COLD SCIENCE: DETAILS DESTROY DELIGHT

A  WIDE  CANVAS

COLD SCIENCE: DETAILS DESTROY DELIGHT

KEATS AND THE RAINBOW

In an earlier post, I said how the moon landing has robbed the moon of all the romance the very name invoked , in all cultures. We gained some 'scientific' knowledge which greedy politicians and capitalists will try to exploit for power or gain, but humanity lost a part of its ancient heritage- a source of joy for ever. I quoted the words of C.S.Lewis in this context.

Thinking about it further, I came across these lines of Keats on this very theme, written in 1819:

Do not all charms fly
At the mere touch of  cold philosophy?
There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:
We know her woof, her texture; she is given 
In the dull catalogue of common things.
Philosophy will clip an Angel's wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air, and gnomed mine-
Unweave a rainbow, as it erewhile made
The tender-person'd Lamia melt into a shade.

Lamia, Part II,lines 229-238

John Keats. public domain.

These lines have some history. William Hazlitt had in his 1818 lecture " On Poetry in General" said:

"the progress of knowledge and refinement has a tendency to subscribe the limits of the imagination and to clip the wings of poetry."

It was a feeling generally shared by men of letters that the effect of the progress of science (natural philosophy) was to render every natural phenomenon purely material in nature, subject to measurement and manipulation ( conquer all mysteries by rule and line), thus depriving them not only of religious significance, but even natural charm and the sense of wonder. It is reported that  at a dinner on December 27, 1817 Keats and Charles Lamb had agreed that "Newton destroyed all the Poetry of the rainbow by reducing it to a prism". A week earlier, Keats had seen a performance of Edmund Kean, a celebrated tragic actor of the day, in Shakespeare's Richard III. In the review that Keats wrote about it which appeared on December 21,1817. he said:

"Kean! Kean! have...a pity for us in these cold and enfeebling times! Cheer us a little in the failure of our days! for romance lives but in books. The goblin is driven from the heath, and the rainbow is robbed of its mystery!"

Rainbow at Maraetai Beach, New Zealand.

It is said that it is not quite accurate to accuse Newton in this connection. However, Newton was the greatest scientist of the day and invoking his name stands for the nature of the scientific quest, which reduced everything to matter and its properties, subject to measurement and control. Thus , Nature lost is mysterious charm, which annoyed the Romantic poets.Newton himself might not have intended this: in fact he believed he was only explaining God's laws.And Alexander Pope, in his famous couplet on Newton written on his death on March 21, 1727 wrote:

NATURE and Nature's laws lay hid in Night:
God said, "Let Newton be!" and all was Light!

But in the course of its onward march, science has turned against God and religion, and reduced nature to names, forces and processes, reducing the universe itself to a meaningless and purposeless show.

Richard Dawkins and Rainbow!

Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist and atheist took the words 'unweave the rainbow' from the above poem  for the title of his 1998 book "Unweaving The Rainbow: Science, Delusion, and The Appetite For Wonder". He said that Keats had not perceived the matter properly. In unravelling the secrets of Nature, science was only revealing the wonder of its laws and this was no less poetic. He said that as a scientist he saw the world as full of wonders and derived pleasure. Science thus did not affect the poetic imagination adversely. However, this book itself  was occasioned by the criticism of his two earlier books: 'The Selfish Gene' and 'The Blind Watchmaker' which had deeply disturbed the readers.

But in the book, Dawkins quotes from another book: 'The Second Law' by Peter Atkins:

We are the children of chaos, and the deep structure of  change is decay. At root there is only corruption, and the unstemmable tide of chaos. Gone is purpose; all that is left is direction. This is the weakness we have to accept as we peer deeply  and dispassionately into  the heart of the Universe.

Dawkins comments on this:

Such very proper purging of saccharine false  purpose; such laudable tough mindedness in the debunking of cosmic sentimentality  must not be confused with the loss of personal hope. Presumably there is indeed no purpose in the ultimate fate of the cosmos, but do any of us really tie our hopes to the ultimate fate of the cosmos anyway? Of course we don't; not if we are sane.

Coming from leading scientists, such absurdity is astounding! If the Universe is moving in the direction of chaos, does it not become the purpose, by itself? That is, if the cosmos achieves chaos in the end, ie if the cosmos in inexorably moving towards  chaos, does it not constitute its purpose?  Does it end in chaos by mistake?
 Come on, Mr. Atkins, what do you really mean? 

Picture of Chaos- state before creation from Greek mythology.


And, Dawkins "presumes" that there is no purpose. What is the proof? Is this science, or some new mythology?

'Tying our hopes to the ultimate fate of the cosmos': this is the crux of the matter. Earthly existence loses its meaning if it is not based on hope. Our life acquires meaning if seen in the light of a purpose, greater than birth,feeding,  breeding and death- which animals also share with us.  And the ultimate hope is derived from the fate of the universe. Will any one live in London or New York if there is uncertainty or doubt about its fate? What these scientists say in flowery language amounts to this: 'Oh, you are on this ship! This ship will slowly disintegrate on the high seas, for that is how it is made. But why bother about the fate of the ship? You have your human ambitions and perceptions.Amuse yourselves with your toys and games. So, carry on."

Turbulence in the tip vortex from an air plane wing- an important aspect of modern chaos theory.

There is a finer point to be noted here. The Abrahamic religions believe in Apocalypse- the end of time, when everything will  finally end in destruction. Hinduism talks about  eternal cycles of evolution and involution- there is no real destruction of anything, (as there had been no "creation") only change of form. One cycle will end, but another will start.

                                                 An orthodox Christian depiction of apocalypse

 So, all religions believe that the world will end- once for all,    ( the Abrahamic religions) or for the time being,(for the Hindus) till the next cycle starts.(It is indeed wrong to call it 'end'; it is a pause in the march of eternity, state of suspended animation, as nothing gets 'destroyed' but only involuted.)  What these scientists talk about entropy, chaos, etc is directly opposed to the Abrahamic religions, but does not make any fresh sense to the Hindus or frighten them! They are only amused by such presumptions!

We Hindus go a step further. We do not have to bother about the fate of the Universe. We have to realise our true nature or Atma which is eternal. As it is, the world gets dissolved daily when we sleep! ie  for the person who is asleep, it is as if the world does not exist! A Hindu has to transcend the universe whether it is eternal, or ends in chaos, anything else in between!  In that sense, his hope is not tied to the fate of the cosmos!

Too many 'facts' convey no meaning!

When we have too much information, too much data, we cannot make sense of it. How can we exercise our imagination or aesthetic sense if we are asked to deal with hard facts all the time? Can we enjoy a meal if we are required to calculate the calories and minerals present in it every time? We know the meal nourishes us, or ought to. But is it only calories, minerals and vitamins?

We have a nice scene in "Hard Times" by Dickens. We have the school owner, Thomas Gradgrind, " A man of realities. A man of fact  and calculations...With a rule and a pair of scales, and the multiplication table always in his pocket..ready to weigh and measure any parcel of human nature, and tell you exactly what it comes to."

He comes to the school, and confronts a girl, Sissy Jupe.After telling her that Sissy is no name, and it ought to be Cecilia, and after learning that her father breaks horses, asks her to "give me your definition of a horse". Little Sissy has seen horses all her life, but a definition? Sissy, girl number twenty, is unable to define a horse! So now, he turns to a boy Bitzer for his definition. And is he ready! Bitzer answers:

Quadruped. Graminivorous. Forty teeth, namely twenty-four grinders, four eye-teeth, and twelve incisive. Sheds coat in the spring; in marshy countries, sheds hoofs too. Hoofs hard, but requiring to be shod with iron. Age known by marks in mouth.

"Now girl number twenty", said Mr.Gradgrind. "You know what a horse is."

Well. do we know what a horse is from this definition? Perhaps, scientists like Atkins and Dawkins will know. But we will rather turn to a poet to learn about  horses!

The Old Brown Horse: W.f.Holmes


The old brown horse looks over the fence
In a weary sort of way;
He seems to be saying to all who pass:
"Well, folks, I have had my day-
I am simply watching the world go by,
And nobody seems to mind,
As they are dashing past in their motor-cars,
A horse who is lame and half-blind."

The old brown horse has a shaggy coat,
But once he was young and trim,
And he used to trot through the woods and lanes
With the man who was fond of him.
But his master rides in a motor-car,
And it makes him feel quite sad.

Sometimes a friendly soul will stop
Near the fence, where the tired old head
Rests wearily on the topmost bar,
And a friendly word is said.
Then the old brown horse gives a little sigh
As he feels the kindly touch
Of a hand on his mane or shaggy coat,
And he doesn't mind so much.

So if you pass by the field one day,
Just stop for a word or two
With the old brown horse who was once as young
And as full of life as you.
He'll love the touch of your soft young hand,
And I know he will seem to say-
"Oh, thank you, friend, for the kindly thought
For a horse who has had his day."


Don't Mourn For Me:  Author Unknown.

Don't mourn for me
Dear owner, kind and true.

We shared so many secrets;
  those you whispered to my ear,
I 've kept those secrets for you
  lest anyone would hear.

And in return you have kept me
  from being turned out in the cold,
You have fed, watered and cared for me
  while we both grew old.

But God had called me and needs me;
  He says that it is time
I claim that sweet reward
  in a kinder green clime.

He promises sweeter clover
  clear water, rich and pure,
I'll never have to suffer 
  from wounds that humans cannot cure.

I'll be watching out for you
  when comes your judgment day
And together towards the pearly gates
  we again will ride away.

The horse is more than its anatomy, just as the universe is more than what the physicists, biologists, astrophysicists can find out....and they are still finding out. The more powerful the instruments, the more they find out! And without knowing everything, before knowing everything, how can they presume that the cosmos lacks a purpose?

These two poems talk not just about the horse. They talk about the bond that they shared with humans.Any one who has ever kept a pet knows how dear these creatures are! There are so many real life stories about the bonds between horses, dogs, cows and every type of creature and man!  

The second poem actually teaches a spiritual truth: though we are different in form from a horse, we are one with it in spirit, and the Maker makes no distinctions between us. We have to cross the 'pearly gates' together- some thing that Yudhisthira demonstrated , in respect of his dog! The Oneness of Life is thus revealed. 

Science  of zoology will not teach us this, just as astrophysics will not teach us that we and the sun, we and the stars are one!

When will modern Gradgrinds of scientists learn?