ART & ORGANISM
.
METAPHORS for the UNKNOWABLE
.
Truth is so great a perfection, that if God would render himself visible to men, he would choose light for his body and truth for his soul.
(Pythagoras quoted by Tyron Edwards 1908:592)
.
Sometimes we need a bridge, from what we know to what is otherwise inconceivable. New ideas get no attention if they are too new … so new that we cannot even imagine a connection. (Fourth Street Bridge, Scotland)
“every great and original writer, in proportion as he is great and original, must himself create the taste by which he is to be relished.”–Wordsworth
See Gunther Stent about the problem of new ideas that are “Premature and Unique” (HERE)
EXAMPLES:
Entities and Avatars Entities that possess incomprehensible dimensions, take comprehensible form in order to communicate with humans
.
- Krishna. The incomprehensible Krishna took human form of the warrior king Arjuna’s charioteer in the Hindu epic Mahabharata. …
- The God of Moses. One day (the 15th of Nissan in the Hebrew calendar) One of Jethro’s shepherds (Moses) was near the foot of Mount Sinai when he was confronted with a thornbush that was burning but was not consumed. A voice from within the bush called on Moses to return to Egypt and seek the liberation of His people. After seven days and nights Moses was finally persuaded. This was exactly a year before the Exodus. During the eventual Exodus, everyone could witness the entity whose name could not be pronounced as a pillar of cloud by day and pillar of fire by night. The voice that demanded Job act like a man and in the ensuing dialog persuaded him to never doubt his omnipotent judgement.
- The character “Q” of Star Trek. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(Star_Trek)
- Ellie Arrowy’s dad in the movie CONTACT (1997) is an alien taking human form so that the SETI scientist could relate to it.
.
How does … What happens when … the metaphor becomes the thing itself in one’s mind … when the medium becomes the message, the map becomes the territory. Is it synecdoche? a fragment acting as a convenient proxy for the entire thing?
Can we ever be more precise in our representations? Read Jorge Luis Borges’ view on “exactitude.“… and then the A&O notes on DESCRIPTION. (is “knowing” that which is real different from “believing” what is real? Is that an issue of sapience and sentience?