Tuesday, October 30, 2018
More right than he knows
Earlier I noted with pleasure an essay on music by John Borstlap. He got EVERYTHING right, both musically and neurologically.
Seeking a bit of sanity today, I checked for other articles by Borstlap. Unsurprisingly, this one also gets everything right... and in fact he's MORE right than he knows!
Why more right than he knows? Because progress in science is NOT fundamental, and real progress in technology comes solely from advances in materials and techniques. Just like art.
The last TRUE AND VALID advance in science was around 1840. Everything since then is materials and methods. We have a whole bunch of FRAUDULENT and CRIMINALLY INSANE "advances" in the publicly famous branches of "science", but those are the opposite of knowledge. The "science" that consumes trillions and makes headlines is NEGATIVE knowledge, sucking out real knowledge and replacing it with psychopathic delusions. The "art" that consumes billions and makes headlines is NEGATIVE beauty, sucking out real beauty and replacing it with psychopathic delusions.
The recent headline-making "art" that shredded itself immediately after purchase was the very first HONEST "art".
The "scientific" equivalent is unfortunately hard to appreciate. The LHC is explicitly and cheerfully designed to obliterate the universe. When it fulfills its purchase price, nothing will exist.
Earlier I noted with pleasure an essay on music by John Borstlap. He got EVERYTHING right, both musically and neurologically.
Seeking a bit of sanity today, I checked for other articles by Borstlap. Unsurprisingly, this one also gets everything right... and in fact he's MORE right than he knows!
In the last century, the concept of “progress” was often projected upon the arts as a measurement of quality: “good art” was “progressive art.” If an artist did not commit some “groundbreaking” artistic deed, his work was considered worthless. While progress in science is a fundamental notion, in the arts it is meaningless because the nature of art has nothing to do with progress. There may be progress in terms of physical means—like the types of pigment used in paint, which became more stable in the last century, or the relatively cheap paper for musical notation that became available with the advent of the 19th century industrial revolution, or the iron fittings in architecture that allowed builders to vault bigger spaces. The discovery of perspective by Bruneleschi in the 15th century was also something like progress, as was the “sfumato” brushwork developed by Leonardo da Vinci, which gave painters the means to create a hazy atmosphere on the canvas. But expression, artistic vision, the quality of execution has never been dependent upon the physical means of an art form: Vermeer has not been superseded in terms of artistic quality by Picasso or Pollock, Bach not by Mahler or Boulez, Michelangelo not by Giacometti or Moore, Palladio not by Gropius or Le Corbusier.Amen.
Why more right than he knows? Because progress in science is NOT fundamental, and real progress in technology comes solely from advances in materials and techniques. Just like art.
The last TRUE AND VALID advance in science was around 1840. Everything since then is materials and methods. We have a whole bunch of FRAUDULENT and CRIMINALLY INSANE "advances" in the publicly famous branches of "science", but those are the opposite of knowledge. The "science" that consumes trillions and makes headlines is NEGATIVE knowledge, sucking out real knowledge and replacing it with psychopathic delusions. The "art" that consumes billions and makes headlines is NEGATIVE beauty, sucking out real beauty and replacing it with psychopathic delusions.
The recent headline-making "art" that shredded itself immediately after purchase was the very first HONEST "art".
The "scientific" equivalent is unfortunately hard to appreciate. The LHC is explicitly and cheerfully designed to obliterate the universe. When it fulfills its purchase price, nothing will exist.
Labels: Answered better than asked
¶ 12:43 AM
