When we hear about a scientific breakthrough, the first question is always of practicality: “What are the practical applications?” Usually meaning something like: “What technologies will this allow us to create?” or “What will this cure?”
But, why isn’t the question about perception? Shouldn’t that be a priority — isn’t that how scientific inquiry began?
Why isn’t the question: “How will this allow me to improve my understanding of my world? How will this change my point of view? What does this tell me about nature, therefore, about the way I proceed through a life within the same, inescapable nature?”
os…
Who is continually deciding that “Natural Philosopher” should no longer be a title — that a grasp on the way nature works has no place in the way that humans conduct their lives (and for what valid reason)? That science can say nothing about what only seems ephemeral to us, the way that air once seemed ephemeral?
Who is so convinced that, instead, technology will change us, our behaviors? So far, there are plenty of seemingly magical technologies out there, really amazing things that prior generations never thought possible — but they are tools. If we don’t introspect a bit, if we don’t ask questions like “Based on what we know, factually, about A, what does this mean about B?”, tools won’t do it for us. Our tools are more complex and shinier lately, but we’re using them to do the same damned things we’ve always done, if on a larger, more complex scale.
Wright’s Celestial Map of the Universe, 1742
aka
A synopsis of the universe, or, the visible world epitomiz’d / by Thomas Wright of Durham.
{ this }, pieced together.
Also, if you want the ultra-high-res version that might crash/stall your shit (it’s 10k px tall, lossless jpg), that’s { here. } YW.
There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.
Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian
Hello, I’m back! (From Japan) …and I see nothing’s changed, people still suck:
Came by { this story } of a Paddington shop called “World” which is being forced (by the city council) to remove it’s Kusama-inspired spots.
“The council sent Mr Hooper’s landlord a letter announcing it intended to order him to remove the polka dots from the window and to paint “the walls to the facade of the shop in a uniform colour, to remove the unauthorised multicoloured polka dots that have been painted onto the front facade of the shop”.
Mr Hooper said he would not be removing the dots just because the council told him to.
…
“They say ‘the spots constitute an advertisement’. I’m not a spot shop. We do not sell spots.
“Can you not be flamboyant and ironic and humorous and characterful in Woollahra? My landlord said, ‘My god, you’ve made my building beautiful’. No one has complained, but then we got this bullying letter”
I hope Mr. Hooper will get to keep his spots; the only thing needing removal is the stick up the complainant’s ass.
.jpg)
