2011-12-26

Two turtle doves

The second day of Christmas falls
here without stores and without malls.
Just family, friends, those we hold dear
especially close this time of year.


Today is a holiday in Europe, a real holiday, with closed stores and festive programs. It's called Boxing Day in the UK, but if you're interesting in why, you can either ask a Brit or just google it. I would prefer to pick up where I left off yesterday, and the day numbered two seems to be a good place to start. After all, we were talking about two theories weren't we?

Science is a fascinating way of looking at the world. It uncovers bizarre creatures at the bottom of the oceans, identifies viruses and bacteria that are harmful, it has provided us with great boons, like penicillin, and great banes, like nuclear energy (just think of the waste). But, we should keep in mind it is only one way of looking at the world. It does well with facts, but there is more to the world than facts.

What about art? That is also a valid way of seeing the world around us. The realism of a Rembrandt, the irrealism of a Picasso or Dali, the emotion of a sculpture by Michelangelo are all valid expressions of feelings, of something deeper within us that can be moved (either positively or negatively). Art can be enraging or inspiring or any range of feelings in-between. Aren't feelings a legitimate part of our make-up as human beings? I think they are.

And what about things that we simply have difficulty dealing with, such as psychic phenomena like telepathy or remote viewing, or even the existence of God? Science is not in a position to make a statement because it is beyond the realm of the five senses to which they have restricted itself. Art cannot address it because these phenomena have something almost physical and something non-physical about them, something that goes beyond feelings themselves.

In other words, the simple dichotomy we have made for ourselves – it's real or it's not – is not really adequate to the task. We have to allow ourselves to explore other realms with other methods if we are to truly understand who we are, why we are here, and what we should be doing with ourselves.

Our forebears, among other things, attempted to encapsulate this "more" of which I am speaking in their own expression of knowledge, in myths. We should be grateful to them for what they have bequeathed to us, even if we don't understand it anymore. We need to give myth (and metaphysics) another, a fair, chance. Who knows, maybe all of us will be the better for it. It presupposes, however, that we talk with one another, not just to – or worse, at – one another.

No comments: