators are about; others think sleep lets the brain clean up metabolites and such, much like I take the compost out after cooking. Tononi and colleagues posed the hypothesis a while back that sleep lets us clear our minds of the residua of the day and prepare for another and further research has slowly begun to support such a view. Presumably the synapses that shrunk, in some areas by as much as 18%, quite a significant proportion, had enlarged dealing with the exigencies of the days past. Here is my question: does the shrinkage constitute pruning, like apoptosis, or consolidation, like items in STM moving to LTM, if you get my gist here. Remember that TMs are not spaces but activity and that activity contributes to invariant and variant mental structures (you know, of information).

Our model for pruning comes from apoptosis, the death of neurons that are poorly connected or that connect poorly during early maturation of the year or so after birth, thereby contributing to the invariances of personality through attachment and affective regulation. This pruning promotes the development of other systems and structures, reducing noise in the processes, that are presumably more adaptive to the person’s niche. Our model for consolidation is not quite so clear. It can be looked at from several perspectives. There is the long standing cognitive research tradition studying short and long term memories, how the transition between them might happen and what happens when it doesn’t happen as in the case of H.M. who had his hippocampi ablated to control epilepsy but taught us so much about the loss of that transition between STM and LTM. Neuroscience, both clinical and experimental, has long studied the processes of symbolic competence and performance, i.e., the maturation and development of language and how it is compromised by disorder and trauma (aphasias, etc.). For example, consider word retrieval. Frequently used words in your vocabulary come to mind almost effortlessly while more unusual ones are more difficult to remember. Could it be that the higher frequency usage keeps the memory traces of neurons and synapses primed while pruning leaves less frequently used words less accessible?

Consider as well the connectome, that ongoing connective patterning of CNS communication amongst its systems, and the clinical example of a young scientist falling into icy water who died, whose body was recovered after some time underwater, and who was later resuscitated at a hospital, her identity intact and who with therapy came back close to her previous self and competence. Somehow her connectome was resilient and unpruned or at least, information not forgotten and lost.  Next consider the question of how dreaming plays into synaptic flux. Do synapses shrink or grow or just maintain with dreaming? And what about meditation? How does this pruning/consolidation change with developing expertise at meditation?

My list goes on, a sort of wish list for empirical clarification. When someone is depressed and their cognition is a maladaptive redundant feedback loop called rumination, what happens to their synaptic tidal rhythms? Does cognitive therapy bolster both the ebbing of ruminative circuits and their replacement with the flow of adaptive flexible and realistic cognition? Does this tidal flow while sleeping contribute to that? When someone cogitates over a problem like Monod’s colleague, Jakob Wolff, who subconsciously solved a problem leading to our understanding of rDNA, how does the brain keep the thought processes alive when asleep, as with Kekule’s dream of the benzene ring or Wolff’s insight flash during a movie with his wife? (She did indeed, I hope, understand why they had to leave the theatre and return to his desk). Did the cogitations over a theoretical problem keep certain thoughts bright and let others dim, thereby heightening and clarifying the gestalt answering the theoretical call?

This is already a longer post for me (and I have much else to do today), so let me not go into a lot more details of which there are many, and instead go back to my notion that sentience and consciousness are quite different. In my thinking sentience is a basic life function; the sensing of the environment is necessary to solve the world problem of finding nutrients and conspecifics and avoiding the bad stuff. The evolution of sentience, then, can be traced from early single celled organisms to multicellular ones and then through its evolutionary victory with vertebrates, especially mammals. When we think of an animal’s Umvelt, we usually think of its sentient abilities. Consciousness is the contribution of the organism’s own autogenic impulses to its Umvelt; consciousness is the suffusion of information from memory and imagination to sentience. I have talked about this many times in past posts, like when I say we can be +/-sentient and +/-conscious, creating a 4 celled matrix:

SENTIENCE/CONSCIOUS            + sentient                                  -sentient

+conscious                                       awake                                              dream (REM sleep)

-conscious                                       hypnosis/dissociative                    sleep (slow wave)

I have also discussed this in reference to Jaak Panksepp’s remarkable observation that the center for dreaming (REM) seems to have appeared in evolution before the centers for arousal/awake. Thus, looking at this in a poetic light, animals dreamed before they awoke. (Actually the earlier dream centers controlled arousal through the suffusion of conscious energy into sentient processes. With further evolution sentient processes gained their own arousal governance system, I presume because of the increasing scope and power of perceptual abilities, e.g., olfactory, auditory, and visual and the special systems for conspecific recognition and interaction and consciousness increased in its power to manage memory and imagination.)

Here’s my point now: The research into the tidal ebb and flow of synapses during sleep does not reveal that the purpose of sleep is forgetting, though that is part of it, but it does provide a glimpse into how sentience and consciousness interact in a balanced manner, of how they are balanced. This is a dialectical process by which the organism’s vital nerve centers incipient to its intentional stance exert control over and respond to the sentient processes that are necessary for adaptive functioning. Unconscious sentience is mechanical and inflexible. Insentient consciousness is fluid with a reality unbounded by necessities though fertile with possibilities. Conscious sentience, when balanced, allows creative intelligence to flourish, and some of that balancing occurs when unconscious insentience allows the chaff of the days to be separated from the seeds needed for the next mental crop.

So remember, please, as you travel on, where you read such thoughts first put together. I will pause and dream about variant and invariant forms in language and art, in memes and tropes, and how each aesthetic communication transmits an organized form of experience allowing it to be replicated in another mind and how this organization leads to mobilization. Right on.

Return to invariance for the holidays

I had another thought about invariance/variance yesterday as I reflected on some recent experiences. One aspect of life I find entrancing is the rich chaotic activity it seems to be, like an estuary, yet in the constant flux, amid the “buzzing, blooming confusion” we find channels of activity both variant and invariant. Consider again the rendering of the connectome,

White_Matter_Connections_Obtained_with_MRI_Tractography

Connectome picture

remembering that neural structures are only the substrate of much dynamic activity, including electric action potentials, neurochemical messengers and actors, and a plethora of protein action. Recently I have written here about the structures and functions of language, invariant (words, stock phrases, syntactic structuring) and variant (sentences and conversational flow), but there are different and larger invariant structures we all have that shape our personalities.

So consider the tapes that play in our head, the consistent (invariant) worries rational and irrational that occupy our thoughts. Some are fairly adaptive such as goals and motivations (these change adaptively with circumstances) and some less so, inflexible neurotic anxieties that compose our responses to similar situations even though they are out of date and no longer relevant really to what is going on now. And then consider that neurosychiatric disorders might be seen as monolithic stone in an otherwise vibrant landscape, e.g., the depressive thoughts and feelings that stay the same as life goes on and even gets better, or as liquidities of a dissolving mind rendering reality testing rather impractical, e.g., the hallucinatory escapades of a thought disorder. The ancients knew that a healthy life depended upon balance; here I am saying the balance holds functioning from swinging to far towards petrification or diarrhea of mental life. Our patterns of balance and imbalance are multitudinous and vary from culture to culture and from family to family. So this holiday, when one of your family members re-enacts the same old schtick or becomes drunkenly mercurial (even without imbibing), be thankful you have flexible enough balance between variant and invariant processes to see the difference. Travel on.

dialectical path 2.1: alpha & omega: error recognition and response

My dialectical path wanders between mysticism and positivism in a noumenal sort of way and between religion and science in a phenomenal one. The latter pair both are systems with different levels, e.g., social in their churches and labs & epistemological in their seeking true knowledge. Errors are important in both. Consider this comparison of error recognition and response between the two systems: within science errors are inadequacies in experimental design and control or if the data has been gathered with utmost rigor, errors lie in our theoretical understanding. Scientific response, then, comprises reworking the experiment for greater reliability and validity or challenging and changing the abiding theoretical understanding of the ultimate state of nature. Science, like Hegel’s history, is a paragon of dialectic. Within religion errors are deviations from some god’s law or the laws of a karmic universe. The socially approved responses include individual repentance or congregants’ compassionate prayer for that individual should he or she persist in their un-repentance, or should an individual assiduously rail against the orthodox, the authorities, acting again at the behest of their god, categorize them as in the outgroup, the consequences of which range from mildly predicting their eternity in hell to their torture/murder as apostates. No dialectic exists here within their system, because errors are not ever considered as signals that the standards, e.g., god’s laws, need revision, i.e., that something is amiss with the law itself. Where is the alpha and omega here? Science is always an alpha approaching asymptotically at best the omega of understanding nature. Religion is always an omega as the alpha was already set in stone, so to speak; it may be an omega waiting to happen with the end of days, or an omega of transcendence whereby one leaves off the attachment to this dreary world, but there is no dialectic of religious thought, only evolution of church functioning.

Or consider another frame. I have recently had consideration of the phrase, “coming to my senses,” brought up again. When does someone say this? When realizing that continued effort in the same way would be futile, i.e., senseless, like when someone realizes that a relationship will never be good or healthy or that a plan of action being implemented is untenable or that some belief or assumption is rather unquestionably wrong. “Coming to my senses,” then, is when an omega moment occurs and transforms to an alpha, e.g., Archimedes’ ‘Eureka!’ or (dare I say this) Saul’s epiphany on the road to Tarsus. I use these examples to emphasize that coming to our senses is no sure road to epistemological truth; our senses are famously quite constructive and rather vulnerable to perturbation and error. Still, “coming to my senses” usually connotes a positive and adaptive change of mind. I don’t know if I have ever heard the inverse phrase, “leaving my senses;” I think we tend to say instead, “I am losing my mind.” Curious metaphor that, where the disregard of data engenders mindlessness. And that brings us up to an ever growing facet modern American culture, our fundamentalist religion and divisive politics. Better travel on now rather quickly.

Dialectical path 2.0: alpha-omega series

So in keeping with the spirit, at least, of the Dialectical Path, I want to meditate on beginnings and endings. I think modern humans have only a few boundaries of the unknowable. One is the experience of another’s subjectivity; this one will endure while humans exist. Another one is the alpha moment of the Big Bang, the creation of the universe and the rise of life within it. While we develop our conceptual understanding of this alpha based upon our positivistic efforts, and we can understand even the beginnings of life in this manner, we will not ever know the particular local circumstances and history of it. The third continues to be the omega moment of death, not the universe’s or earth’s or life on earth, but our own; none of us can know what happens after our death to our own self or the world around. These are important because beyond these boundaries, there is no continuance, and so there is no dialectic. Within these boundaries, however, we have myriad series of alpha-omega, whereby the omega becomes the new alpha and this then develops into the new omega. Pretty soon you have a real dialectic there and dialectics are important. Through them we improve our understanding over time. My guiding image throughout this series will come from my metaphor of the river delta, its estuarine living structure and function, as the brain, and I will now add another facet to the metaphor, the tidal wash, the ebb and flow, of some particular experiences we share through the biological roots of our humanity.

To start today with a basic one, consider our experience of Gaia. Yes, Gaia is both alpha and omega. Our world is, of course, a special place where life initiated or arrived and took hold and so began the history of our ecology and evolution. The end result of this, so far, is our awareness and understanding of Gaia’s existence. Yes, we created the concept but we did so based on our senses and comprehension of the world patterns and puzzles manifest there. So Gaia is an alpha moment at the origin of our world and life and it is an omega idea at the current terminus of our understanding. Now our vital understanding develops with the ongoing dialectic from the mystic sense that all life is related and the positivistic knowledge that, why yes, all life is connected through genetic flow, that the fabric of the universe can be studied at large and small scales of space and time, and that the end result, more an epistemological way station, is our positivistic rendering and explication of the old mystic song.   And so we travel on and on and on and on . . . . . with the tides of Gaia.

hie you to the NCMA

Yes, hasten to the North Carolina Museum of Art to see two temporary exhibits on M. C. Escher and Leonardo Da Vinci.  The first is one of the most complete exhibitions of Escher’s art and he had a long career.  I knew the Escher impossible space ones, but those seemed mundane next to his earlier ones exploring long and deep perspectives.  He produced phenomenal art from late teens to his death in 1972 at age 73.  Escher was especially inspired by Da Vinci because of their shared passion for geometries and mathematical patternings.

Escher

M. C. Escher

Da Vinci’s work is represented by a wonderful exhibition of the Codex Leister (now owned by Bill Gates and thank you, Bill), his journals, written in mirror writing, that concerned his scientific and engineering efforts to understand and control water, how fossils come to be at the mountaintops, how water which always runs downhill can emerge in mountain springs, how to measure water pressure, and well, I hope you get the idea.  Many pages written in a fine delicate hand with very precise drawings mostly on the margins.

LEONARDO

Leonardo da Vinci

In a couple of passages in the Codex Leister da Vinci presents a view that the earth is like a body, the ocean its heart, its rivers the blood vessels, the mountains its bones, the vegetation its flesh.  So he knew about Gaia early on in the development of positivistic science; indeed he was one of the creators of science and engineering, both imaginal and practical, even as he was an artist of enormous range and power.  Talk about a hero, who first walked the dialectical path between mysticism and positivism showing us the way.

On a wall in the Escher exhibit was a quote from da Vinci in which he discussed how looking at a rock face one can see shapes and objects emerge or listening to chimes one can hear words and melodies.  This is from his Art of Painting.  And it also fits with the paleolithic cave art in Europe, where the beautiful paintings of animals take advantage of the natural contours of the walls (and who knows, the shadows from the torch or candle).

AltamiraBison

Altamira bison

So hie yourself to the NCMA if you can; it is well worth it.  And look for this guy wandering the dialectic.

Da_Vinci_Vitruve_Luc_Viatour2

da Vinci’s man in proportion

 

Dialectical path 1.1: aesthetic patterning

I am close to finishing an interesting book by Frank Wilczek, A Beautiful Question . He along with some colleagues won the Nobel Prize in physics for, I think, understanding the ideas of quark confinement by the strong force and asymptotic freedom (an interesting idea, that the closer the particles, the less force binding them together). His book provides a review of the development of the standard model in physics and work towards a unified theory with an eye towards the beauty of the mathematical formulas and our clear understanding of nature. He writes for a general audience so I did understand a good bit here but also lost the thread several times, understandable given my last educational exposure to physics and calculus was 1968 in college.
Mr. Wilczek brings in some interesting philosophical notions as he endeavors to explain some esoteric material to us non-mathematically inclined and I appreciate it. One notion is the principle of complementarity: in a relativistic universe many ways to conceptualize a phenomenon exist, some of which are mutually exclusive. Take his example that light can be conceptualized and measured as either a particle or a wave but not both at the same time. This principle strikes me as analogous to gestalt principles, e.g., the face-vase picture, and applicable to the mystic-positivistic event horizons with which I am working.

face-vase, particle-wave, mystic-positivistic

face-vase, particle-wave, mystic-positivistic

Considering the epistemological biases in how religion and science handle error and change, it is difficult to understand how they could be seen in a unified view (and so must be dealt with dialectically). When religious laws are broken, well, that is a sin and the person is in error. Some people say they know of the corrective consequences in the next world, but meanwhile the earth continues to spin around the sun and people keep on behaving naturally. When scientific laws are broken, we understand that the law itself is faulty because our knowledge is faulty and so work to understand the world better and thereby modify the law. Errors and change are important in both perspectives but handled very differently.
So is there a guide to help find a dialectical path connecting between the mystic and positivistic? Intuitive connections certainly occur frequently enough to suggest so. I have written before about how the chemist August Kekule, who was trying with others to understand the chemistry of the benzene ring, dreamed of the ourobouros, the mythic snake circled around to grasp its own tail, and so understood the ring structure of the benzene molecule. Many scientists tell similar tales of inspiration when taking a walk (Wilczek), watching a movie with his wife (Francois Jacob), or daydreaming on a streetcar (Einstein).
But return to Wilczek’s notion of finding beauty in theoretical formulations for understanding reality. This is dear to my heart because it brings the idea of aesthetics to the forefront of our humanity. I believe it is our sense of beauty that best guides our dialectical path. Art, being a creative and symbolic rendition of some vitally felt form, does not observe the process of error and change except in its composition as the artist seeks to construct a whole, coherent, and vital form congruent with his or her artistic vision. We are gifted patterners; neuroscientists tell us that we are excellent at finding patterns and creating them. And some patterns are constructed aesthetically guided by some features of symbolic creation, say, along the lines of Thomas Acquinas’s 3 principles (as expressed by a young Stephen Dedalus aka James Joyce), unity (unitas), coherence (harnonius) and vitality (luminas). Wiczek’s presentation of beautiful equations, e.g., Paul Dirac’s mentioned here before, is again an esoteric, highly intellectual view of rare aesthetic, and while it may not be artistic vision, it is vision, one of humanity’s better ones.
Daniel Dennett posed the question of what to save if you have a choice between saving a scientific document, say Newton’s Principia Mathematica or Einstein’s E=MC2, or a work of art, say Michelangelo’s Pieta or Picasso’s Guernica, and answers that he would save the art because it is unique and irreplaceable and we will always recover some increased understanding of nature’s patterns and rules.
godandadam
In one direction we find the aesthetic spectrum from mathematical beauty and in another orthogonal direction is the beauty we find in nature, not in understanding its orderliness, but in its connection to the mystic. Again, what guides us to explore the space between is art. A couple of posts ago I wondered when in our evolution we began to apprehend the divine, say in the landscape where Stonehenge or Glastonbury were built. An even more basic question would be when did we begin to see beauty in the view?

Let's build a henge here.

Let’s build a henge here.

Do other animals, other primates look at the land and light and weather and sigh with romantic satisfaction? I am pretty sure they do not feel religious, but . . .? Is this the precursor to seeing the divine as we transition from luminous to the numinous?

What's it to be, luminous or numinous?

What’s it to be, luminous or numinous?

Travel on.