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?

ENLIGHTENMENT- EURO STYLE!

A WIDE CANVAS

ENLIGHTENMENT- EURO STYLE!

The term 'enlightenment' is used in Indian philosophical circles only for the state of spiritual wisdom, such as the venerable Buddha attained. The very name Buddha means 'the Enlightened'. It is not used lightly.

In European history, this term is used  in a less lofty fashion,to designate a period of about 150 years from around 1650 to 1780 when the intellectual and cultural traditions of Europe, beginning in France , underwent a drastic change, altering the face and fate of the earth for ever!

Martin Luther had not only rebelled against and undermined the authority of the Roman Catholic Church; he had opened the floodgates of open enquiry and reason in all spheres. Hitherto, society was based on authority enforced by institutions. The Catholic Church controlled all aspects of life- not just religion and philosophy, but politics, sciences and every other conceivable subject.

Martin Luther had given them the courage to question authority and shown them how. Reason, individual thinking and intellectual analysis became the watchwords. 

Engraving from the French Encyclopedie, edited by Denis Diderot(1751-72) which said: if you know something, communicate; if not, search for it! The picture shows Truth standing at the top centre, surrounded by light.

Thinkers and cultural leaders met in all sorts of places like salons and coffee houses and discussed serious subjects.

A meeting in a French salon!

The spirit caught on in England too, and travelled to Germany. The leading lights of the period were: Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, John Locke, Spinoza, Voltaire, Rousseau, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Isaac Newton, Adam Smith. Philosophy, mathematics, politics, economics, the sciences- no aspect of life was spared from the gaze of reason, and in no field were old authority and institutions accepted without question. Such intense intellectual ferment and expectations reached  dizzying heights, culminating in the French Revolution 1787-99, though the results were disappointing. But the period had effects beyond France, and much beyond the century. It laid the foundation for the modern world.

The Renaissance had opened the eyes of Europe to the ancient wisdom of Greece, which became the foundation of modern European thought: Socratic insight equating knowledge with virtue, Aristotelian view of the cosmos, Euclidean geometry, Pythagorean theories, Ptolemy's astronomy, Plato's ideas about the planets, Neoplatonists' ideas about the Sun, Hermetic esoteric theories, etc. Above all the ancient Greek wisdom made them aware of spirituality not dependent on church dogmas- or even Christianity: they rediscovered insights which had been suppressed by the church for nearly a thousand years! Thus did humanism emerge as an alternative to Christianity.

The trend was really started by Petrarch who rejected the emphasis of the church on dogma, logic and theology, and returned to the ancient masters Homer, Plato, Virgil, Cicero.

Petrarch, (1304-1374) Italian poet and humanist who opened the eyes of Europe to the ancient Greek and Roman literature.
Picture from Wikimedia Commons.

 Church had equated learning with mastery of dogma and theology; Petrarch opened their eyes to literature as such- what was called litterae humaniores- humanitarian literature, which engaged not with abstract questions of theology but with man's emotional and intellectual involvement with the world around him, and with his own consciousness. This led to a non-Christian view of spirituality, based essentially on Platonic insights.In a sense, Plato may be considered the author of the idea "spiritual but not religious"!

Martin Luther carried it forward and confronted the Catholic church squarely: he questioned the way they had added dogma to the New Testament and demanded a return to the "word", rejecting theories about it . He also questioned the need for clergy to interpret it. He said New Testament itself would guide people, and every Christian could be considered a member of the clergy!  (Biblical theology as against Scholastic theology) But once the accretions to 'word' were questioned, it did not take long for people to question the 'word' itself, under the spur of rationalistic inquiry!

The Catholic church reacted through Counter Reformation.But it could not stop the process of the split in the monolithic church, which split into numerous branches and started quarrelling among themselves. Then the philosophical and scientific revolutions removed the centrality of religious idea itself from people's mind and thought.

Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes are the two philosophers who led in the new direction. The discovery of the New World had endowed Bacon with the idea of power through knowledge!  Knowledge need not be pursued for abstract pleasures, but for concrete results in the material world! This required a study of particulars, not just abstract theories! The role of religious (Christian) revelation in explaining the world was seriously undermined.

Francis Bacon From Wikimedia Commons

But there were so many theories about the world? How to determine truth objectively? Descartes came up with his solution: Cogito, ergo sum : I think, therefore I am! The subject is real; his doubts indicate his imperfections; so logically there must be a perfect state! The thinking subject was one, but the world thought about was different. In man the two met as mind and body.

The human reason was the foundation of our knowledge of  God which for Descartes was a logical necessity. But he also said that once God created the world, he let the world function as a machine! The world was therefore a mechanism, not an organism- it was not a living system! All subsequent science and rational thought is built on this foundation, which is a complete negation of all the ancient insights! This is the basic philosophy ruling mainstream science even today!

Rene Descartes. From Wikimedia Commons.

Then the scientists took over. Copernicus had rejected the idea of the earth as the centre of the cosmos, but it had come towards the end of his life. It raised many problems but these were addressed by Kepler .

Johannes Kepler, German mathematician. From Wikimedia Commons.

 Kepler believed in the central place of the sun in the universe, and was a follower of Plato and Pythagoras, not Aristotle. He explained the elliptical shapes of the planetary orbits, and showed that they were based on precise mathematical proportions, and their speed varied from their distance to the sun. Galileo's observations through the telescope confirmed all these new insights. Galileo was punished by the Pope with house arrest for the rest of his life, but it really marked the beginning of the end of the dominance of Christianity in Europe.By showing church's cosmology to be false, it  gradually led to the rejection of Christian theology as a whole: both the Catholic emphasis on the authority of the church and its sacraments, and the Protestant emphasis on the Bible as the literal truth. Later, it assumed the form of Christianity V. Science, and then the more general (but blind) Religon V Science debate.

Isaac Newton combined the insights of Copernicus, Kepler , Descartes and Galileo into a sparkling synthesis. Newton was a believer in God, but he conceived of God as a great architect, who had designed the world rather like a clock! It obeyed regular laws - gravity, inertia, etc- but it was impersonal! But the world still required the occasional intervention of God for its stability, though God was no more a grand old bearded figure, sitting on  a throne! The old Christian world had completely disappeared! Poet Alexander Pope sang about it in these celebrated lines:

Nature and nature's laws lay hid in the night;
God said: "Let Newton be," and all was light.

Isaac Newton. From Wikimedia Commons.

It was now the turn of the philosophers! Following science, they questioned the need for philosophy to be aligned to theology, and treated philosophy as a pure rational quest! All the major philosophers of the period like Comte, Mill, Marx, Spencer, Huxley and Nietzsche attacked traditional  Christianity and its idea of God. They were joined by Voltaire, Diderot, Hume and Holbach, each with his own reason!They pointed out the differences in the church doctrines and used them to reject the validity of all. Rousseau alone was a bit different: while rejecting church and its theology and philosophy, he still felt that man could be mystically connected to nature.

Jean Jacques Rousseau. From Wikimedia Commons. 


The net result was that organised Christianity ceased to be an intellectual or aesthetic or even moral force among the educated. Christianity became one among the many 'ideas' in which one may believe now, instead of 'the faith' that it was!

Thus the European enlightenment which began as a humanistic enterprise ended up as a secular ( ie non-religious) view of life! It is this which rules the mainstream , though this is being increasingly challenged by a higher form of science now!


NOTE:

I am indebted to so many books and authors for the ideas presented here. I humbly and unreservedly aknowledge all of them, though I cannot name them all (shame on me), as this has been a long process. But one author I cannot fail to name is Richard Tarnas and his very illuminating book "The Passion of the Western Mind", Ballantine Books, New York,1993.This is basic reading for anyone to understand the way our modern world has been shaped.
I have taken all the pictures from Wikimedia Commons in the Public Domain. Thanks to them, we are able to see the master minds who shaped the modern world. We could not find their pictures even in our textbooks!

x