Modality 1: Science
Science is great. It is the best method we have to examine physical reality. It is conditional, subject to revision at any time, and ideally self-correcting. It is thoughtful, measured, derivative.
Science does not usually evaluate the consequences of its search for understanding of matter and nature.
For this reason, it can also have its downsides…
Science is entirely useless as a guide to non-scientific issues.
That’s why we have an entire separate field dedicated to non-science, called the Arts.
Modality 2: Arts
The Arts are great. They express things about perceptual and emotional reality that science can’t express, can give insight into how people work, but are generally useless at telling how the physical world works.
Art is unconditional, non-revisionist, not in need of correction. It is non-commensurate, it is integrative.
It is not at its best when thoughtful. It is potentially inspirational.
Complementary, but not complete
Really, these two fields of knowledge are complementary — but at the same level. They are concerned with what we see as the external and internal realities.
They actually spring from a separative consciousness, from awarenesses that “I” develop or recognise.
Again, there is nothing wrong with this at all. But generally speaking, neither science nor art can consistently penetrate the facade of reality.
Exclusions
Yes, I have excluded mathematics and philosophy, and religion, and innumerable other disciplines. The fact of the matter is that all productions of the human mind can only lead us back to the human mind.
All these are at the same level. They can all be set up as dichotomies — this, versus that.
What if we want to find something more universal?
Hints
We may have to look elsewhere. But we can derive a first clue from here: practitioners of all disciplines generally seek a sense of beauty in their work.
I don’t know all sciences, but physics, the ‘hard’ science I know least badly, tends to look for symmetry in its fundamental theories2.
The arts have whole texts devoted to symmetry and balance in design. Music and dance apply the same sorts of guidelines. In modern practice, breaking symmetries is commonplace, but that in itself depends on the sensing of a symmetry that is being challenged.
Where does this take us? Well, one hint that I can offer is this: in the reality we are targeting, apparent asymmetry is the rule and clue… and it is beautiful. But don’t believe me please, I must show you…
- Though this image hosted on US servers is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
This is a historically significant work that could not be conveyed in words.
Inclusion is for information, education, and analysis only.
Its inclusion in the article(s) adds significantly to the article(s) because it shows a major type of work produced by the artist.
The image is a low resolution copy of the original work and would be unlikely to impact sales of prints or be usable as a desktop backdrop.
It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value. - I can’t use an example from psychology, as it lacks established fundamental theories…
- Though this image hosted on US servers is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
This is a historically significant work that could not be conveyed in words.
Inclusion is for information, education, and analysis only.
Its inclusion in the article(s) adds significantly to the article(s) because it shows a major type of work produced by the artist.
The image is a low resolution copy of the original work and would be unlikely to impact sales of prints or be usable as a desktop backdrop.
It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.