Message to Maureen
MelvinFullerton
American) has the mental memory capacity functions,to compare but the
simplest of THINGS to the simplest of THINGS--you have seen example of
"America's 'Best and Brightest' child's minded postings on this newsgroup.
Time after time thier wandering ninds.Choose the posts of--
The use of the half drunk barroom idiot's language writings;because the lack of
memory facilities to understand or deal; with the well known
political,"Subtelties",
so old --so old--so often discredited--so often discredited--and the lack of
any sense of Webster's Dictionary definitions for the words they use--spending
most
of thier time in the childish game of--"So's your old man--My fasther can lick
your father."
This world may never see a true age of intellectualism--or ever even revere its
paintings--poetry--(Ezra Pound) preferred--Picasso Gibberish art preferred--
what a hell of a waste of artistic talent if he had any--Great monuments--to
those of Christiandoms Leaders of its Brutal Centuries of PaganisticLife/Death
for the Multituders,Endevours.
The strangets of all--it was easy to buy this copy--still in print--on
permanent non acid library quality paper--large easy to read print--Brave New
World is on the
public school childrens' preferred reading list.
The Lonely Island
melvin WW2 ETO Reg Amerr DAV VFW Amer Leg 54 years union asge 82 years
maureen
wrote:
>This world may never see a true age of intellectualism--or ever even revere its
>paintings--poetry--(Ezra Pound) preferred--Picasso Gibberish art preferred--
>what a hell of a waste of artistic talent if he had any--Great monuments--to
> those of Christendoms Leaders of its Brutal Centuries of PaganisticLife/Death
>for the Multituders,Endevours.
>The Lonely Island
>melvin WW2 ETO Reg Amerr DAV VFW Amer Leg 54 years union asge 82 years
Not all writings and paintings will have the lasting quality to go on
into the future, Mel. Mozart's music has lived on for more than 200
years. Shakespeare's writings have been alive for four and a half
centuries. I doubt that the works of Ezra Pound and Picasso will last
more than another 50 to 100 years.
maureen
Rumpelstiltskin
I completely disagree in the case of Picasso, myself.
Rumpelstiltskin
P.S., here's cummings on Picasso. Cummings was himself a painter, and
I completely agree with his feelings below:
-----
Picasso
you give us Things
which
bulge:grunting lungs pumped full of sharp thick mind
you make us shrill
presents always
shut in the sumptuous screech of
simplicity
(out of the
black unbunged
Something gushes vaguely a squeak of planes
or
between squeals of
Nothing grabbed with circular shreiking tightness
solid screams whisper.)
Lumberman of the Distinct
your brain's
axe only chops hugest inherent
Trees of Ego,from
whose living and biggest
bodies lopped
of every
prettiness
you hew form truly
Rita
<PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> I completely disagree in the case of Picasso, myself.
I disagree, also. Picasso was able to paint in so many
styles, never stopped. There are works of his I like much
better than others. It took me a long time to appreciate
Guernica, but now I understand why it has been so highly
rated. My introduction to Picasso was at the age of 15 when
I first visited an art museum in Chicago. And I fell in love
with a painting from his classical period, "The Lovers" and
had it on my wall for years.
One of the joys of owning a good computer is the ability to
download art from the internet. I have a large collection of
favorites and vary them often on my desktop. I also can
run them as a slideshow and find that this is a good remedy
to raise my spirits. I find visiting the Metropolitan Museum
of Art functions for me as a "religious" experience, in that
it takes me out of myself and puts me in touch with some
universal something. I can't really describe these feelings
but they are real and I can sit in front of a painting, such as
one of Jackson Pollack's huge canvasses, and go into a
sort of reverie. I like a wide variety of art, the Old Masters
not among my favorites because of the themes. I do have
some great photos of Michelangelo's David. Also have
some Chinese scrolls and a lot of Van Gogh and Monet
and Cezanne. Then there is contemporary art and I like to
go to the galleries here in New York and see what is being
shown. A lot of it is trash, but much of it is interesting. Also,
there is primitive art at the Met and it is amazing. The
beauty of the Met is that although it is huge it is not as vast
as the Louvre and well organized so one may choose a
certain section to spend time in without being overwhelmed.
James Chamblee
mau...@indiansummer.strewth (maureen) wrote:
> Mozart's music has lived on for more than 200
>years. Shakespeare's writings have been alive for four and a half
>centuries.
My son has stated that the reason that these works are so widely circulated
is that nobody has to pay royalties for their use.
Elaine Jackson
>Shakespeare's writings have been alive for four and a half
>centuries. I doubt that the works of Ezra Pound and Picasso will last
>more than another 50 to 100 years
stuff - very succinct, sharply observed, and unsparingly phrased. Much better
than his poetry, imho.
Picasso's work strikes me as the byproducts of someone who enjoyed life
hugely, played at art for a lifetime, and was well paid for doing so... but the
work itself is ephemeral.
I also carried a poster-size copy of "The Lovers" to wherever I lived,
during college. It's a very pretty thing. I would sit under it in my black
cashmere sweater, black leotards and tight black skirt, and read Pound,
cummings, Eliot, Hopkins... :^)
Elaine
Rumpelstiltskin
Jackson) wrote:
"The Lovers" is on the web at
http://www.abcgallery.com/P/picasso/picasso278.html
I didn't recognize the name when you and Rita mentioned
it, but when the picture came up it was of course very
familiar. My favorite Picasso right now is "Deux femmes
courantes sur la plage", the one with the two girls running
side by side along the beach, hand-in-hand, one with
her overlarge other arm outstretched in the direction of
running. The two girls together make the general shape
of an arrow pointing in the wrong direction, with the
outstretched arm acting as the shaft and the two figures
as the arrowhead.
maureen
>On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:34:28 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
><PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> I completely disagree in the case of Picasso, myself.
>
>I disagree, also. Picasso was able to paint in so many
>styles, never stopped. There are works of his I like much
>better than others. It took me a long time to appreciate
>Guernica, but now I understand why it has been so highly
>rated.
I read a book on Guernica by two investigative journalists so the
story is close to my heart, but how many people in 100 hundred years
will even remember Guernica. Picasso's painting will not prod anyone
in a future time to think about the horror that was Guernica. IMO
Picasso's paintings will last only as long as people pay big money for
them . . Guernica, in particular, has been dissected to death. I'm not
sure there's anymore dissecting left in it. This doesn't mean I don't
like the painting. At one time I would have had it on my wall., but I
never could relate it to the reality of Guernica.
Michelangelo will go on ad infinitum, but what does
Picasso have to say to future generations who will be embroiled in the
computer digital arts and all kinds of other new art forms we know not
what. .
> My introduction to Picasso was at the age of 15 when
>I first visited an art museum in Chicago. And I fell in love
>with a painting from his classical period, "The Lovers" and
>had it on my wall for years.
I, too, have had Picassos on my walls. It was the fad at the time. I
particularly liked The Old Guitarist, Portrait of a Young Girl (a
cubist one) and a cubist Portrait of his mistress. I wouldn't want
them on my walls anymore. His time has passed for me. We're all
different.
>One of the joys of owning a good computer is the ability to
>download art from the internet.
Very true! It's all magic!
> I have a large collection of
>favorites and vary them often on my desktop. I also can
>run them as a slideshow and find that this is a good remedy
>to raise my spirits. I find visiting the Metropolitan Museum
>of Art functions for me as a "religious" experience, in that
>it takes me out of myself and puts me in touch with some
>universal something. I can't really describe these feelings
>but they are real and I can sit in front of a painting, such as
>one of Jackson Pollack's huge canvasses, and go into a
>sort of reverie.
I know what you're talking about. I felt the same about Michelangelo's
Florentine Pietą , his third Pietą, in Florence, and about the bronze
statue of Poseidon in the Archaeological Museum in Athens.
> I like a wide variety of art, the Old Masters
>not among my favorites because of the themes. I do have
>some great photos of Michelangelo's David. Also have
>some Chinese scrolls and a lot of Van Gogh and Monet
>and Cezanne. Then there is contemporary art and I like to
>go to the galleries here in New York and see what is being
>shown. A lot of it is trash, but much of it is interesting. Also,
>there is primitive art at the Met and it is amazing. The
>beauty of the Met is that although it is huge it is not as vast
>as the Louvre and well organized so one may choose a
>certain section to spend time in without being overwhelmed.
While I lived and worked in central London I spent many of my lunch
hours soaking up the art at the National Museum, and for a short time
the Tate. My favorites were always the great masters, painters from
the Baroque, the Renaissance, but I also enjoyed Impressionism and
Neo-Impressionism. I usually preferred realism over expressionism,
surrealism,and other more modern styles. I did become attached to
some of the paintings in those styles, but they never seemed to last.
I always went back to the old faves which seem to last forever in my
life.
Like you, Rita, I like to download works of art from the Net to use
as wallpaper. I change them weekly. Right now I'm into Rubens and find
it hard to get away from him, especially his Four Corners of the Globe
which fills my computer screen with color and beauty. I keep changing
it, but it has a hold on me. I keep going back. I visited the Vatican
Museum twice and liked the Rubens rooms better than the Cistine
Chapel. Maybe because you didn't have to strain your neck to do the
viewing. ;-)
maureen
maureen
<PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:34:28 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
><PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 15:03:27 GMT, mau...@indiansummer.strewth
>>(maureen) wrote:
>>>On 09 Dec 2001 22:57:04 GMT, melvinf...@aol.com (MelvinFullerton)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>This world may never see a true age of intellectualism--or ever even revere its
>>>>paintings--poetry--(Ezra Pound) preferred--Picasso Gibberish art preferred--
>>>>what a hell of a waste of artistic talent if he had any--Great monuments--to
>>>> those of Christendoms Leaders of its Brutal Centuries of PaganisticLife/Death
>>>>for the Multituders,Endevours.
>>>>The Lonely Island
>>>>melvin WW2 ETO Reg Amerr DAV VFW Amer Leg 54 years union asge 82 years
>>>
>>>>Not all writings and paintings will have the lasting quality to go on
>>>into the future, Mel. Mozart's music has lived on for more than 200
>>>years. Shakespeare's writings have been alive for four and a half
>>>centuries. I doubt that the works of Ezra Pound and Picasso will last
>>>more than another 50 to 100 years.
>>
>> I completely disagree in the case of Picasso, myself.
>
>P.S., here's cummings on Picasso. Cummings was himself a painter, and
>I completely agree with his feelings below:
>
>you give us Things
>which
>bulge:grunting lungs pumped full of sharp thick mind
>
>you make us shrill
>presents always
>shut in the sumptuous screech of
>simplicity
>
>(out of the
>black unbunged
>Something gushes vaguely a squeak of planes
>or
>
>between squeals of
>Nothing grabbed with circular shreiking tightness
>solid screams whisper.)
>Lumberman of the Distinct
>
>your brain's
>axe only chops hugest inherent
>Trees of Ego,from
>whose living and biggest
>
>bodies lopped
>of every
>prettiness
>
>you hew form truly
I hate to disagree with someone I almost always agree with , but
I doubt that Cummings will last 100 years either, Rumpel, much as I
like him. I used to introduce him to my students with his very
popular, '' In Just Spring...'' He paints a lovely picture.
We'll just have to pass on this one. Luv ya! :-)
What are the qualities that make some artists and writers last while
others disappear into the ether? And how will the fact that knowledge
is doubling every five years affect the lasting quality of writers and
artists I wonder?
maureen
maureen
Probably partly true, but everything over 50 years old could be
widely circulated but it isn't. You cannot get out of it so easily,
Jim. :-)
maureen
James Chamblee
mau...@thehotnorth.strewth (maureen) wrote:
>>My son has stated that the reason that these works are so widely circulated
>>is that nobody has to pay royalties for their use.
>
>Probably partly true, but everything over 50 years old could be
>widely circulated but it isn't. You cannot get out of it so easily,
>Jim. :-)
I'm not trying to get out of anything. I like all music, except rap, which
isn't really music to me.
But my favorites are Wagner, Copeland and Gershwin.
Rumpelstiltskin
(maureen) wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:41:52 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
><PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:34:28 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
>><PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 15:03:27 GMT, mau...@indiansummer.strewth
>>>(maureen) wrote:
>>>>On 09 Dec 2001 22:57:04 GMT, melvinf...@aol.com (MelvinFullerton)
>>>>wrote:
>I hate to disagree with someone I almost always agree with , but
>I doubt that Cummings will last 100 years either, Rumpel, much as I
>like him. I used to introduce him to my students with his very
>popular, '' In Just Spring...'' He paints a lovely picture.
I have some doubts about cummings' longevity too. It's
maybe not, as Ben Jonson said of Shakespeare, "He was not
of an age, but for all time". Cummings is, or was, very good
for our time though. I certainly hope "anyone lived in a pretty
how town" doesn't pass into oblivion.
I have no doubts about Picasso though, who I think is
perhaps the greatest artist of all time. But we certainly can
differ - it's not illegal!
>We'll just have to pass on this one. Luv ya! :-)
>
>What are the qualities that make some artists and writers last while
>others disappear into the ether? And how will the fact that knowledge
>is doubling every five years affect the lasting quality of writers and
>artists I wonder?
My dentist loaned me three disks of English piano music from
the Classical to early Romantic periods. Some of it is really
excellent, and makes me wonder how much wonderful stuff
just doesn't get any press for one reason or another. Vivaldi
was forgotten for a long time. The main thing that brought him
back into view was Bach's obvious high opinion of him, since
Bach re-scored much of his music for other instruments.
Bach's popularity re-started thanks to Mendelssohn. Bach
always had a small following among artists and connoisseurs,
but Mozart knew of him only as the father of his sons until
Baron von Swieten introduced Mozart to Bach and Handel at
age 25. The effect on Mozart was immediate, dramatically
deepening his style. We very nearly lost Emily Dickinson,
since she was unknown in her lifetime, and instructed in her
death wishes that all her papers be burned. Her sister Lavinia
was astonished to come across the poems, which she never
knew existed, agonized over burning them for a while, then
decided it just wouldn't be right to do it, thereby making herself
the most beloved person in literature who never wrote a line
that is remembered. Most of Mendel's work on genetics was
destroyed by the conservative head of the monastery after he
died. Monteverdi's last great work, on which he spent much
energy, is lost. Ives' Tone-Roads #2 seems to be lost, unless
he renamed it as "Over the Pavements" which seems to me
possible since that's much in the spirit of #1 and #3. Ives
sent a revised version of his second symphony which the
recipient valued so little that he lost it. Luckily Ives himself
felt his original pencil version which we have is better.
The last cantatas of Bach were entrusted to his son
Wilhelm Friedemann, and have never been found.
THE WEAK MONK
The monk sat in his den,
He took the mighty pen
And wrote 'Of God and Men.'
One day the thought struck him
It was not according to Catholic doctrine;
His blood ran dim.
He wrote till he was ninety years old,
Then he shut the book with a clasp of gold
And buried it under the sheep fold.
He'd enjoyed it so much, he loved to plod,
And he thought he'd a right to expect that God
Would rescue his book alive from the sod.
Of course it rotted in the snow and rain;
No one will ever know what he wrote of God and men.
For this the monk is to blame.
--- Stevie Smith
I'm listening to Bach's b-minor mass right now. It's hard
to imagine how Bach could ever have sunk into obscurity.
Fashion has a lot to do with it. Though it seems
sacrilegious to say so, I think Eccliastes' observation that
the race is not to the swift, but time and chance have a
part in all things, has a lot to do with it too.
Samuel Johnson observed that if one wants a prime
example of the vanity of human hopes, one need merely
visit a public library.
When my sister was taking me to the airport a couple of
days back, my niece kept wanting to put a CD of her latest
junk rock group on the car CD player. My sister and I both
rebelled. I said "no more cute boy music", since cute boys
seem to be the main criterion for my niece's taste in music.
Knowledge is doubling every five years, but I don't think
first-rate art is. Knowledge is less dependent on supreme
excellence than art is. Supreme excellence should be
proportional to the population, but it doesn't seem to
progress even that well. Our modern age, with its far
greater population, hasn't produced a constellation of
great artists as in 16th and 17th century Holland. The
old Vienna school (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and I
would include Schubert) has had no match since.
On the other hand, if I had to go to a desert island with
only one century of music, I'd be hard pressed to choose
between the 18th and the 20th.
CLScott101
>
> "The Lovers" is on the web at
>http://www.abcgallery.com/P/picasso/picasso278.html
Thank you for this web site. It contains many of Picasso's picture that I had
never seen. He was indeed a wonderfully talented artist. I prefer his early
work such as the blue period, but this web site shows the evolution. My thanks
to Olga, whoever she is.
-Connie
maureen
Jackson) wrote:
>>Shakespeare's writings have been alive for four and a half
>>centuries. I doubt that the works of Ezra Pound and Picasso will last
>>more than another 50 to 100 years
>
> You might want to give a quick read to Pound's "The ABC of Reading". Good
>stuff - very succinct, sharply observed, and unsparingly phrased. Much better
>than his poetry, imho.
I did a quick search, but didn't have any luck finding it on the Net,
Elaine. I'd appreciate it if you have a URL.
> Picasso's work strikes me as the byproducts of someone who enjoyed life
>hugely, played at art for a lifetime, and was well paid for doing so... but the
>work itself is ephemeral.
It's good to know someone else agrees! :-)
> I also carried a poster-size copy of "The Lovers" to wherever I lived,
>during college. It's a very pretty thing. I would sit under it in my black
>cashmere sweater, black leotards and tight black skirt, and read Pound,
>cummings, Eliot, Hopkins... :^)
>Elaine
Sounds very familiar, but I couldn't afford cashmere in those days!
;-)
maureen
maureen
<PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>maureen wrote:
Fascinating stuff!
>
> THE WEAK MONK
>
>The monk sat in his den,
>He took the mighty pen
>And wrote 'Of God and Men.'
>
>One day the thought struck him
>It was not according to Catholic doctrine;
>His blood ran dim.
>
>He wrote till he was ninety years old,
>Then he shut the book with a clasp of gold
>And buried it under the sheep fold.
>
>He'd enjoyed it so much, he loved to plod,
>And he thought he'd a right to expect that God
>Would rescue his book alive from the sod.
>
>Of course it rotted in the snow and rain;
>No one will ever know what he wrote of God and men.
>For this the monk is to blame.
>
> --- Stevie Smith
A good one, and it could have happened to Emily!
> I'm listening to Bach's b-minor mass right now. It's hard
>to imagine how Bach could ever have sunk into obscurity.
>Fashion has a lot to do with it. Though it seems
>sacrilegious to say so, I think Eccliastes' observation that
>the race is not to the swift, but time and chance have a
>part in all things, has a lot to do with it too.
>
> Samuel Johnson observed that if one wants a prime
>example of the vanity of human hopes, one need merely
>visit a public library.
>
An excellent comment.
> When my sister was taking me to the airport a couple of
>days back, my niece kept wanting to put a CD of her latest
>junk rock group on the car CD player. My sister and I both
>rebelled. I said "no more cute boy music", since cute boys
>seem to be the main criterion for my niece's taste in music.
>
> Knowledge is doubling every five years, but I don't think
>first-rate art is. Knowledge is less dependent on supreme
>excellence than art is.
Science is dependent on supreme excellence so would you call art
science or science art.
> Supreme excellence should be
>proportional to the population, but it doesn't seem to
>progress even that well. Our modern age, with its far
>greater population, hasn't produced a constellation of
>great artists as in 16th and 17th century Holland. The
>old Vienna school (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and I
>would include Schubert) has had no match since.
>On the other hand, if I had to go to a desert island with
>only one century of music, I'd be hard pressed to choose
>between the 18th and the 20th.
We live in an age of mediocrity for many reasons. One is that we are
bombarded with information from the media and the internet almost
every minute of our lives if we want to be. Very little time is left
in busy daily lives for putting weeks, months years, into producing
one book, one piece of art. Another is that we have become a nation of
viewers and not of participants. There are many others reasons but
I'll leave those for now. Oi be gittin' 'ungry.(Said in a
Gloucesterhsire accent)
maureen
>
>
Rumpelstiltskin
(maureen) wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 07:48:34 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
><PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>maureen wrote:
>> Knowledge is doubling every five years, but I don't think
>>first-rate art is. Knowledge is less dependent on supreme
>>excellence than art is.
>
>Science is dependent on supreme excellence so would you call art
>science or science art.
I'd call science "art", but not so much technology, though
there's some art in it, just as there's some rat in all the pies in
one Monty Python episode. Physics is art to me. Computer
Technology isn't, though I have a music-notating program
from Braeburn in Scotland that's so beautifully designed
that it feels like art.
Your comment brings to mind that excellence in science
does seem to have increased in proportion to the population.
There were more great scientists and more great discoveries
in the 20th century by far than in any other century, though
Aristotle and Newton and Darwin had already plucked big
plums, just as Plato was first at the plums in philosophy.
I read that Aristotle believed some odd things, including
that women had fewer teeth than men. He was clearly a
philosophical thinker rather than an experimental one.
maureen
<PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:36:46 GMT, mau...@thehotnorth.strewth
>(maureen) wrote:
>>On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 07:48:34 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
>><PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> Knowledge is doubling every five years, but I don't think
>>>first-rate art is. Knowledge is less dependent on supreme
>>>excellence than art is.
>>
>>Science is dependent on supreme excellence so would you call art
>>science or science art.
>
> I'd call science "art", but not so much technology, though
>there's some art in it, just as there's some rat in all the pies in
>one Monty Python episode. Physics is art to me. Computer
>Technology isn't, though I have a music-notating program
>from Braeburn in Scotland that's so beautifully designed
>that it feels like art.
There's an excellent book that attempts to bring physics and art
together. It's called The Dancing Wu Li Masters. Someone said of it:
'Stripped of mathematics, physics becomes pure enchantment'...
He's talking about the physics in the book.
> Your comment brings to mind that excellence in science
>does seem to have increased in proportion to the population.
>There were more great scientists and more great discoveries
>in the 20th century by far than in any other century, though
>Aristotle and Newton and Darwin had already plucked big
>plums, just as Plato was first at the plums in philosophy.
To me, anyone who can produce the magic of the computer, car,
plane,microwave, air conditionaing, heating, plumbing , is a true
artist as well as scientist. Scientists are very creative people and
they work closer to the reality of the universe than anyone.
Sometimes I wonder about all the brilliant things those scientists
have produced juxtaposed with myriads of half-baked talk show hosts
who wouldn't know how much they owed to scientists if you sat them
down and talked with them for weeks. Yet they are the ones with
communication time to spread their ignorant word on any topics,
including global warming, while the true scientists are ignored. Makes
me want to wave my Harry Potter and put us all back into the stone age
to start over.
> I read that Aristotle believed some odd things, including
>that women had fewer teeth than men. He was clearly a
>philosophical thinker rather than an experimental one.
Strange that some Greek woman didn't give him a count of her teeth.
But maybe it wasn't so easy to count teeth in those days. How many
women were taught to count around that time?
maureen
Rumpelstiltskin
(maureen) wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:34:12 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
><PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:36:46 GMT, mau...@thehotnorth.strewth
>>(maureen) wrote:
>>>On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 07:48:34 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
>>><PleaseDonot...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Knowledge is doubling every five years, but I don't think
>>>>first-rate art is. Knowledge is less dependent on supreme
>>>>excellence than art is.
>>>
>>>Science is dependent on supreme excellence so would you call art
>>>science or science art.
>>
>> I'd call science "art", but not so much technology, though
>>there's some art in it, just as there's some rat in all the pies in
>>one Monty Python episode. Physics is art to me. Computer
>>Technology isn't, though I have a music-notating program
>>from Braeburn in Scotland that's so beautifully designed
>>that it feels like art.
>
>There's an excellent book that attempts to bring physics and art
>together. It's called The Dancing Wu Li Masters. Someone said of it:
>
>'Stripped of mathematics, physics becomes pure enchantment'...
That it does, and the only reason the mathematics doesn't
add to the enchantment with me is that I can't do it. There are
a lot of superb books that take a "popular" approach without
condescension. Richard Dawkins has numerous books in
evolutionary biology. Since he treats religion with utter
contempt, you'll like him. All his books are illuminating, but the
two most famous are "The Selfish Gene", in which he
maintains that the atom of evolution is the gene, not the
animal, and "Climbing Mount Improbable", in which he notes
among other things that the eye seems something that could
not have evolved when one looks at modern eyes - an
insurmountable cliff - but if you go around the back of Mount
Improbable, you'll find pathways. He then shows examples
of animals still alive today that illustrate every crucial step in
the evolution of the eye from a simple light-sensitive cell, to a
cup shape that acts as a pinhole camera, to a cup with a drop
of dew to focus the light better, then with a permanent watery
colloidal lens in place of the drop of dew, and so forth up
to the modern eye. The book Dawkins says is the most
important that he will probably ever write is "the extended
phenotype", in which he discusses the twists and turns of
survival strategies, such as the ratios of various types of ants
in an anthill, and the inanimate extension of animals that must
be considered for a full description of the animal, such as
including beaver dams when one considers the anatomy and
fitness of beavers (the dam is an inanimate "extension" of the
animate beaver "phenotype"). That one is tougher than his
other books. There are a couple of things in it I still don't
get.
David Deutsch has written one book, "The Fabric of Reality"
that deals with many-worlds. It's astonishing. Antonio Damasio's
"Pascal's error" is a wonderful treatment of the brain and mind:
Damasio is one of the world's leading neurologists. The error
is that Pascal had it backwards, but since his statement was a
mirror reflection, it seems to work very well. Actually, "I am
(what I am), therefore I think. For philosophy/psychology from a
scientific viewpoint, Daniel C. Dennett has written numerous
books, of which "Consciousness Explained" is the grounding
work. (It really does explain consciousness pretty well!) Though
Dennett is a philosopher, he cites biological scientists constantly,
and is cited by them in turn.
One author mentioned that his publisher had warned him
that each equation in his book would cut down his readership
by a factor of two. Right after that, he included the only
equation in the book, saying he couldn't resist that equation.
>>He's talking about the physics in the book.
>
>> Your comment brings to mind that excellence in science
>>does seem to have increased in proportion to the population.
>>There were more great scientists and more great discoveries
>>in the 20th century by far than in any other century, though
>Aristotle and Newton and Darwin had already plucked big
>>plums, just as Plato was first at the plums in philosophy.
>
>To me, anyone who can produce the magic of the computer, car,
>plane,microwave, air conditionaing, heating, plumbing , is a true
>artist as well as scientist. Scientists are very creative people and
>they work closer to the reality of the universe than anyone.
>
>Sometimes I wonder about all the brilliant things those scientists
>have produced juxtaposed with myriads of half-baked talk show hosts
>who wouldn't know how much they owed to scientists if you sat them
>down and talked with them for weeks. Yet they are the ones with
>communication time to spread their ignorant word on any topics,
>including global warming, while the true scientists are ignored. Makes
>me want to wave my Harry Potter and put us all back into the stone age
>to start over.
It drives me nuts when some commentator makes some blatantly
wrong assertion about what somebody's theory means, and it goes
out to millions of people.
>> I read that Aristotle believed some odd things, including
>>that women had fewer teeth than men. He was clearly a
>>philosophical thinker rather than an experimental one.
>
>Strange that some Greek woman didn't give him a count of her teeth.
>But maybe it wasn't so easy to count teeth in those days. How many
>women were taught to count around that time?
He may not have had much to do with women ... you know those
ancient Greeks!
maureen
I'm the same. Math is not my forté.
> There are
>a lot of superb books that take a "popular" approach without
>condescension. Richard Dawkins has numerous books in
>evolutionary biology. Since he treats religion with utter
>contempt, you'll like him. All his books are illuminating, but the
>two most famous are "The Selfish Gene", in which he
>maintains that the atom of evolution is the gene, not the
>animal,
I enjoyed The Selfish Gene. It's a fascinating theory that we are the
throwaway survival machines of the genes.
I'm making a list as I'm reading. I'll try to make it my Christmas
experience to read at least one of these books. Thanks for the input.
> One author mentioned that his publisher had warned him
>that each equation in his book would cut down his readership
>by a factor of two. Right after that, he included the only
>equation in the book, saying he couldn't resist that equation.
Stephen Hawking included very few equations in his book "A Brief
History of Time". That's what made it such a best seller.
maureen
Rumpelstiltskin
(maureen) wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 01:38:18 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
>> That it does, and the only reason the mathematics doesn't
>>add to the enchantment with me is that I can't do it.
>
>I'm the same. Math is not my forté.
I'm pretty good at math, but the math of modern physics is
completely beyond me.