This reminds me of when Richard Feynman described this argument he had with an artist:
He would hold up a flower and say, “Look how beautiful it is,” and I would agree. And he says, “You see, I as an artist can see how beautiful this is, but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing.” And I think that he’s kind of nutty . . . I see much more about the flower than he sees. I can imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean, it’s not just beauty at this dimension of one centimeter, there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions: the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors of the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting. It means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions, which the science, knowledge, only adds to the excitement, mystery, and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.
This is so fun! I live in the southern Oregon Forest and I spend a lot of time walking and "ear birding" because so much of what is here can only be located through sound. I sleep with my windows open so that I can hear the birds wake up at dawn -- mourning doves first, then swallows, then everybody else. Your post makes me want to revisit two treasured books about the meaning, for humans, of glorious birds: The Peregrine, and H is for Hawk.
This reminds me of when Richard Feynman described this argument he had with an artist:
He would hold up a flower and say, “Look how beautiful it is,” and I would agree. And he says, “You see, I as an artist can see how beautiful this is, but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing.” And I think that he’s kind of nutty . . . I see much more about the flower than he sees. I can imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean, it’s not just beauty at this dimension of one centimeter, there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions: the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors of the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting. It means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions, which the science, knowledge, only adds to the excitement, mystery, and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.
https://vimeo.com/340695809
The ability to interact with our favorite authors directly is a modern privilege
Immensely glad to read you on substack. I have read your books several times -- just for the pleasure of it. Thank you.
This is so fun! I live in the southern Oregon Forest and I spend a lot of time walking and "ear birding" because so much of what is here can only be located through sound. I sleep with my windows open so that I can hear the birds wake up at dawn -- mourning doves first, then swallows, then everybody else. Your post makes me want to revisit two treasured books about the meaning, for humans, of glorious birds: The Peregrine, and H is for Hawk.
were
What kind of bird, Matt? I'd got for a yellow tailed black cockie or a king parrot.