Theos-Talk Archives (January 1998 Message tt00059)

Philip Greenfield:
>A friend of mine told that, having seen the programme "The Colours of
>Infinity"( in which Arthur C. Clarke explains Fractal Geometry and the
>Mandelbrot Set), how he caught a glimpse of  a possible convergence of
>viewpoints of the scientist and the religious explorer.

Besides scientists, religious explorers, there were/are also philosophers
and artists.  Have you notice a relationship between artistic styles and
scientific and religious discoveries?  You can see the correlation between
Cubism and worlds beyond the three dimension.  From what I know, Picasso
did not even know about Einstein's discovery, since Einstein's papers did
not draw that much interest when it was first published.  Also, did you
notice that Hegel's dialectism relate to Quantum and relativity theory,
that one thing has to depend on another, that there can be no isolation?
Just from those observations alone, we can see that the practical cannot do
without the intuition and vice versa.  It takes the intuition to arrive at
an answer quickly and the practical to prove it, to make sure that it's not
just some foolish nonsense.  Even the practical can be foolish nonsense.
Not because the facts aren't there, but because the factual and the
concrete compartmentalize everything, instead of helping us see the whole.
In that sense, the intuition is better at seeing the wholeness of things.
Currently, we may not be able to traverse the universe in a spaceship, but
we can do it with our minds.

>I offered to collect for my friend whatever information I could from the
>Internet.

There's an interesting book your friend might want to look at.  It's huge
and he might already have seen it, "Fractals:  The Patterns of Chaos" by
John Briggs.

>I quote from what I found at www.the- spa.com/ed.stutsman/iter.htm:
>"So while the mathematicians ponder fractals, scientists apply fractal
>boundaries to their data, us common folk have a harmony with their
>method, their vision.
>This common ground should not go unnoticed.
>There seems to be a commonality of language that expresses what is found
>at the frontiers of knowledge, be it physics or religion..This does not
>mean that there is a commonality of what is investigated, but only of
>the way it is expressed.
>But "the way in which it is expressed" is us, us humans, trying to
>understand our world.
>In this, the religious explorer is united with the scientist.
>And, as the Dalai Lama has said on many occasions..getting to know the
>world is practice, science is practice.

I believe we are multi-dimensional.  Scientists and mathematicians are also
in love with the arts, be it music, performance, or the visual arts.  Art
in the 20th century have evolved beyond being purely sensual.  Art now is
also abstract, geometrical, mathematical, and conceptual.  When people
don't understand modern art, it is because they don't understand that art
has gone beyond the sensual.  Their first and foremost idea when looking at
art is how it appeals to their sensual.  Nowadays, with the advent of the
computer artist, the boundary between the artist and the engineer is
further blurred.  Are we evolving into more well-rounded human beings?  Or,
if you believe in reincarnation, is it because the past life experiences
and talents have turned up multi-talented souls?  I do not know,
grasshopper.

>If you take the cold reality of science and subject it to the warmth of
>the religious outlook, then a pattern of ethics emerges..You know what
>to do..And you can be assured of the resonance of your choice between
>reason and religion.
>Any comments or suggested sources of information would be appreciated;
>particularly the procuring of a copy of  "Colours of Infinity"
>Phil.Greenfield@xtra.co.nz

Science, religion, philosophy, psychology, mathematics, and the arts have
all blurred together, although some hate to admit it.  Everywhere I look, I
cannot find one without the others.  The linearity of mathematics have
given in to non-linearity (intuitional). With linearity, everything can be
plotted, compartmentalized and an efficient answer given.  However, further
knowledge have proven that our world does not act that way.  This
non-linearity have given us fractals, non-void space, and the quirkiness of
quarks.  In addition, separation does not exist.  We find that objectivity,
the idea of a thing unaffected by any other thing, does not really exist.
Even religion has to realize that there is no such thing as separation
between the omnipotent God with inflexible rules, and people.  With the
rise of thinking independent of church dogmas, churches find their
membership dwindling.  To increase and maintain membership, some churches
have changed their rules to fit with the times.  This is Hegel's dialectism
at work.  It is important that there is an interaction between religion and
reality.  When that fails, we have the Heaven's Gaters committing suicide
in order to ride on a comet.

As a personal example of the mixture of the fields.  I started my recent
reading interests from a discussion on Theos-l regarding Mondrian, a
Modernist artist and Theosophist.  Because of our discussion and Mondrian's
essays, I started to read about Hegel and Krisnamurti.  From Krisnamurti, I
discovered that K used the theory of relativity to come up with mind is
matter.  From the study of special relativity, I discovered quantum
mechanics.  From quantum mechanics, I discovered the purely mathematical
superstring theory.  Finally, from all that, I try to tie it back in with
the mystical again.

Thoa :o)