I have often been accused of “deconstruction” – the art of ripping everything upside down – been accused both in a lighter vein and a more serious note.
My only defense has been – thats the only way I know to exist – I like to break things down – at least in my head – to understand their basic philosophy, to try and understand “why” rather than “how” (at most times).
Its my desire to “search for a deeper meaning” that drives me down to breaking things apart.
As I was reading Feynman’s book for the third time, it occurred to me that I should use that to explain “why I deconstruct”.
Read on !!
“I have a friend who’s an artist and he’s some times taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say, "look how beautiful it is," and I’ll agree, I think. And he says, "you see, I as an artist can see how beautiful this is, but you as a scientist, oh, take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing." And I think he’s kind of nutty.
First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me, too, I believe, although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is. But I can appreciate the beauty of a flower.
At the same time, I see much more about the flower that he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside which also have a beauty. I mean, it’s not just beauty at this dimension of one centimeter: there is also beauty at a smaller dimension, the inner structure… also the processes.
The fact that the colors in the flower are evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting – it means that insects can see the color.
It adds a question – does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms that are… why is it aesthetic, all kinds of interesting questions which a science knowledge only adds to the excitement and mystery and the awe of a flower.
It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment