[1]
VV Raman wrote:

'<1>
Since the term Maya (illusion) has been introduced in these discussions, perhaps the following reflections on Maya may be of interest.'

and:

'<13>
Finally, we have science. Its goal is to reveal the true nature of physical reality. But science too is maya. The history of science shows that many past theories, explanations, and convictions of the scientific world were totally wrong. Science is fruitful maya. Its framework provides us with intellectual satisfactions, and with its results we are able to concoct a great many things to satisfy our need and greed.'

[2]
One of the problems with associating Science with the search for 'truth' is that 'truth' is a value and my truths are not necessarily your truths even though I can 'prove' mine and you yours. Remove the truth emphasis from being a goal of Science and we see Science as a structured, methodical way of finding solutions to problems and specifically for establishing identity consistently. End of story. The emphasis in Science is on method rather than on the product and so value is more in the method. In Art this is the other way around in that value is in the product; Art is more biased to sensation or 're-identification' and so emphasises the product over method.

[3]
What is stressed in Science is (a) precision and (b) repeatability and to achieve these so we must take a qualitative step backwards and analyse the processes that ensure these requirements. In doing so we automatically shift qualitative focus from the text (the thing) to the context (influences that lead up to 'the manifestation of the thing') In Art, both (a) and (b) (especially b) are ignored or subtly changed in that (a) is more qualitative precision and (b) is a no-no; a masterpiece remains that, it can be copied but never repeated.

[4]
Note that in Science what leads up to the product is single context; we use algorithms or formulas which are thus invariant and deemed 'true'. In Art the lead-up to the product is multi-context; there are no formulas or algorithms other than general 'schools' that are often fought against by the individual artist. You do whatever you feel to produce the 'work' and the completed work is 'true' and then envalued (or even devalued) further by the culture. In Science the 'fact' is 'a fact'. We dont 'fall in love' with the product of an equation but we can 'fall in love' with the equation itself. In Art we can 'fall in love' with the product.

[5]
This introduces consideration of the influences of training on the social skills of those trained; if the emphasis is on method so this can lead to a 'cutting-off' of the product and this includes bed-side manner. How do you tell someone they have Cancer and are going to die? The more Science oriented demonstrate a lack of feeling towards the product -- the person with cancer -- and a stressing of the methods used to confirm the cancer (our tests confirm you are going to die of cancer- sorry). The more artistic can develop many ways of expressing the 'fact' and so qualitative sensitivity in expression but lack the methods to determine it, and so lack qualitative sensitivity in derivation.

[6]
Considering these distinctions, the Art of your Science is in aspectual analysis of the product, covering every possible manifestation of the object/relationship under identification. The Science of your Art is maintaining a totalist emphasis, to never lose sight of the object or the overall objective; to be 'singleminded' about it but ensuring that whatever 'variations on a theme' are introduced, so you, and your audience, can still see 'the theme'.

[7]
These distinctions reflect general behavioural characteristics expressed best by the left and right hemispheres of the brain; the overall Science bias is left (single context, fundamentalist and so reductionist. To establish identity -- to 'name') but utilises aspectual analysis (right). The Art bias is overall right (multi-context, relativist and so aspectualist. To re-identify by hiding or exagerating - to emphasise maya) but utilises totalist analysis (left).

[8]
We see here the relationships, the entanglement, of left/right that go towards establishing 'a whole' whether it be a particular formula or painting or a general 'school' or discipline, and actively incorporated in this is the utilisation of illusion (maya) as well as a stress to remove it -- to reduce things to their fundamentals and so to make things 'clear'.

[9]
This seeking of clarity is filtered at the neurological end with an emphasis on making object/relationship distinctions and the initial distinction as to whether something as an object or relationship sets a tone for all that follows and this can lead to illusions and a developing complexity that is 'false' -- the problem lies with the original distinction.

-------

Chris Lofting
e-mail <Chris.Lofting@computershare.com.au>
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond