[Mainly RL] In Defence of Cognition against Persecution

Curiosity is one of the greatest gifts of humankind. When observing nature, humans throughout the ages wondered about its workings. "What immortal hand or eye / Could frame thy fearful symmetry?"
Thus were born mythology and natural philosophy. Our understanding of the universe is now greater than ever. And yet it does not diminish our appreciation of it --- in fact, it should increase it, to know that there is so much more out there that we cannot see with the naked eye. We understand the behavior of light, and yet this does not prevent us from enjoying a clear blue sky or a brilliant sunset. We understand how the invisible hand of the wind is able to create tiny ripples or huge ocean waves, and yet this does not prevent us from standing on the beach, alone or with company, and staring out over the sea in awe.

Similarly, after we stand admiring a great work of art, or literature, or poetry, or music, that same natural instinct --- curiosity --- may compel us to try and understand the workings of the mind of the creator, out of reverence to him or her --- in the same way as we try to understand those we love --- and out of our own desire to learn, to better ourselves. It is a matter of humility. We know that great works are grown from seeds of sacred inspiration, and there is much that we can never explain rationally, but we still try to study them and the background behind them. Sometimes, this gives us glimpses of the creator's thoughts of feelings that we hadn't already perceived. Sometimes, it leads us to a deeper insight into our own minds. We do not intend our analyses or literary criticisms to replace the work and its original emotional impact; they are (or should be meant to) complement and enhance it, perhaps subconsciously, perhaps on a future reading. We do not intend to reduce it to its mere components, but rather to understand what they are, where they are, and how they are connected --- think of William Harvey --- and thus gain a greater understanding of the whole. A diamond is far more valuable than a photograph of a diamond; a sculpture is far more valuable than a postcard of a sculpture. These things have substance; they have many facets, and infinitely many different appearances, depending on what angle you look at them from, and on the lighting. Analysis allows us to look at a poem not just in plan view, but also through the new dimensions of rhyme, meter, cadence, and structure. Research into the background of the artist, and the context of the work, is the lighting that helps us appreciate hidden aspects of the sculpture that we might have missed in its absence --- or to see how different it appears in day and in night. In the case of music and poetry reading, both can help us prepare for a performance --- I can sight-read and improvise, but I also appreciate the value of detailed study, now that I am more mature and humble than I was as a child.

I do not say that analysis or research are necessarily the most important part of art, or an important part at all. In fact, they are often absent from the creative process itself. Those who know me well know that direct emotional impact is, to me, almost a definition of art itself. However, I do feel that some amount of study can enhance our appreciation in certain cases, and I protest against those who would universally bar me from it.

There are those who would have me look at a sculpture only in its entirety, and only from a single angle. There are those who would have me listen to music without knowing, or caring, about the person who wrote it. There are those who would cover my eyes, cage my mind, bridle my thought. It may be that they have never had the experience of enlightenment acquired through one's own effort. Unfortunately, that experience, by its very definition, is no-copy and no-transfer.

Surely, the sum of the whole and the parts is greater than the whole?

What arrogance to believe that the shallow surface of the ocean holds the secrets of the deep.
And how pernicious to demand of others the same belief to keep.

Why is it that in our society, any attempt at conscious thought leads to accusations of "being a scientist" or "being a mathematician"?

You decry religion. Yet you persecute cognition, as did the Church of four hundred years ago. Your attitude --- do not think --- is the very same one responsible for so many of the negative aspects of religion.

Burn me at the stake if you will. E pur si muove!