~*~
Monday, August 6, 2018
10:35 AM
I don't know what to write. I need to write like no one is listening, and I need to write like everyone is listening. And that really makes no sense. It is a polar extreme, which may not be true to fact but is true to feel. And if that makes no sense, well then, it makes no sense. At least in this linear dimension of logic. The dimension where science is absolute.
But is that really true? Absolute science? Isn't science about discovery?
Well discovery is science, isn't it? At least part of it.
I don't think of discoveries as absolutes.
I'm not a scientist. I have no formal degree.
What is science? What is the etymology of the word?
From Online Etymology:
"mid-14c., "what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also "assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty," from Old French science "knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge" (12c.), from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness," from sciens (genitive scientis) "intelligent, skilled," present participle of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE root *skei- "to cut, split" (source also of Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate").~
From late 14c. in English as "book-learning," also "a particular branch of knowledge or of learning;" also "skillfulness, cleverness; craftiness." From c. 1400 as "experiential knowledge;" also "a skill, handicraft; a trade." From late 14c. as "collective human knowledge" (especially that gained by systematic observation, experiment, and reasoning). Modern (restricted) sense of "body of regular or methodical observations or propositions concerning a particular subject or speculation" is attested from 1725; in 17c.-18c. this concept commonly was called philosophy. Sense of "non-arts studies" is attested from 1670s.
Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]
In science you must not talk before you know. In art you must not talk before you do. In literature you must not talk before you think. [John Ruskin, "The Eagle's Nest," 1872]
The distinction is commonly understood as between theoretical truth (Greek episteme) and methods for effecting practical results (tekhne), but science sometimes is used for practical applications and art for applications of skill. To blind (someone) with science "confuse by the use of big words or complex explanations" is attested from 1937, originally noted as a phrase from Australia and New Zealand."
From late 14c. in English as "book-learning," also "a particular branch of knowledge or of learning;" also "skillfulness, cleverness; craftiness." From c. 1400 as "experiential knowledge;" also "a skill, handicraft; a trade." From late 14c. as "collective human knowledge" (especially that gained by systematic observation, experiment, and reasoning). Modern (restricted) sense of "body of regular or methodical observations or propositions concerning a particular subject or speculation" is attested from 1725; in 17c.-18c. this concept commonly was called philosophy. Sense of "non-arts studies" is attested from 1670s.
Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]
In science you must not talk before you know. In art you must not talk before you do. In literature you must not talk before you think. [John Ruskin, "The Eagle's Nest," 1872]
The distinction is commonly understood as between theoretical truth (Greek episteme) and methods for effecting practical results (tekhne), but science sometimes is used for practical applications and art for applications of skill. To blind (someone) with science "confuse by the use of big words or complex explanations" is attested from 1937, originally noted as a phrase from Australia and New Zealand."
These are interesting lines:
probably originally 'to separate one thing from another, to distinguish,'...'to cut, divide,' … 'to cut, split' (source also of Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate").
Sounds like a cult: to separate, cut, split, cleave, divide.
~*~
I awoke crying this morning. I felt very alone in my misery. I get my epidural today. It's my 22nd epidural, or thereabouts. I got my first one in December, 2013.
Hubby used to go with me when I'd get my epidurals, or at least meet me at the doctor's office. I get epidurals every 12 weeks. He's not coming today. He didn't come last time. And, I'm pretty sure, he wasn't with me the time before. That's 36 weeks. Or is it 24?
Regardless, it hurts.
One reason he hasn't come, and maybe the only reason, is that his work commute is longer since he started working in Cornelius a year ago. A one-hour-and-twenty-minute commute, one way. More, depending on traffic.
What bothers me most though, is that he's made no offer to come or meet me, and he doesn't bring it up, even when I email and verbally tell him the upcoming pet sitting & epidural schedule. That's what really hurts. My feelings translate it into, I'm not a priority.
Which isn't true.
Hubby does a lot to help me manage. Living the hell of this disease would be even more horrible without his support. And I'd have to give up working with pets altogether if not for Hubby. And even though the pets are a lot of work, I feel their love and support. I feel their companionship. And, at the end of a pet client stay, I feel good about myself. That I've contributed to another's life. Not just the pet's humans, but the pets themselves. I've made their life happy for awhile, and they do the same for me.
I'm tired of writing for now. More later, maybe.
My epidural appointment is at 2:40 in King. I'll enjoy the drive.
~*~
Added note, beyond the story: Hubby and I discussed the epidural visits in more depth later. He'll probably go to my next one. He's a wonderful man. I don't want any readers to get the wrong impression. The above is how I felt at the time.
2 comments:
Great post! Thanks for sharing.
Some thoughts:
Why do you feel a need to write as if everyone is listening? Doesn't that put pressure on you, and doesn't that pressure cause writer's block in a world of a zillion possible topics and enthusiasms?
Second, so far as I can see, the sciences are the most powerful means of inquiry humans have so far invented, but -- as you say -- they are linear, and it might be there are other means that will rival them someday.
Do I have to fucking explain? LOL Just joking! hehe
I agree with you that writing to please others is a big old block to the flow, if not the major block.
My line about needing to write like everyone is listening just rolled off the keyboard as I was journaling. I think the feeling in my dichotomy was...to write like no one is listening and to write so as to shout it from the mountaintops for all the world to hear. :)
Your questions brought to mind a book I read in the last couple years. Stephen King's "On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft." Loved it. I confess, it's the only King book I've ever read.
I especially loved the parts about his own struggles and victories. Of course the part on writing has lot to do with writing in order to publish...magazines, books, etc. I wasn't interested so much in that part. It's not a goal I have.
Anyway, he says he writes with the door closed. When it comes time to edit for the world to see, he opens the door. If I recall correctly this isn't figurative. In his writing room, he literally opens and closes the door. I think he's onto something there. :)
Yes on the sciences. I'm pro-science, as long as it's open to other possibilities. I think of Audubon's quote. Something like: 'If the bird and the book disagree, believe the bird.' All on a continuum. :)
Post a Comment