subjective nature of perception be regarded as an advantage for artists but an obstacle to be overcome by scientists.
Theory of Knowledge: To What Extent May the Subjective Nature of Perception be Regarded as an Advantage for Artists but as an Obstacle to be Overcome for Scientists?"
The purpose of this paper is to attempt to answer the question, "to what extent may the subjective nature of Perception be regarded as an Advantage for Artists but as an Obstacle to be overcome for Scientists?" The divides in science and the arts is a divide of great distance.
Could it be that science and art are closer than mankind has ever conceived? From where does knowledge come? Indeed, from where does the entirety of the universe proceed? In his work Transcendental Creative Systems, Carlisle Bergquist, MA, PhD states that:
the transformation from the transcendental space in which the creative system extends to the physical space of our empirical senses."
However, Miller has little toleration for this dangerous disregard for "correct" and "scientific" thinking. According to Miller in his 1978 work "General Living Systems Theory," an individual must be perfectly clear about whether speaking in terms of that which is "abstract" or that which is "concrete" because mixing the two is inherently dangerous. Miller held the typical view of a scientist in the question of the Theory of Knowledge which leaves many confused due to the innate "knowing" that there is no simple division of the duality of oneself. Indeed to the artists of the world, it is this innate "knowing" or spiritual existence on a conscious level that sets man apart from the beasts of the field. According to Aristotle:
Artists, an intermediary species: they at least fix an image of that which ought to be; they are productive, to the extent that they actually alter and transform; unlike men of knowledge, who leave everything as it is."
It seems that Aristotle was saying that the imagery of the artists at least gives a view of that duality which exists in the physical - spiritual nature of man and the world around him.
Considering the following statement:
Transcendental systems extend beyond our knowledge and thus easily become unmanageable. It is reasonable to assume a hierarchy of transcendental creative systems ranging from the realm described by subatomic particle physic and culminating with the infinite system. All of these systems create by merging information with matter-energy." (Zukov 1979)
Does man complicate and confuse himself or is the truth really that elusive? Descartes, in his writings concluded that:
Thus what I thought I had seen with my eyes, I actually grasped solely with the faculty of judgment, which is in my mind."
These powerful observations seem to only express that the reality and truth is that reality and truth are not easily grasped and just as they seem to be within the realm of our "knowledge base" elusively they have slipped away once more.
The elements which have not been understood by man and science have been explained away into many possibilities as Bergquist stated in his work:
Transcendental systems allegedly exist beyond knowledge and the reach of our empirical senses. Nevertheless, numerous philosophic and religious treatises refer to transcendental systems surmising them as God, as system of Deites, or some other form of infine being." (Bergquist 1999)"
If the spirituality is the essence of transcendence then a concrete definition must be assumed for "spirituality." In considering the concrete elements and what might be assigned as the physical concrete element that constitutes the "spiritual" then a physical "thing" must adopted as the element that is the source of the spiritual or transcendental element in a human being that validates a physical/spiritual duality in nature.
However, the debate can be answered perhaps with the evolution of time as the creative process and scientific process mesh and create a dual nature of understanding and theory of knowledge. What are the essential elements separating the physical/science theory of knowledge from the spiritual/creator believer of knowledge?
Can the creation of an artists' every work of art really be reduced to the mere intentional workings of a mechanical physical action?
Consider the statement of Pierre Simon Laplace:
An intellect that at any given moment knew all the forces that animate Nature and the mutual positions of the beings that comprise it... could condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom: for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain; and the future just like the past would be present before our eyes. -- French astronomer and mathematician Pierre Simon Laplace (1749-1827), from Philosophical Essay on Probabilities
The advent of new technologies has given new opportunity for art to express itself in science. Science is well on its way in the process of proving a higher intelligence as art is joining with science and technology in new ways. The possibility occurs that perhaps the theory of emergency could be a valid one as mankind sees the merging of science and religious theories and timelines.
The fact that our perceptions are fallible has been used to dissuade the scientist from relying solely on observation to obtain knowledge about the world." (Kavassalis, Catherine)
The difficulty in resolving the "scientific" perception of knowledge and the "artistic" perception of knowledge is more than likely one of natural solution that in due time answers all of the questions that it has presented to mankind throughout history. Rosenthal depicts the wisdom of this stance in his telling of the understanding of the Chinese in relation to the duality or two forms of knowledge and perceptions in his intro to the Tao Te Ching:
for understanding stems from one of the two forms of knowledge. It stems from that which is called cognitive knowledge, the knowledge born of words and numbers, and other similar devices. The other form of knowledge, cognative knowledge, needs no words or other such devices, for it is the form of knowledge born of direct personal experience. So it is that conative knowledge is also known as experiential knowledge. Cognitive and experiential knowledge both have their roots in reality, but reality is complex, and complexity is more of a barrier to cognitive knowledge than it is to experiential knowledge, for when we seek cognitive knowledge of a thing, that is, understanding of it, the knowledge we gain of that thing is understanding only of its manifestations, which is not knowledge of the thing itself."
In an essay entitled Reductionism vs. Emergency: Definitions and History the following was written:
Recent findings in science bring humanities, art, and science together. To put it briefly, the "post-classical" era of science is coming to an end. The humanities "science wars" are, for all practical purposes, over and we are entering a new era in which productive collaboration between scientists and humanities scholars will be possible. In the past, the perceived gap between the arts and sciences was due to the different forms of knowledge that the separate disciplines chose to pursue."
There is no clear method of determination whether it is scientists or artist experiencing disadvantages due to their perception of knowledge. However, it is sure that until the two theories mesh into one of common wisdom that all mankind will be lacking the advantages of true knowledge that without the full scope of perception will remain outside of reach.
Wilson, Stephen (22 Jul 1995) Constructions of the Mind "Artificial Intelligence Research as an Art" SEHR, Vol.4 Issue 2. Retrieved from the Internet 20 Aug 2004: http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHR/4-2/text/wilson.html
Blackburn, Terry Alternate Temperaments: Theory and Philosophy (n.d.) Mind- Tuning and Temperament. Retrieved from the Internet 20 Aug 2004:
Rene Descartes 2004 (Retrieved from the Internet 20 Aug 2004: http://www.fact-index.com/r/re/rene_descartes.html