Is it real?

To tell you the truth, I am rather perplexed by the concept of ‘art’. What one person considers to be ‘art’ is often not ‘art’ to another. ‘Beautiful’ and ‘ugly’ are old-fashioned concepts that are seldom applied these days; perhaps justifiably, who knows? Something repulsive, which gives you a moral hangover, and hurts your ears or eyes, may well be art. Only ‘kitsch’ is not art – we’re all agreed about that. Indeed, but what is ‘kitsch’? If only I knew! -M.C. Escher

Art is beautiful, thought-provoking and mysterious, simple. It is interesting because some of the most simple things can be the most complex and mysterious for humans to understand. Escher (also quoted above) once said ‘how terribly complicated and shapeless beauty really is’. As I have stated before, art is beauty. This idea of beauty and art is subjective, as Escher himself states, so while one may call another’s ‘art’ ugly, would they call something they deem as art ugly? Sure, the painting might be splattered with blood, smelling of rotten fish and emitting shrieks, but isn’t the concept beautiful? I find the song ‘Anthem’ by Leonard Cohen, beautiful, mainly because the meaning is so profound. However my sister dismissed it immediately as she found the tune wasn’t so. Beauty in my opinion, doesn’t just exist in sensory experience (nor does it just exist in meaning) it exists in everything, in our opinions, it is both subjective and objective (and we don’t just need language to tell us this).

A terrible or sad thought can be beautiful. Art does not need much (in terms of what people have). It needs a mind (or two) and the ability of expression. Though even this is controversial, some think that art does not need a mind, robots in their opinion make perfect poets;  and does one really need the ability to express themselves? Can’t one produce art in their own minds? For example, are dreams a type of art? A member of my class postulated that the creation of art is really just the combination of already created things, for example a painting is a mixture of colours already discovered, using concepts that have made an impression on the artist, but have nevertheless existed before, perhaps even objectively. Therefore, we could be no better than robots, reproducing the already produced.

However, surely at some point the colour blue was discovered by humans. The ancient Greeks had no word for blue, they used the same word to describe both the metal, bronze, and the sky. Nowadays it seems ridiculous that the same word should be used. The question that comes out of this is: why does modern society deem blue a separate colour to bronze? And does this defy the idea that we are robots? It seems so, for why would a robot create a new concept that doesn’t seem to have any significance? If it kept on reproducing in its deterministic manner, it is reasonable to state that this wouldn’t occur. Maybe art is a defiance of determinism. An act of individuality.

In addition, there is certainly something about art that is social, it depends on other’s opinions of it. Many artists have often worked in seclusion, perhaps because they were worried of people being too dismissive of their art, however I have yet to find an artist who never publicised their art in one form or another. Emily Dickinson, for instance, despite hardly ever leaving her house, and never publishing her poems, shared them between family and friends. Why would robots programmed by evolution ever be programmed to publicise themselves in this way?

Of course there are arguments against this, but I ask you, will art ever be explained empirically?

Personally, I really enjoy History. It is a great subject. A person in my class (by the name of Roberto) put forward the idea that History is like a photo album, something that evokes a sense of nostalgic loss, of connection and affinity. But also importantly, it only includes the stories that are deemed important (a decision often made at the time when the phenomenon occurred, or made by a historian at a later date) and is not the ‘whole’ story. Furthermore, many people have tried (and succeeded) in presenting history to meet their own agenda or others. But for me, this isn’t so bad, if it is a huge piece of biased information, there are often theories or other examples which contradict it.

Just to side-track for a second.

I think it is extremely important to have conspiracy theories. No matter how ‘unpalatable’ they may be. They cause us to question what we know, and review the situation. Of course there are going to be idiotic and awful theories that cause a lot of fuss and bad-feeling,  but they only cause damage if we staunchly believe them. Some people therefore would advocate punishing or even imprisoning those who take conspiracy theories to the extreme, but the only real problem with these people is the danger of another consequently taking violent action. This is a minority within a minority. Not worth imprisoning someone for, as long as they don’t commit a bad act themselves. We should trust people’s judgement a bit more, something that history and conspiracy or contrasting accounts (which history is full of) enhances.

Anyway, where were we?

Ah, so, biased history (which is what the history available to us almost inevitably  is) gives us a sense of the historian’s character,their society’s conventions and style, and their ambitions and motivations. In this sense, the history we study is much more valuable then just outright true (dare I say it) facts, dates that could be seen as an alternative. The history we have is so much more human and descriptive, it shows us what people were like at the time, reveals certain conventions that seem ridiculous but in turn reveal the readers’ conventions to be similarly ridiculous- why do women cover their breasts, even when it is extremely hot weather, why are they treated differently?! For me, when I read history, I read the person who wrote it, and their society or situation and I also read into my society and self.

Lastly, when you read history, particularly ancient, you become a detective and a lawyer. You piece together stories like a puzzle, arguing that this not that happened. It is a court case, and never ceases to be interesting.

I have decided to call this post ‘Copernican’ for two reasons, one, that I think it is part of the human condition to be Ptolemaic, and we should endeavour to be more Copernican; and second,that it is also that it is a beautiful word, and if I added any more before or after it, it would be diluted. So Copernican it is.

I first came across the Copernican revolution a long time ago, but unconsciously. In fact, I think in many ways that everyone goes through a Copernican revolution at least once in their lives, when they realise that the world is not at the centre of the universe.

This blog goes directly against what I have already said in others… but I’m not certain on one particular view or stance.

Strangely, despite considering people who believe in geocentrism to be narrow-minded, we (including some scientists) still think that we are in the centre of the universe+ just in a different dimension. In third dimension that is. Not many people believe that there is something smaller than the Higgs Boson. But, unless you believe that everything is centred on our existence, we should believe otherwise. In addition, we have no word for something bigger than our universe (or at least, not one that I know of). And why? Because our level of magnification is the centre, in our view. That it comes to a point where depth stops. That there is a limit to magnification or scale. And why do we take this view? Because we have a natural bias to our scale/level of magnification, and like Ptolemy, we assume that this view is the centre. We do not see what an ant sees.

I love the idea that there is no limit to how small or large we can go. The sun is the nucleus of an atom. The planets are the little electrons orbiting around it, that gravity is the attraction between positive and negative (another scientist issues a cry of pain). The universe is part of a larger being, maybe even a human. There isn’t even a centre… where is the centre of our mind? Einstein postulated that there are many centres, which makes sense if you are talking about infinities. Maybe depth is circular, that each level is in fact identical to another. Ahhhh the possibilities…

Isn’t it curious that in the electromagnetic spectrum, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet, the colours we can see are at the centre of the electromagnetic spectrum? If we were a bee, would this be different? Maybe we are colourcentric.

These postulations are not actually going against my previous theories in other blogs, because they do not disprove the idea that we create our reality, or even that we are the centre of our universe. I’m not even sure what my point is anymore!

 

 

I don’t think you can compare these two types of science easily. Partly because from a physical point of view, they are the same thing: both are made up of matter; and from a idealist point of view, they are not and cannot be compared, and lastly, from an empirical point of view it is not obvious what the mind is made up of, and the two sciences are seen as the study of two different things… so far in human science, no one has come up with a realistic, comprehensible theory on where/how the mind’s identity, memory or thoughts are generated, it seems we are studying something more incomprehensible than the anatomy of a plant or the sequence of a star.

You could use a bike as an example. The study of the components of it (the wheels, how they  work, why they turn) can be seen as natural science, but the experience of riding it, and the study of this is human science.

As to which is more useful, I’d say both are important in their own right, I also feel like eventually they will both be tackling the same problem (using my intuition). I don’t really want to say one is better than the other, I think human science has more scope for progress, but even that is extremely controversial.

As for the concept of Laws in the natural sciences, stop pretending… they’re trends. 🙂

 

Maths is incredibly interesting, I find it strange how some people seem better at it than others, and it is interesting to wonder why- is it society and morale or is it a deeper or lesser awareness of our world? And here is the crux of my discussion, does maths provide a deeper way of viewing our world, or does it limit our view?

Looking around us, all things can be related to mathematics in some way. You see the sun, a sphere, flowers following the Fibonacci pattern and so on… mathematics is a code which has been used to create/generate our world.

To further this, it is an assumption to think that our world isn’t created by us. When a tree falls in a wood, and you aren’t there, does it make a sound? Does the tree exist? What is our reality? Consider this. Our brain creates a large proportion of what we see, as our eyes take a large amount of ‘photos’ which our brains both assemble and ‘fill in’. So when we acknowledge maths in the world around us, are we just acknowledging our own mathematical ways of perceiving? Would you go as far to say we create our world, or is it something that we are conscious of in an imperfect way? We could be imprinting innate maths onto our outer reality. Maths is a logical tool.

So does maths limit our view? Perhaps not. Perhaps this is so.

It limits our view when we assume maths is a priori, because, really it could just be our mind’s way of generating our existence. Then, I hear you say, is our mind a priori? This is an interesting argument, we are given to thinking that outside our minds is the reality, but we should understand that inside our minds (as Descartes argues most convincingly) is the most plausible reality. The discoveries in quantum physics suggest this, as when we look at smaller and smaller things, the rules of our world break down, as if we are reaching a border of comprehension. So perhaps maths actually helps us study our own mind, it tests our limits, and in doings so deepens our view.

It is fascinating how circles and spheres crop up again and again, pi and Fibonacci. So I guess to leave you with something that is comprehensible (!), I’ll ask you one final question: Are the basics of mathematics saying more about us than anything else?

La cigarette, by Melanie Pain

Donne-moi une cigarette
Je la garderai près de moi
Je la fumerai peut-être
Bien avant que tu ne le croies
Je garderai cette cigarette
Pour occuper mes dix doigts
Je la fumerai peut-être
Quand j’aurais trop le mal de toi

Ne fais donc pas cette tête
C’est toi qui me laisse là
Toi qui veux que l’on arrête
Toi qui ce soir tourne le pas

Je préférerais c’est bête
Attendre des semaines, des mois
Et l’allumer sur la défaite
Qu’une autre un jour t’infligera
On pourra alors peut être
Sur nos deux cœurs de granit froid
Y gratter une allumette
Et la partager comme autrefois
Quand nos corps étaient à la fête
Qu’ils n’avaient pas peur du combat
Donne-moi cette cigarette
Comme un dernier cadeau de toi

Ne fais donc pas cette tête
C’est toi qui me laisse là
Toi qui veux que l’on arrête
Toi qui ce soir tourne le pas

Rekindle ash. (La Cigarette translated by me;)

Give me a ciggy

I’ll keep it close yet

I will smoke it maybe

Faster than you would suspect

 

To keep restless fingers busy

I will keep this cigarette

I’ll smoke it soon maybe

When I feel too bereft

 

Why do you shake your head?

It’s you who left me there

You who wants our skin shed

You who this night; doesn’t stare

 

I would prefer, it’s silly

To wait for weeks, to sit

To light up at the victory

Over you another will inflict

 

We could possibly,

On our two hearts of granite

Strike a match and lightly

Rekindle, share the

Memories of when we were happy

 

Give me this cigarette

A last gift from you

 

Why do you shake your head?

It’s you who left me there

You who wants this skin shed

You who at night, will not stare

 

I took this ‘poem’ as a challenge, as I tried to keep it’s rhyming and rhythm the same. It isn’t really a poem, in fact it is a song by Melanie Pain, so I guess I’m bending the rules a bit, I don’t know. Translating the poem was certainly a challenge, you have to wrack your brain for the right words that convey meaning, rhyme and contribute to the right number of syllables. But also, the fact that this poem is actually a song helps tremendously, as you can test out the poem’s translation by simply singing it to the tune. If anything’s wrong, it’s audible!

My next poem I translated is…

Demain, dès l’aube – Victor Hugo

Demain, dès l’aube, à l’heure où blanchit la campagne,
Je partirai. Vois-tu, je sais que tu m’attends.
J’irai par la forêt, j’irai par la montagne.
Je ne puis demeurer loin de toi plus longtemps.

Je marcherai les yeux fixés sur mes pensées,
Sans rien voir au dehors, sans entendre aucun bruit,
Seul, inconnu, le dos courbé, les mains croisées,
Triste, et le jour pour moi sera comme la nuit.

Je ne regarderai ni l’or du soir qui tombe,
Ni les voiles au loin descendant vers Harfleur,
Et quand j’arriverai, je mettrai sur ta tombe
Un bouquet de houx vert et de bruyère en fleur.

The Dawning. (My translation)

Tomorrow, at dawn (the hour of white countryside),

I will leave.

You see, that I know you wait for me.

I will go by forest, I will go by mountain.

I cannot stay far from you anymore.

 

I walk eyes fixed on thoughts

Seeing nothing outside, hearing not one

Sound

Alone, Unknown, bent back, crossed hands;

Melancholy, and the day becomes night for me.

 

I will not look upon the golden

fall of evening.

Nor the billow sails descending towards Harfleur,

I will place over your tender tomb, a bouquet,

Of green holly and heather in flower.

 

I liked this poem because it uses simple and powerful language. This was by no means more of a challenge to translate, as there is much more emphasis on the meaning of the words and how the form of the poem is created. On the whole, I enjoyed translating this poem more as it required a less structured approach and allowed for more creativity. I chose to keep the line: ‘I will go by forest, I will go by mountain,’ as it instils the detachedness from reality which is certainly there in the poem, whereas if I had put: I will got through forest and over mountains; this conveys a more logical thought process, which is not what I wanted to translate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

he Cigarette, translated :))

 

In my opinion, reason helps us explore the assumed world. It uses laws that are in accordance with the world as we know it.

Therefore, I don’t believe reason is a source of certainty. Because we don’t know our world fully… how can we use something based on pre-assumptions, to obtain certainty on unexplored subjects?

Deductive reasoning, such as syllogism, seems to me simply a language game. It’s a way of writing an argument down in simple clear rhetoric. And while it may often strike true, the premises will always be uncertain (and therefore the conclusion) as we are not omniscient. Which is why we use the term ‘validity’ instead of ‘truth’.

Inductive reasoning is similar. It uses uncertain particular knowledge to make an assumption about general knowledge.

The Bases of Reason are also flawed…

1 Whatever is, is.

Some people may say I’m young, while others (particularly children) would say I am old. The second basis of reason denies that I can both ‘be and not be’. In addition, it also denies quantum mechanics and theories such as ‘Schrodinger’s cat’. Which are based on reason!

The third basis is that I must either be or not be… so I must be old and not young? Or I must be young and not old? Who is wrong? This is a matter which reason cannot solve, as both parties’ (of people) opinions are valid.

The Cretan Paradox is a great counter argument towards reason:

All Cretans are liars,

I am a Cretan,

Therefore I am a liar.

The premises are valid. Therefore the conclusion should also be (and if you argue that I am using reason to assume this, then I am, which is yet another counter argument going against reason). This conclusion is not valid.

If the subject (I) is a Cretan, then their statement should be both true and false. Cretans lie, therefore their statements should not be valid, but this one is.

The Cretan Paradox attacks reasoning using its own methods. Using reason. It supports that other ways of knowing are important.

These arguments show that reason is flawed. In my opinion, it is certainly not ‘A priori’ but simply a device, invented by us, that often works in OUR world.

 

 

 

 

 

I find it interesting how language, to a large extent, can shape our thoughts. It’s shocking to perceive that it alters us just as much as we alter it. We intuitively think that every thought we think is our own, but after considering this, we realise that most of what we think, especially unconsciously, is shaped by external factors, primarily language and culture.

Maybe that’s one of the reasons why people often find exploring other cultures so interesting, because it is, almost literally, thinking out of the box.

However, I do believe that we think without language, just a lot less. If we didn’t, how would we associate words with meanings or even possess language itself? Language helps our minds to explore and expand to such a point that almost all of what we think has been shaped by it in one way or another.

I think sense perception is important to study. All to often we are caught up in refined/specific thoughts, ignoring the very basic (but also complex) issues, such as how we perceive.

It’s like studying a difficult math sum, without having studied the basics that it is made up of.

The crux of the matter of sense perception, for me, is that we can’t trust our senses. Which means that we have no proof that our world exists, outside our minds.

Without Sense Perception would we think, our even be conscious? Would we exist en soi, like a table, simply being? Personally I think so.

Sense Perception also exposes another interesting thing, that people don’t like considering the basics of our existence (this links to Plato’s cave and Sartre’s exploration of Bad Faith/freedom) mainly because it is depressing and seemingly unsolvable. But matters like these are also the most interesting, and have the most potential for progress.

Why I chose “Never Know” is because it explores what it is to be human.

It illustrates Jack Johnson’s point of view that we are just ‘a bubble in a boiling pot, one breath in a chain of thought, we’re moments just combusting’ – this is why I like Jack Johnson, because I find it reassuring when people/song-writers are concerned by things other than their own ‘bubble’.

I also find it interesting how ‘Never Know’ describes us by contrasting, like ‘We’re clever but we’re clueless’, ‘shocking but we’re nothing’ and ‘our hearts are strong, our heads our weak’. He also shows the futility of our purpose on earth (breaking and rebuilding, always be competing, never knowing) but also wonders why we philosophise, in the question ‘We’re trying but where’s this all leading?’. This interpretation is important, he is describing the human condition as one of uncertainty, contrasting ideas and questions.

Personally I would use his use of juxtaposition one step further, because though he hasn’t covered phenomenalism, (TOK is changing me!) I think it should be mentioned. Maybe ‘We’re nothing, but everything’ would suffice?!

Lastly, Jack Johnson also sings about metaphors… though I’m not totally sure what he means by this, I think perhaps its to do with everyone’s theory on the meaning of life, we like things like metaphors as they give a sense of tessellation, familiarity and stability. Or perhaps it could be to do with the idea that language is a metaphor?!

P.S. Inaudible Melodies and No Other Way are good too! (also by Jack Johnson)