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?

GREAT LITERATURE

A WIDE CANVAS

GREAT LITERATURE

Literary activity takes place in a context. Literature reflects and/or responds to what is happening around us. Great literature transcends the limitations of time and place, and even while not being religious, gives us some 'intimations of immortality'- seeks to make the world better, but by essentially making each one  of us better, by making us adopt 

" an unsuperstitious reverence for 'the power not ourselves which makes for righteousness' ".

(Miriam Allott in her introduction to The collected Poems and Prose of Matthew Arnold, Everyman, Hachette India, 2009).

 When we recognise a power which moves the world, which is higher than us, we learn to restrain our ego and thus begin our quest for righteousness. This is the aim of all religions-  put the world or others above us, or to engage the ego in the service of others- to forget the small self in the sight of the whole- as when we "see life steadily and see it whole". But great literature accomplishes this much more effortlessly, at least less strenuously, and may we say, more pleasantly, than religions, with their dry  dogma and strange theology. 

I talk of 'great' literature- not popular literature, not even of so called 'classics'. These days, anything is called a classic if it becomes a 'best seller' or catches the fancy of some university don or opinion maker. It used to be said that literature must survive for at least a hundred years before it can be considered good. By this criterion, most of what passes now in the name of literature is just trash. And the old, real classics still sway us! The old poets, novelists like Hardy, Dickens and literary critics like Dr.Johnson, Carlyle, Ruskin and Matthew Arnold still set the standard for what is great. In the last century, I could only think of G.K.Chesterton! There have indeed been many good writers, but the truly great have been few.

Dr, Johnson by Joshua Reynolds.

Thomas Carlyle. Social commentator of the Victorian era. He extolled the role of great men in history, and said, "History is nothing but the biography of  the Great Man."

Perhaps, the only valid test for true greatness is whether the work makes a difference to our life and thought- whether it has influenced our thinking, and induced us to be good, or at least better than we were before reading it. What was considered great in the tradition,before the new 'best seller' culture infected us, meets this criterion fully. You cannot read any of them, and remain unmoved and unmotivated. What happens to a character like Tess affects you and haunts you for the rest of your life. In spite of all the reforms that have taken place, all the 'progress' that has been made, all the noise that women themselves have been making about their liberation or equality, they are not safe or free anywhere on earth! The stigma that pursued Tess is not there now, but in other respects women are treated worse: made objects of petty commercial ads unrelated to women or their causes, or interests! In his novels, Hardy raised some basic, uncomfortable questions about the Victorian society. The Victorian age is long gone, but those afflictions have taken newer shapes! Thomas Hardy is great, whatever critics may say, because he pointed out aspects of life which trouble our conscience. We cannot rest unless a solution is found. 

Great literature does not, and need not, give solutions. It is enough they show us what is wrong with us. 

Take Plato's Republic. Or our Mahabharata.

Republic has been the most important intellectual document of the Western civilisation, the most influential book, the single most important resource for their entire heritage. Philosophers and political theorists break their heads over the contents and their real meaning and significance. We are humble people and can easily discern its main concerns. It is concerned with the nature and meaning of justice- just society, and just man. More important, it raises the question whether the just man is happier than an unjust one- ie the connections between justice and happiness. It discusses the theory of forms- the idea that the world of senses is but a shadow of more substantial Form or reality, existing higher up. It discusses the question of immortality of souls. It deals with the question of the role of philosophy and even of poets! It deals with the question of the good life.

After the initial euphoria, Westerners are questioning every aspect of it, in the name of scholarship. They are not even agreed on the text or the translation. Benjamin Jowett whose translation was celebrated for many decades, was described by one scholar, A.E.Housman, as one who understood neither philosophy nor Greek! The most ironical part is that while some say that Plato was  dogmatic and 'other worldly', others say that in spite of all the great conversations and dialogues, there is no firm conclusion or guideline!

Plato is contrasted with his pupil and colleague, Aristotle. Aristotle was considered very practical, while Plato is portrayed as dreamy, or wishy-washy!.There is a celebrated painting of the Greek philosophers called the 'School of Athens' by Raphael.

The School of Athens, by Raphael. 

Take a closer look at the central figures:Plato and Aristotle.

The figure at left, Plato is pointing his finger upward, while Aristotle on the right is pointing down, outward. This is taken to mean that Aristotle is concerned with practical things, while Plato is more preoccupied with the 'higher' things! It is true that Plato is concerned with the ultimate causes, in his search for justice and happiness. Aristotle wrote on Politics, Poetics, Physics, Logic and many other subjects. But he was also concerned with ethics: he wrote two manuals on it- the Nicomachean Ethics  and the Eudemian Ethics which are concerned with moral philosophy and examine the relationship between virtue and happiness. And in the Nicomachean ethics, Aristotle assigns a supreme place to philosophical contemplation as the main cause of happiness. 

This is the point that we note. There is a basic unity in their aim- though the details of treatment vary, as is bound to happen among thinking individuals, as it happens now! It is true that after so much discussion and dialogue, we are not given any strict dos and dont's, as religious manuals would do. This is the chief merit of the Socratic method. He does teach, but does not dictate. He questions us, submits to our questions, allows all points of view to be expressed; in the end, there is no doubt in a virtuous mind with good intentions what to do! To know the right thing is to do it! Socrates's role is to lead us to that point where we know what is right, what is virtue!  As he himself claimed in some dialogue, he is the 'midwife'! In the view of Socrates, philosophy is not arm-chair mastery of some theory, but to be up and doing! This is a form of very subtle, but powerful initiation! A true philosopher lives philosophy- he does not just lecture. This is exactly what Socrates proved in his death, as in his life- he knew the soul was immortal; so, he did not escape, as his friends urged, but willingly drank the poison and remained at peace! If, in spite of this, scholars say that Republic does not teach us anything definite, then we wonder at the nature of such scholarship! It is like what we say in our language- listening to the Ramayana the whole night, and then asking how Rama and Sita are related! Some scholarship, this, indeed!

The death of Socrates.

Painting by Jacques-Louis David, 1787.

One of the paintings that really move and shake us.

In regard to the practical issues of life, people are either philosophical in their approach, or pro-action in their attitude. Our ethical masters approve of or advocate both approaches, since it is not wise to run counter to one's innate nature. The poet Coleridge said that one is born either an Aristotelian or a Platonist, and it is impossible for the one to change into the other! In a more serious vein, Lord Krishna says in the Gita that people are endowed with either Daiva or Asura sampat- divine or devilish qualities. This we see fully portrayed by Duryodhana and the Pandavas. The company of one does not change the other!

But it does not mean that Plato neglected practical life, or Aristotle did not look up at all! The question of the good ruler was examined only because of its importance for practical life- virtue was impossible to practise unless we have a just or good government! Nor is Aristotle a practical moron, concerned only with the worldly things or concerns. He concludes his Eudemian ethics with these words:

God is not a superior who issues commands, but is the purpose of the commands that wisdom issues....To conclude: whatever choice or possession of natural goods- bodily goods, wealth, friends, and the like- will most conduce to the contemplation of God is the best; this is the finest criterion. But any choice of living that either through excess or through defect hinders the service and contemplation of God is bad. ....

That, then,  is our statement of what is the standard of nobility, and what is the point of the things that are good in the abstract.

(From: The Eudemian Ethics.Translated by Sir Anthony Kenny. Oxford World's Classics.2011)

Friends, just read over this passage again, and reflect a little. What Aristotle is saying is that wisdom naturally leads to the contemplation and service of God, that our choice of things or friends should not hinder this, and this is noble conduct! Are these the prescriptions of a person concerned only with earthly things?  The beauty of all these Greek philosophers is their ethical concern, even if they are not 'religious' in some doctrinaire or fundamentalist sense, even if they are not unanimous in what they say. Westerners have their own pet theories and prejudices in dealing with the subject, and give all sorts of grotesque explanations. We, who are the students of Rishis and Acharyas, can see better, and sense in these Greek masters, a kindred spirit. How can one who studies the Republic in all seriousness,  fail to have the feeling that we are dealing with the noblest of men, and mightiest of intellects- Rishis, no less!

Great literature is made of such stuff! They transcend time and place. Such literature and their authors are Universal- not confined to one age or country. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said of Plato:

This citizen of a town in Greece is no villager nor patriot....His broad humanity transcends all sectional lines.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, c.1857.

We salute all masters of  all times and climes!

NOTE:

In spite of the passing of the centuries, the procession of scholars, and the profusion of literature, there is still the common view that the Republic is mainly some kind of political treatise. Some writers have even gone to the extent of considering Plato as advocating or supporting some form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism. Karl Popper is one such leading figure, who advanced this theory in his book "The Open Society And Its Enemies" which was widely read. This is highly inaccurate and unfortunate.

Plato portrays Socrates in the Republic as primarily concerned with individual happiness. Politics is clearly not his prime or even major concern. Happiness comes from virtue. Virtue is based on morality, goodness and rational orderliness. We have to follow the rational order because the whole Cosmos is so ordered. This is the meaning of morality. This understanding is the fruit or meaning of knowledge. Virtue is its own reward. We have to be virtuous because it is good in and by itself. This is the meaning of 'the good life'. This is attained by leading a life of simplicity, wedded to virtue. 

One important implication of this stand is that the universe is basically good- everything has its place and purpose. We have to learn to understand it and live in harmony with it!.

National Portraits Gallery, London.

 Alexander Pope expressed this idea in his poem "An Essay on Man":

All nature is but art, unknown to thee;

All chance, direction which thou canst not see;

All discard, harmony not understood;

All partial evil, universal good;

And, spite of pride, in erring reason's spite,

One truth is clear: 'Whatever Is, is RIGHT'.

(An Essay on Man 1,lines 289-294.)

So, the whole emphasis in the Republic is on cultivation of morality and virtue, proper understanding and education, right knowledge, leading life based on knowledge and virtue, which involves overcoming our baser instincts. Plato is a formidable  teacher of ethics, and this is based on psychology, not fear of or appeal to  external authorities. Right knowledge leads to virtue. Plato does not say this is easy, but this is what man has to do to fulfil his nature!

Why then does he deal with politics at all? For Plato, this world, based on the senses, is not the whole or real truth. It is like a shadow. Nevertheless, external life too has to be well ordered. The inner life of the individual is the basic concern, and the political order discussed there is offered as a sort of metaphor, not serious proposals for actual implementation. A community is imagined as a paradigm. As Trevor Saunders remarked:

 "To suppose that Plato ever thought that the Republic was attainable would be to suppose him capable not merely of optimism or idealism, but of sheer political naivete."

Republic is a tremendous book and wonderful literature. It is neither dry philosophical speculation nor dull political theorising. It is so closely allied to our own (Hindu) psychology and ethics. It is so unfortunate that not many Indians read it seriously. We don't have to agree with everything said there- even as we do not agree with everything said in all our philosophies. But its study does open our mind and heart to deeper visions of life- even if from a different perspective.

There are many books and translations, but the best translation that I have found is by Robin Waterfield (Published as an Oxford World's Classic.) If ever there was a real classic from the West, this is it. The introductory essay is the best I have read on the subject. This note is inspired by that, and all quotations here are taken from it. It is an invaluable resource.I acknowledge my indebtedness. We do indeed stand on better shoulders.