SCI-ART LAB

Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication

Two days back while I was searching for synonyms and antonyms for some words on internet dictionary sites, I was shocked to see that on some of them art was given as an antonym for science! The gray cells of my brain went into intense activity immediately and started analyzing scientific and artistic sides of my personality and mind to see whether there was any truth in it.

Although science and art are dealt in two different ways, developed and evolved as two separate fields, they are coming together again in recent times. Art and science are related in several ways ( please read my thoughts on this subject here:  http://kkartlab.in/group/scienceart ). According to old misconceptions, creativity comes mostly from the emotionally charged right part of the brain that doesn't deal with things rationally and logically. Scientific theories and thoughts originate in the other part of the brain (there are different theories that are coming out about functions of different parts of the brain in recent times, and the left part for science and right part for art is not actually correct according to these and whole brain works at different degrees in all most everything we do). Left brain or right brain works doesn't mean they are completely opposite. Leonardo da Vinci  disproved that these two fields are poles apart and  couldn't be dealt with a single brain at the same time. It is my endeavour to prove that these two fields could be brought together and made to live in harmony in a single box of grey matter.

I can use all parts of my brain simultaneously without any problem. Even while creating art works, I can think rationally and logically. Science has influence on my art and art too has some influence on my scientific thinking. In my mind I don't see worlds of difference between these two fields. 

Yes, science demands thinking at higher levels with logic and rationale. Creating art is easy and you walk here on a beaten track and the destination is preconceived in the mind of the creator. Scientific exploration is much more difficult and complex and one has to create new paths into unknown lands.

Although human emotions (yes, you can work in the field you love) come into picture in the scientific field - as is the case with all the ones where people are involved - they are not important at all like in the field of art. Therefore, a scientific mind tries to keep emotions at bay while working and this is important to clear the path while searching for truth and facts. It cannot allow emotions to fog the picture. A scientist cannot say " Because I love this - this is the truth!" or " Because I believe in this theory - this must be a fact!"

An artist has this luxury of emotions playing a major part in his work. He can push all rationale out of the window and say, " Because I love this - this is the truth and therefore I can create my work very beautifully!" He can live in a world of illusion or dreams if he wants. And there is no harm in it as long as his beliefs don't harm or affect others drastically. And in an emotionally charged right part of the brain creative sparks originate, develop and flourish.

A poet describes the moon as a beautiful object. An artist paints it in all splendid colours. An astrophysicist sees it as a natural satellite of earth with rocks and no atmosphere or life. When I think about moon as an artist, I feel happy because I could see it as an object of beauty - shining like a silver ball in the dark sky. And when I think about moon as a person from the field of science, I can still see the beauty of scientific theories like gravity, time, space and how wonderfully they are followed in this universe. Science too has a pretty view!

Now am I thinking as a creative person or as a person of rational thinking? Do these thoughts from different angles drastically change the perception of beauty? Not at all! These things don't have a clearly marked line between them in my mind! Then how can they be separate?! I feel these things are associated with human training of the mind. Your beliefs, dogmas, thoughts, opinions could have tremendous affect on how you perceive things in the art world. And science doesn't give you this choice. You got to see them in the true way in the latter case. With the right attitude you can see beauty of things both scientifically and artistically at the same time. You can think rationally about art too! Maybe I am lucky to be able to view the world from two different angles and  still see the beauty of it all!

There is a leaf or a flower. An artist enjoys the beauty of it superficially - yes only superficially. A scientist takes the help of a microscope or a spectrometer and sees the inside beauty as well. Believe me the whole picture is more beautiful  - as you go to cellular, molecular and atomic levels to understand it fully - you see more rhythm and beauty in the creations of nature. The experience of observing nature in its full splendor is more wonderful and thrilling. It is a new world. Trying to understand the world fully  is a heavenly feeling. A scientist can see more in this world than an artist!

Although scientific way of seeing things is deep, it is only an extension or expansion of observing beauty artistically. I don't think these two are opposite  ways. When artists try to draw pictures of what they see outside, scientists try to construct things that are deep inside. While artists see only a part of the picture, scientists see the whole picture!

An artist can close his mind whenever he wants and can still go ahead with his work (here "closing mind" refers to new thoughts, ideas and work of other people not about his own work or hand movements!!)   but in Science if you close your mind, that will be the end of your journey! This is because in art people create isolated works of different types but in science most of the work is inter-dependent as we live in an universe that is governed by the same laws of Nature!

You can break rules ( formulated by some people although they are not absolute ones) while creating art and can still produce masterpieces and in science if you don't follow rules of the nature, disaster strucks and you will be doomed ( can you disobey laws of gravity etc. while sending rockets into space?!) .

Yes, in art you have more freedom than in science.

In Science your work speaks for itself and you but in art you got to speak for your art and promote yourself to succeed.

These differences are not big enough to make art antonym for science.

Has at any time a conflict occurred in my mind because of art and science residing side by side there? No. Never!

Drawing figures of all that I see and observe in the scientific studies, research and exploration is a part of my work. I never think or treat it as a different field or entity. It is a part of science! If drawing figures is also art - how can it be an antonym for science? I don't understand how anyone can throw these two into opposite sides and say science and art are antonyms for each other! People who can use their brains  holistically  can disprove this antonym myth.

Just because the left part of the brain is more active in scientists and the right part in artists, can we say they are opposite? It is the same brain  ( or the same mind) that is working! A scientist can make the right part of his brain active too like I do and an artist can become a rational- thinking person. My mind and brain work as a single unit both when I am creating art and working on science problems. Maybe because I mostly create art works based on science and science is integral part of whatever I do, I don't see much difference. Yes, there are differences between how a scientist works and how an artist works but they are not completely opposite! My mind says: Battle of right brain vs. left brain?  Why not use both?

Sorry, my rational and logical thinking mind doesn't allow me to put science and art on opposite poles. And I can say with confidence that anybody who tries to create rift between these two doesn't know how to use his or her brain the right way!

PS...

(Here, in this part of the world, people say when your works and deeds help others and the society in general  in any possible way that is the right way of doing things. If they cause harm and ill will, that is the wrong way! Of course these are relative terms and definitions for right and wrong differ from place to place.)

 

Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa

Copyright © 2011

 

Views: 1298

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

longer reply, part 2...

the main problem i have with your whole essay is that you base your reasonings on the classical view of reality, which is basically the assumption that there is one common objective reality which is shared by each and every human beings...

based on this assumption, you hazard statements such as :
This is because in art people create isolated works of different types but in science most of the work is inter-dependent as we live in an universe that is governed by the same laws of Nature!
You can break rules ( formulated by some people although they are not absolute ones) while creating art and can still produce masterpieces and in science if you don't follow rules of the nature, disaster strucks and you will be doomed ( can you disobey laws of gravity etc. while sending rockets into space?!) .
Your beliefs, dogmas, thoughts, opinions have tremendous affect on how you perceive things in the art world. And science doesn't give you this choice. You got to see them in the true way in the latter case.


in this classical view of reality, there is the assumption of a "deep reality," or "objective reality," which all sentient beings experience. thus, in this view, there are facts that can be measured objectively, and then used as proofs of the validity or the falseness of statements, events, beliefs, and the likes...

yet, thanks to quantum physics and relativity, it is now understood that this idea of a deep, objective reality is, at best, an « optical illusion. » the tools of modern physics demonstrate beyond doubt a connection between observer and what is observed, between measure and what is measured. it is known that the very act of observing/measuring phenomena also influences phenomena. in other words, observation is never of an objective, independent « thing, » but it is rather a dynamic process involving and implying both what is observing and what is being observed...

for instance : light. the old debate about the nature of the photon. according to some, it was a wave. according to others, it was a particle. but which one was it ? which group was right ? as it turned out, everybody was right ! but the language was wrong. the photon is neither this nor that. rather, photons behave as waves when observed in a certain way, and behave as particles when observed in another way. photons behave differently according to the way in which the experiments to observe them are designed. the notion of a photon, or of any other « particle, » existing « out there » without observer to « determine » their state is but a mere abstraction, it is not something than can be experienced. rather, the language should be about events, observations, experiments, and processes, all terms which imply at least one individual witnessing them at some point or another. in other words, no photons, nor any other « elementary particles » are objective realities...

the same thing can be said about individuals and the reality they live in. one cannot be demonstrated to exist apart from the other. they form a whole. they are but two differents aspects of one and the same entity. the individuals are their realities and vice versa...

_____

a few suggestions :

- quantum physicist and thinker David Bohm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm), who dedicated a large part of his work to these questions. i personally suggest « Wholeness and the Implicate Order » and « Thought As A System. »

David Bohm on perception :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mst3fOl5vH0


- american "iconoclast" Robert Anton Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Anton_Wilson) who did a very good job of vulgarizing these ideas. i suggest his « Quantum Psychlogy » (of which here's an interesting excerpt : http://www.rawilson.com/quantum.html)

Robert Anton Wilson explains Quantum Physics :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEZtw1yt8Kc

_____

as much by the way of psychology than that of modern physics, or that of spiritual disciplines (Buddhism for instance), it is possible to reach the possibilty of a connection between beliefs and experiences. a connection such that individuals would in fact constantly experience their beliefs. if this is really what is going on, error effectively comes from this assumption of an external reality common to all, while in fact there's is merely a series of subjective events, sometimes apparently shared, and really merely coextensive. in trying to reconcile their experience with this supposed deep reality, external, and common to all, individuals effectively limit their own potential. individuals are thus led to believe that they can only experience that which corresponds to this supposed common reality...

rather, if the notion of a deep, common reality is to be used, it should then refer to the juxtaposition of this myriad of subjective realities, coextensive and sometimes apparently shared. this myriad of individuals, each within their own unique reality, each resting on their very personal belief system, which sometimes enter into communication processes with each other, when subparts of their individual realities are momentarily common...

You are talking and arguing about quantum mechanics Christopher. Yes, there are other realities but the reality of quantum world cannot govern the classical world and I am talking about classical world we deal with daily and not quantum world. How can you bring the arguments of quantum world to  the classical  world? That sounds silly to me.

  The points I have made deals strictly with macroscopic (large, everyday, massive) objects that do not display quantum behavior. You might not personally know which way up the coin landed until you go look when you throw it into a well. But the coin would obey classical mechanics. In principle, if you took all the details about the depth of the well and the precise way you dropped the coin into account, you could calculate the coin's exact trajectory and deduce which side landed facing up. 

In the case of Schroedinger's cat, the true quantum behavior is exhibited by the single radioactive atom that is in a superposition of "decayed" and "un-decayed" states.  A single atom is truly a quantum system, so that is fine. One must stretch the imagination to believe that the decay of one atom could immediately kill the cat ... But that is a bit of poetic license within the thought experiment, in order to get one thinking about how the quantum world defies everyday expectations.


Flawlessly accounting for the behavior of matter on scales from the subatomic to the astronomical, quantum mechanics is the most successful theory in all the physical sciences. It is also the weirdest.

In the quantum realm, particles seem to be in two places at once, information appears to travel faster than the speed of light, and cats can be dead and alive at the same time. Physicists have grappled with the quantum world's apparent paradoxes for nine decades, with little to show for their struggles. Unlike evolution and cosmology, whose truths have been incorporated into the general intellectual landscape, quantum theory is still considered (even by many physicists) to be a bizarre anomaly, a powerful recipe book for building gadgets but good for little else in the real or classical world. The deep confusion about the meaning of quantum theory will continue to add fuel to the perception that the deep things it is so urgently trying to tell us about our world are irrelevant to everyday life and too weird to matter.

That "people change things by taking measurements", or "when we observe things we change the nature of the reality we observe". It is actually the particle exchange that changes reality. Whether or not humans ever look at the particle exchange is immaterial.

Please read my article based on this here:

http://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/the-perception-o...

Thank you for telling me that I have closed my mind:).  This is another example of how truth and perception differs! Previously when I read these articles on WIKI so much information and so many references weren't there ( to tell you the truth I did not read them again when you provided the links because I didn't want to waste my time on something that I had already read earlier and told not so reliable).  But on wikipedia, people keep adding information as time goes by and when you alerted me about these  references now, I visited these pages again and yes, you are right new information and references had been added. But it doesn't give enough stuff to the article to defeat my words. These studies are based on one case studies for instance the one where when one part of the brain is damaged, teh other part takes all the functions of the other part too. This could be due to adaptation technique used by living systems in order to survive and need not be the scenario where full brain functions in the normal way. Still my argument stands as it is widely accepted. These things on wiki are studies that are still going on and not concluded yet.

And thank you for spending so much time on this subject and it is really a pleasure interacting with people that seek truth. And I enjoy more while dealing with people who have views that are different from mine. It gives me an opportunity to view a different world altogether and broadens my world when I try to understand it. As they say an enemy who criticizes you is always better than a friend who praises you. Okay, okay, before you protest, I accept, you are not my enemy here :).

In the field of science  there is a warning too! It says - if you keep your mind wide open people try to dump all sorts of rubbish into it- therefore you should be able to differentiate between what is important and what is not and what to allow and what not into your mind!  You made me laugh when you said that I have closed my mind because you didn't know that I installed filters at the entrance of my mind! No matter what you say a 70% truth ( WIKI  is given only this rating in science and several scientists agree with this- perhaps we have  all closed our minds despite all those references people give and let me assure you it doesn't affect our work in any way!) cannot pass through a 90% truth ( actual science journal rating s in science world) filter. If my filters give you an illusion of a closed mind I cannot help!  Moreover, when you have real diamonds before you, what is the need for going for imitation stuff?! So I need not worry about your comments.

 

It takes so much of my time to understand what you say as your English is complex. Why don't you write in simple English? Please!

 I wish I were fluent in complex language too! I understood the experiment with light part of it first. That is what I always think and tell my friends in other fields. The results of  scientific experiments always depend on the conditions in which they are conducted. There was a story that people told me & asked Qs about. It seems one person published a paper saying that onions contain Phosphorus and another one published a paper saying that they don't contain phosphorus. Which one is correct and which one should we believe - these people asked me. I told them given the conditions in which these onions were grown both could be correct! 

Now my reply to your other points.

Like I said my article was mainly based on the analysis of my own mind and psychological world.  I felt it is important  to analyse both scientific and artistic features of a the same mind for this study. As I couldn't find people who are willing to cooperate for this studies, I was the only  person available for these studies! However, I took individual artist and scientist perceptions into account too. The very fact that some other artists too accepted them shows that they are not very far away from these artistic mind realities. Some members might not agree  with waht I say - it depends on  their mental make up. That is okay with me - not all human beings will be alike. 

These are not what I believe in or what I assume, they are the things that my artistic and scientific sides of mind is made of. Is it an illusion or "maya" in Buddhism  and Hinduism ( Thes e two religions say the whole world is an illusion !) Yes, everything is relative ( I have seen the video and said the same about it - an artist 's perception of the world is different from a scientists' perception of the world and a scientist can see much more than an artist) and just because an artist sees less than a scientist you cannot say it is not correct - given the limitations he has,  an artist's view of the world is okay even if it is not the entire truth. You cannot blame the artist for his limited view of the world. Aren't artists happy with what they see?

A person who sees only a circle is happy too. A scientist who sees atoms in empty spaces too is  happy . Is common man on the street bothered about these things?  Only scientists can read more into perceptions and truths and sympathise with common man because others  cannot see the world in the way they do. But that doesn't make so much difference to a common man! " What the heck, I am happy with what I see" is all he thinks about! Some people say if you bother more about the finer points of the picture, you cannot enjoy your life. And people here say each and every person enjoys his or her own madness whatever it is! And who are we to say they cannot do that?

And am I experiencing all these just because I believe in all these? I gave it a thought too. I compared my experiences and views with the perceptions of other people ( yesterday I asked my scientist friends to read my article and  tell me whether what I said about the world of science is different from their perceptions). They said they are not drastically different from mine. ( Don't tell me I am imagining this too!) Maybe they are not universal truths. But Majority of the people I asked have the same perceptions as I do! Even if they are my beliefs - like you say, they tally with others' perceptions too.  Even if this world is an illusion, when majority accepts it as true, it is taken as "truth" in this world- even though it is a relative one. That is where, you & I  differ in our views. " Classical reality" may not be "universal reality or truth", but know what - go out and ask the common people in this world. You will be surprised to see that majority of the people accept them as real truths! I see here that you feel -some of the people - like the ones in science -  should deal in the way of real truth and not classical realities.  But I think when you deal with the classical world, you deal with classical realities and when you deal with quantum world, you deal with quantum realities. You don't mix them up if you are a real person of science.

If we go after illusions they stunt our growth as individuals. Yes, I believe in this too!  I understood your view point and you are 100% right! But at the same time, I don't feel I said something wrong because these perceptions of mine have roots in real truth too.   My "classical reality" might not be absolute truth but is very close to it. In the absence of absolute truth, I went for the one that was closer to it. Science too has limitations as it is still in its infant stage and has to grow a lot. Therefore we cannot say what all science says is universal truth. Tomorrow somebody might disprove what is accepted as universal truth today. Didn't Einstein disagree with Newton and propose a new theory for gravity? And scientists are still struggling to understand and prove Einstein's perception of the world.  Twenty years from now another genius might propose another theory.  Is there a limit to these perceptions of the world? Anybody can see in any way he or she likes and live in illusion and think that they are the true ones. But science tells us to seek truth with a rational mind and not to live in illusions. HOWEVER, rational minds too differ in their rationality & until something is proved beyond doubt these "playing games" continue! But science cannot progress if it doesn't follow the path of truth. That is the irony of it all and that is why there is so much confusion in this world about science and what the scientists say.  Can you prove beyond doubt your way- and perceptions of the people you quote- is absolute truth? Okay let me ask you this Q. If I ask you to write about the same subject how do you put these what you call " classical view of realities" in the way of  universal truths?


Christopher Stewart said:

An artist can close his mind whenever he wants and can still go ahead with his work (here "closing mind" refers to new thoughts, ideas and work of other people not about his own work or hand movements!!)   but in Science if you close your mind, that will be the end of your journey!

 

You want something new,  interesting and reliable ?  

 

look at the bottom of the Wikipedia articles, the references and sources are listed... they come from serious scientific publications... ;o)

 



Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa said:

Thank you. I have seen these before. Know what? The world of science doesn't give importance to or rely on wikipedia because any one can write there! Yes, even you can write about brain functions and neuroscience on wikipedia. And you can give references about any book there. Some of my friends too wrote articles there ! For scientific studies we consult only science journals that publish peer-reviewd papers and never wikipedia. This is because wikipedia doesn't give you correct information on science topics! Only recently I had a discussion with a neuroscientist about recent studies in this direction. Let me tell you this very clearly. In science you can never come to a conclusion on half-studies and the studies on brain are still going on. But based on the studies done till now it is widely accepted in the Biological world that the right part of the brain is associated with creativity. Tomorrow somebody can disprove this and we are open to this and prepared to face it. Until then what is widely accepted and what I said stands.

You get all sorts of information on internet these days but how much of it is reliable - especially in case of science? Only a small part of it. Have you ever thought about it? Sorry, Christopher, I cannot accept your argument as it is based on "wikipedia knowledge".  Tell me something new,  interesting and reliable.   


Christopher Stewart said:

Thanks for your kind reply Krishna...

 

here's a first part of my longer reply...

 

i find many of the inaccuracies comes from the way in which you depict the lateralization of the brain functions...

 

for instance : 

Creativity comes from the emotionally charged right part of the brain that doesn't deal with things rationally and logically. Scientific theories and thoughts originate in the other part of the brain.

 

things are not so simple... from Wikipedia :

 

« Broad generalizations are often made in popular psychology about certain functions (e.g. logic, creativity) being lateralized, that is, located in the right or left side of the brain. These ideas need to be treated carefully because the popular lateralizations are often distributed across both sides. »

 

« While functions are lateralized, the lateralizations are functional trends, which differ across individuals and specific function. »

 

« Brain function lateralization is evident in the phenomena of right- or left-handedness and of right or left ear preference, but a person's preferred hand is not a clear indication of the location of brain function. Although 95% of right-handed people have left-hemisphere dominance for language, only 18.8% of left-handed people have right-hemisphere dominance for language function. Additionally, 19.8% of the left-handed have bilateral language functions

 

in particular, the idea that the right/creative hemisphere is « emotionally charged » seems like a dangerously misleading misconception. on the contrary, it appears that the right hemisphere is often the one which has more control over emotions, and is dominant in perception, and expression of emotions...

 

for more details, please consult :


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_lateralization

Book of Dr. Betty Edward, author of: "Drawing on the right side of the brain" is very interesting for know the way from left to right-hand brain. I find an analogy with the behavior of photons: when observed in a certain way and behave like particles when viewed in another way, and behave differently depending on the way in which the experiments are designed to observe them. Individuals form a whole, their reality and vice versa, different aspects of one and the same entity. In Edwards'book is an interesting chapter concerning the design of vessels and profiles: well, these figures, depending on how the look they give us different pictures on the same subject, a bit like the photon, the vase or the profile but have individual perceptions also " dual " sometimes particle, sometimes wavas, sometimes profile, sometimes a vase.

The jazz musician Fats Waller said: " Ifyou ask what jazz is, you'll never know". The same could be said of the way from left to right function.  One must experience personally, look at the new state you enter and only in this way, learning to know him.

Giulia Occorsio

Thank you Giulia, for your reply. Yes, science is still in its ABCD stage of learning. It takes a very long time to understand this  world and universe scientifically. Others can imagine and believe in whatever they want because it is so easy to imagine things and difficult to prove that they are the correct ones.!

giulia occorsio said:

Book of Dr. Betty Edward, author of: "Drawing on the right side of the brain" is very interesting for know the way from left to right-hand brain. I find an analogy with the behavior of photons: when observed in a certain way and behave like particles when viewed in another way, and behave differently depending on the way in which the experiments are designed to observe them. Individuals form a whole, their reality and vice versa, different aspects of one and the same entity. In Edwards'book is an interesting chapter concerning the design of vessels and profiles: well, these figures, depending on how the look they give us different pictures on the same subject, a bit like the photon, the vase or the profile but have individual perceptions also " dual " sometimes particle, sometimes wavas, sometimes profile, sometimes a vase.

The jazz musician Fats Waller said: " Ifyou ask what jazz is, you'll never know". The same could be said of the way from left to right function.  One must experience personally, look at the new state you enter and only in this way, learning to know him.

Giulia Occorsio

Of course, dear Dr. Krishna, of course...

Best regards

Can you prove beyond doubt your way- and perceptions of the people you quote- is absolute truth?

i can recognize that the « modern view » (i.e. what you call « your way- and perceptions of the people you quote »)  includes the classical view, while the reverse is not true...

 

it's the same principle that applies in the case of the Einsteinian/relativistic mechanics which include Newtonian/classical mechanics, while the opposite isn't true, the Newtonian view doesn't include the Einsteinian view...

 

and thus i know that, if I accept the « modern view, » my mind has access to a bigger world than if i limit myself to the classical view only... i see the bigger picture... it gives me more freedom, and allows my imagination to conceive of even bigger worlds... 

 

If I ask you to write about the same subject how do you put these what you call " classical view of realities" in the way of  universal truths?

i'm sorry but i'm not quite sure i understand the question... could you please rephrase it ?

I am afraid You are more bothered about quantum mechanics than the real world, Christophor. And I deal with the real world as I perceive with my senses. So our opinions differ from each others'!

Flawlessly accounting for the behavior of matter on scales from the subatomic to the astronomical, quantum mechanics is the most successful theory in all the physical sciences. It is also the weirdest.

In the quantum realm, particles seem to be in two places at once, information appears to travel faster than the speed of light, and cats can be dead and alive at the same time. Physicists have grappled with the quantum world's apparent paradoxes for nine decades, with little to show for their struggles. Unlike evolution and cosmology, whose truths have been incorporated into the general intellectual landscape, quantum theory is still considered (even by many physicists) to be a bizarre anomaly, a powerful recipe book for building gadgets but good for little else. The deep confusion about the meaning of quantum theory will continue to add fuel to the perception that the deep things it is so urgently trying to tell us about our world are irrelevant to everyday life and too weird to matter.

That "people change things by taking measurements", or "when we observe things we change the nature of the reality we observe". It is actually the particle exchange that changes reality. Whether or not humans ever look at the particle exchange is immaterial.

There is a nice gentleman

Helping all the needy women

Who has knowledge manyfold

That can only be dreamed in this world 

 A good image built for years

An illuminated aura created for days

And there comes an eclipse

Everything is gone into recluse

A beautiful sculpture lay shattered

And leaves him battered

Why do men allow such things to happen?

Why can't intelligence be sharpened?

What is the use of having so much knowledge

When it doesn't stop him from falling into a deep gorge?

What is the use of having so much reasoning power

If it doesn't stop the screen of illusion falling before?

What is the use of talking about a broad future

If he is not able to see now the right picture?

When everything he has can't build

A wall of confidence around?

When he can't stop anger

Creating road blocks to becoming stronger?

Do you have an answer

To my questions, oh big brother??    

 

 

knowledge

like eclipses

must pass

for light to shine anew

and intelligence to be sharpened

 

illusion

like deep gorges

must pass

for confidence to build

and anger to be shed

 

so that in the end

to the countless questions

never dichotomy

but love

is the only answer

Thank you. I will try to sort out everything soon.

Christopher Stewart said:

knowledge

like eclipses

must pass

for light to shine anew

and intelligence to be sharpened

 

illusion

like deep gorges

must pass

for confidence to build

and anger to be shed

 

so that in the end

to the countless questions

never dichotomy

but love

is the only answer

It is a very sad condition. The world feeds on appearances and certain hemispheres of the brain should be reset...

Giulia

RSS

© 2019   Created by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service