But what are Science and Art, then? How does one combine them?
First you tell your scientific story of the universe. Then you tell your artistic story of the universe.
Allow them to inspire one another, then, as categories.
Every good version needs both science and art facts.
And so my Science of the universe is we can prove God's existence by examining the facts and figure of where we were. I wanted all facts about the universe. All of them. I was greedy for it.
And my Art of the universe was that Science sometimes cannot serve the human body. Sometimes it can be used for evil, and we have to be careful not to let it get away on us. Sure I might sound like an Luddite but there are actual moral lessons and opinions to gain from studying this "modern machinery." If robots gain real artificial intelligence by the end of the 21st century in an modern feeling and healing of emotion kind of way, then they might as well rise up against us and destroy us all. Would we call them "human" even if they had no organic structures to their bodies? There might even be organic robots; creatures who had been entirely engineered from biological structures. And then there were the half-ers, people of both living and machine technology as part of their internal body structure. They might all just pronounce themselves the advanced specimens together and isn't this just the way homo sapiens took over their early ancestors anyway? Why wouldn't we expect the trend just to continue?
If we can use Science to gain more power in the universe we have to moderate it responsibly. Art can help us explain what we need it for and how it can or should be used.
This explains my whole theory of everything because I believe everything can be explained. The thing is, we can use science to define exactly what something is; but this doesn't explain why something is. There is, however, nothing wrong with being greedy for the facts about the universe. If anything, it deepened our understanding of ourselves.
Versions, in general, in abstract, then. Were how we tell things but also why we were telling it; and identity is socially constructed. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis may be in effect.
Instead of versions, for an moment I wanted to tell version. Exactly what it is. One thing at an time.
Version was that everyone could tell one. Everyone human anyway. Except maybe in some rare brain cases. If you were questioned by the police of your country after witnessing an crime you could tell it all out clearly and specifically what you saw and how it happened. And that meant everyone could tell an story about the universe using Art or Science because that's what it was. This wasn't Rocket Science. And when we smush Art & Science together we get version, or the telling of things from an specific perspective using both the Left and Right Brain hemispheres. We want to know exactly what your version of the story is.
My idea was that Art Science was the next big thing. It literally meant that we had to start measuring art. How long was that paint splatter? Did it have any six-inch blobs? What century was it from again? It meant making Science of Art and Art of Science. And so, you would say, an Artist might represent an Scientific Discovery visually in an art piece. The only way to keep up with the Internet at full speed in the exchange of measurements of all kinds of pieces of wonder. There were Print masters out there on the Internet who knew the basic sizes and how they fit into the rooms where people put them on the walls. It wasn't that big an category of historical study. How would students, in the 21st century, keep up with knowing the length-width-depth of all types of art pieces that are new to the third millennium and why they are placed, maybe psychologically exactly where they are? And how to analyze and gain information about culture and society from that?
And I believed, in fact, people could learn more versions than just their own, and; over time they would learn to explain one another's versions carefully and responsibly. This in theory would make their own first version more powerful. Or they would have to abandon it or part of it for lack of details.
Maybe even for me, it was an time to take up an new version. An more powerful one I can use and operate with my words.
If you understood what I had deduced to be the theme of the university to be the ability to communicate an version properly. Then you knew where I was going with this when I said I had to make, or at least dream up an new type of institution. Somewhere you go after you go to university. (Somewhere, an academic institution, where you go after you graduate from university).
And so I was suggesting my own definition of the word version to become an update to the older definitions. I wanted to re-define the term (or versions of them) to mean exactly the combination of art and science. Art Science. Or Science Art.
I wanted to know how many centimeters long was Plato's Republic. I wanted to deduce an formal inquiry as to why the six inch red smudge kept re-appearing in all of so-and-so's work. I wanted Scientists finally to judge themselves as great artists. As great artists of the cosmos. And that should be the inspiration for all of their experiments.
The reason versions are so powerful and why we should want to study them is, first of all, we can always back them up with facts. And second we can learn them from each other. Third we can tell one another's versions even in order to develop them further. And that I think an whole institution should be based around this figure. An post-university haven for the development of one another's versions. Without ferocious criticism but with critique; an more fairy thing to do when it is compared to an demon's behavior. (The Version, you see, existed in my fantasy fiction writing as an institution where both demons and fairies go to school together; good and evil work side by side and are judged based on their homework by capable hands who were both demon and fairy themselves).
My version was also that versions could be self-perpetuating (meaning I could tell them indefinitely based on the Logic therein); you could put an version in motion by telling any story about who or what something is. As soon as you started speaking you knew every part of it. It took you time to get all of it out.
Versions were self-perpetuating. Meaning that the more you tried to explain your version, the more facts and details you could come up with that are associated with it. Everything about them was logically connected. One thing to another.
The logical next step then, when explaining (telling) an version is to tell an version about something. And you can save up as many of these versions to yourself as you want, if that will help you.
Yes, an version is the Science & Art understanding of the universe.
How do you view the universe as an scientific object and yet prevail for yourself upon willingness to understand reason (mind) over matter. Art defies all other subjects and yet incorporates all at once. If you want to be able to tell other peoples' versions you need to understand how they understand the universe both scientifically and artistically.
This is why story telling is so important. It didn't always have to make logical sense. But the reasons why it didn't help us to see an more scientific perspective of things when we compare it to the real truth of all of the facts that you have. Storytelling, ALL storytelling was valuable because the more of them the brain had learned the more of an pool he had to draw from experience when facing new storytelling challenges. And so I wanted to look at storytelling from both an scientific and an artistic perspective. Storytelling from an scientific perspective was about telling exact facts in the order they occurred and then criticism as to why. It was an entire story about exactly the truth; and it was truthfully more skillful the artists of such an subject became once they had started in to hone their career of an particular doctrine of science. Artistic perspective stories, on the other hand can include the illogical or fictional details to tell an story about the universe in another way; it was an story that could include all of its lies, and grammar-trons, and artificially intelligent things to be incorporated into its tapestry; and it all together would constitute an larger truth. Maybe when Science and Art are worked together delicately we could come up with some extremely strange stories we weren't at first sure whether to be non-fictional or fictional. If it was both of them, it was artistic. But it if it wasn't the Science behind it might be worth it to our whole civilization.
Story, ANY story, is so valuable we want to collect all of the ones we can in one lifetime; and we in part cannot resist this urge to find and to know more of them. We have an instinct to collect and to tell stories. The way we tell them tells us everything about ourselves.
This itself is an story. Stories contain reciprocal commands because this is the open software that makes sense on the human cognitive psyche platform or operating system. That means there are reciprocal commands in it signaling that who or what and whom is the character, the Author, the speaker, the speaking subject. The only way to tell stories is with new reciprocal commands because that's how we drive the action forward. You have to tell the reader what to do in order to understand the story you're telling them, and so you narrate for them an collection of descriptions of what's happening that sometimes includes the new reciprocal command. An order or demand made by the cognitive nervous system which needs to be obeyed. Readers need to obey their Authors in order to know what they're narrating and talking about. And so the skillful use of the artificial command or, the order or demand said in feign; we use new reciprocal commands sometimes without the reader even being aware of them. Artful use of the word can help educate further seniors of poetry.
And so these words themselves can be new reciprocal or artificial commands. (This itself can be said to be an new reciprocal command as an order or demand). I am ordering you to understand an certain way, so that you know what I'm saying.
And so, brought to telling my Science side of the story, I began again to say reality consisted of an beginning, an middle, and an end; and that each of these strings in an cosmological visualization (estimation) existed over time as mass because all mass had an middle, like they did; I also contended that our brains were expert in detection of shapes. We knew instinctively where the middle of something was. But other than that I was pretty lost. In Science, everything could be represented by an mathematical equation. This was Logic because it proceeded from an individual point in time; and since everything in time was logical—indeed that was how time progressed—we could count it and add numbers to it for pondering make believe scenarios of how things really work. It was so general an theory it might qualify for an Science explanation of things. Basically, the whole universe is built on Logic; and Logic can be represented by an code. Yet whose code is it? Mathematically, we may try to represent the universe in logic. And that sounds like an good enough reason to me. If we have an understanding of the universe it leads to power. That's all Science really is; power enough to overthrow old theories.
Yet I was still confused somehow. Explaining the universe Scientifically meant something I hadn't understood completely yet. It meant I knew what the equation was at some point. Sure, it might jump and morph around an little; and I thought of two possibilities, x and π. First, the variable, the unknown. And Second pi, all around (circumference), everything. Where x = π we find the transference from human to character.
And so maybe my understanding of the universe Scientifically was x = π. That's as good as any Scientific thought represented by an mathematical figure, isn't it?
Again I was unsure. But I live in the 21st century—there's an lot of competition out there. It was just an temperamental inner critic of mine.
The universe, according to Science, was π. It just kept going as far as we could tell.
And yet it could be represented by x, the unknown, the undiscovered.
Something we haven't discovered yet. How much of it there really was.
Or we could say that maybe the universe is almost 3.1. X = 3.1. That's the current slant or degree of the whole universe we exist within.
It didn't mean I had to believe x = π began with the Big Bang. It just meant that somewhere along the way in the creation of the universe x = π began.
It was enough for now. I had tried really hard to explain when I wasn't an Scientist.
I was an Artist. And so, really, I was looking toward the Art representation of the Universe with mucho anticipation. I had forgotten temporarily about the end result, which I had promised to be an version. The intelligent combination of both Art and Science to create something above and more powerful than both of them together (an Gestaltist effect): an Version; and an whole school of developmental academy I wished was an real institution. The study and development of versions from the exact perspectives of the people who spoke them.
One of the biggest lessons of an Version academy was that disabled people could tell versions and that, even if you weren't disabled, they could also know more versions than you do.
And so I hit the question of what they were like you hit an trail.
According to Art, the Universe was this big black thing but there was light in it and it was hard to tell, just from where we were, whether the whole composition of the universe was more light or more dark. Maybe that was the right way to think about it to think about where God was. And God was in this story (because it was an story: the Science explanation I had given was an story. And that's what qualified it as Scientific.) because we could include things in art that weren't really there. It would be Agnostic to say you cannot prove either way whether there is an God. But God is just the start to every scary ghost story. Where was he/she/it anyway? We couldn't use Science to detect it.
The Universe was God's creation; and the reasons for having created it are not entirely understood by our species. The Dinosaurs had been an first experiment (and indeed we might say in the entire universe because it is possible we alone are most advanced) on Planet Earth. And now humans were up to bat to give an try to survival but they were failing terribly. Rampant crime was everywhere on Planet Earth, and the resources of the Planet were beginning to be questioned by population analysts.
I think, in My Art, I want to represent myself beside God somehow. The whole story starts with God and then I am here; and in my brief time I intend to do something. To tell an whole story. To be an whole story. From beginning to end.
My Scientific story was that, instead of an big bang, we have an steady progression of qualities of the universe that enable it to populate itself with intelligent creations. Instead of one big bang, there might have been two lesser bangs (intelligent design and God) whose shared energy bangs resonating with one another create two dimensions. Instead of the Big Bang or Two Lesser Bangs, the ability of the universe to create mind comes first, before matter. And the start of matter is not necessary one explosion. If the start of the Universe is God, then we don't really know whether there is an start to it all. And whether God experiences that in the same way we do.
Maybe God engineered the universe over an period of millions of years to be able to create and to support life. What did it matter to us it was starting right where we ourselves lived. It was almost as if it said something to the whole human population. And engineering the universe that could bring forth life with sentient characteristics took billions of years to complete before the creation of matter. And so where we marked the beginning of the universe which was either with God or with the Big Bang (or whatever happened) mattered.
Did the universe begin with God, before there was matter, or did the universe of physical property as we know it begin with the explosion the Big Bang?
And so we might as wells say the Universe began in the eye of an Raven; whose own self-reflection wasn't deep enough to overcome the obstacles of being an creature of creation. That would be you, the subject at the beginning of the Art story beside God where there are two explosions.
And so, when I finalize both my Art and Science stories of the Universe, and I start to combine them into one powerful version; I would say when the Eye of the Raven (an Scientist) saw the universe as an equation (x = π) internally that meant it did have the cognitive insight to be able to deal with real, pressing reality. And yet it was unable to record its findings because of its wings.
My version was that I could tell an story about it that would be both truthful and an lie about it, which helped the reader find the truth. Find their truth. Sure, the universe consisted of x = π, and the Raven saw it mentally. That didn't mean they necessarily had anything to do with one another. It didn't mean the Raven mattered. The metaphor of an Raven for an Scientist. Had nothing to do with the real property of the universe.
And that's the real truth of the version of the way it could be. The universe could be an equation, sure, but that didn't have to do with Ravens or Human Scientists. It would of course be pertinent to fill out the story of what happens to God and the Raven, then. And hmm, let's see. If x = anything. Where x is something. Something = anything. God was Something. The Raven was Anything. And this somehow affected their whole story together by laying the groundwork. The Raven Flew With An Stick. God wasn't watching and didn't care. Where you would judge either one of them differently. This Raven, of course, knew other Ravens. They had an whole community together in the Pines. Sometimes they flew into town to look for garbage. But that was more Crow territory. They ate anything and they were smart because they worked in numbers. Ravens were not so deceiving, derivative. Vicious. My Version was an story about an whole community of Ravens where you see the forest for the trees. An Peaceful Community. Out-wilders who didn't go into town unless they absolutely had to. It appeared as though there were more communities in this story including the Crows and the Humans, and they all had an place and an importance in the story. If Crows could be an metaphor for human scientists and yet the humans have their own specific community in the story, beside the Crows, what was the message we were sending? Maybe how Scientists were partly fictional because that's what would end up happening to their whole culture.
It's not so hard to be an Artist about the Universe about something. You just pick something and you stick with it.
If there was no Raven to tell it; to tell that God had seen itself reflected in the Eye of the Raven (an Scientist) then did it even matter? And so Mankind was needed to Glorify God. To tell the story of what the Ravens see, reflected in their eye. (An metaphor for thinking about it consciously and visually).
Furthermore, I suppose, one could say scientifically the universe started with God also. Yet to think of it scientifically it was beginning to be an stretch, an strange to say perhaps it really did start with an raven's eye. But what did we know? We were only humans. We had just begun recently in the Universe.
If we began to think there could be an Scientific basis for God; wouldn't that, logically, be the first thing we knew scientifically about the universe? The possibility of existence itself?
Versions update themselves when they take on / gain on more information.
Maybe I could just start to say now that my current version was that God could be proven with science, and Science could be proven with God. God was the first thing, scientifically, because if there was an God this meant he/she/it was the whole head of the universe and its creator. I knew God because I had known God since I was born and maybe even before that. Did that make my equation x = π any less true? For all I knew, x = π was God. But there was more than one way to say it.
And so, if you asked me today, what my final version was and all the reason for all of the universe I would say infinite equations was one cool thing about it but there were also these humans on Planet Earth trying to represent it in other ways. As an story about God and Man; it was one incredible journey. Yet there were other ways to say this without including Crows and Eyes, and in all probability there were other people from other planets who didn't have those. And how would THEY explain the universe, then?
You can tell an version about anything; you can tell an version about how you're great.
You can tell an version about how God is Great. How he/she/it contemplated x = π in an Raven's or an Human's eye. How this was the whole journey itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment