E Bjork,che ha dedicato alla scienza tutt'un progetto chiamato, non a caso, "Biophilia"? Condivido,comunque: sarebbe esaltante la poesia si lasciasse ispirare dalla scienza, dalla percezione delle leggi naturali o della bellezza degli elementi.Sarebbe davvero emozionante, Scienza e Poesia insieme, quasi come sorelle,ognuna con il suo charme! Ah,ad ogni modo: Adoro Johanna Newsom!!!
I disagree that biology adds to the mystery of its subject.
He sees beauty on a different level. Not being a biologist, I can't love it as much as he does to see the beauty he sees. And then judging the beauty of what someone explains to me, and the beauty I have seen before, I can only conclude - albeit subjectively - it has lost its mystery and become less beautiful. If we break a system to its elements, the overall - or the beauty of the mystery - is lost.
No Pax, I disagree with you: if you say that the artist sees the beauty in the flower for his "mystery", this can be applied also to the scientist, who watch not the mistery of the flower, but the "mistery" of processes that had created that flower. I think that Feynman means this... :)
@paxcoder : I think knowledge always adds, and never takes away from the beauty of universe. It just gives you more levels of perception, and the mistery is in each of them..
Saying that a biologist can't see the beauty of a flower is like saying that people better appreciate the italian art of Rinascimento if they ignore the laws of perspective used by the artists of that period.
Ignorance can't be the way of art, and doesn't increase the feeling of positive emotions.
@FreeSilio If you break a system to elements, you loose the beauty of the "more than the sum of parts". This is what I think sometimes happens when a biologyst looks at the flower. He may see a most beautiful mechanism, but he can no longer see life - it is but a process to him (and he would argue this). I'm not saying the latter releases less endorphines, or is worse for that matter. I'm just saying it's not a same thing anymore.
@paxcoder I think a biologist can perceive both of the levels.
The knowledge about how life works adds much more misteries, and allows to see the TRUE beauty of life, and not only to have a "poetic" idea about it, which is in the most of cases a wrong one.
Knowledge can give you spiritual experiences going beyond the pure illusory fantasies any "delusory poet" can have.
There's real poetry in the real world. Science is the poetry of reality.
E Bjork,che ha dedicato alla scienza tutt'un progetto chiamato, non a caso, "Biophilia"? Condivido,comunque: sarebbe esaltante la poesia si lasciasse ispirare dalla scienza, dalla percezione delle leggi naturali o della bellezza degli elementi.Sarebbe davvero emozionante, Scienza e Poesia insieme, quasi come sorelle,ognuna con il suo charme! Ah,ad ogni modo: Adoro Johanna Newsom!!!
iosonostrano 2 months ago
Well .. actually Frank Zappa had take inspiration and talked about the universe (as we imagine today)
akabalaka 5 months ago
Bhe.. veramente Frank Zappa varie volte , dall' universo, ne ha tratto inspirazione e ne ha anche parlato (di come e' rappresentato oggigiorno).
akabalaka 5 months ago
@akabalaka Vero ! Zappa era un genio
moltimondi 5 months ago
@moltimondi @akabalaka Mi indichereste qualche brano?
peppecrivello 1 month ago
yup!
RabidApe 2 years ago
I disagree that biology adds to the mystery of its subject.
He sees beauty on a different level. Not being a biologist, I can't love it as much as he does to see the beauty he sees. And then judging the beauty of what someone explains to me, and the beauty I have seen before, I can only conclude - albeit subjectively - it has lost its mystery and become less beautiful. If we break a system to its elements, the overall - or the beauty of the mystery - is lost.
paxcoder 2 years ago
No Pax, I disagree with you: if you say that the artist sees the beauty in the flower for his "mystery", this can be applied also to the scientist, who watch not the mistery of the flower, but the "mistery" of processes that had created that flower. I think that Feynman means this... :)
pacchista 1 year ago 2
Perhaps we're just comparing apples and oranges, but I'll still argue the biologist lost the apple for his orange (not necessarily a bad thing).
paxcoder 1 year ago
@paxcoder : I think knowledge always adds, and never takes away from the beauty of universe. It just gives you more levels of perception, and the mistery is in each of them..
Saying that a biologist can't see the beauty of a flower is like saying that people better appreciate the italian art of Rinascimento if they ignore the laws of perspective used by the artists of that period.
Ignorance can't be the way of art, and doesn't increase the feeling of positive emotions.
FreeSilio 1 year ago 11
@FreeSilio If you break a system to elements, you loose the beauty of the "more than the sum of parts". This is what I think sometimes happens when a biologyst looks at the flower. He may see a most beautiful mechanism, but he can no longer see life - it is but a process to him (and he would argue this). I'm not saying the latter releases less endorphines, or is worse for that matter. I'm just saying it's not a same thing anymore.
paxcoder 1 year ago
@paxcoder I think a biologist can perceive both of the levels.
The knowledge about how life works adds much more misteries, and allows to see the TRUE beauty of life, and not only to have a "poetic" idea about it, which is in the most of cases a wrong one.
Knowledge can give you spiritual experiences going beyond the pure illusory fantasies any "delusory poet" can have.
There's real poetry in the real world. Science is the poetry of reality.
I suggest you: watch?v=9Cd36WJ79z4
FreeSilio 1 year ago 2
@paxcoder Feynam would probably have answered you this way: "There's Plenty of mystery at the Bottom"
eumeme 5 months ago
@eumeme ;-P
paxcoder 5 months ago