Re: Scooping Up & Blending Knowledge

Natasha Vita More (
Tue, 29 Sep 1998 22:12:10 -0500

At 09:22 AM 9/29/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Natasha writes:
>>... artists ... Nine out of ten, science was thought of as an intruder
>>dominating life and sticking its nose where it didn't belong.
>Having as you do a sense about how both worlds think, you have a good
>opportunity to distill the essense of one mindset and explain it to
>the other. I for one am very curious to understand exactly what they
>mean by science sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

An understanding spoon feed to many is the tedious notion that tampering with biology isn't natural. Tactics include reminders of the Frankenstein myth, nuclear age fears, while feeding new age spirituality (also Deepak Chapra notion that our bodies are intelligent and tell us what they want from a holistic approach). Also, the reactionary xenophobic fears that science favors its own awards rather than what is best for society. This type of information has been feed to the public by doomsdayers of science coupled with technology. Pseudoscience is another means to negating the efforts of science and public recognition of these efforts.

Those of us who actively participate in the community of science are well aware that the above notions are full of flaws. Yet, obtaining this information is not an easy task because those spreading fear tactics get top billing. It hasn't been until recently that scientists have been speaking in a language that can be translated and, and this is important I think, that scientists are willing to communicate to the public more openly. Where it was once considered unprofessional for a scientist to speak about her or his work openly to the public, today scientists are doing just this and revered both publically and in the scientific community for doing so.

>It is striking to me how artists, who appear to others as tending to
>lambast the inequities in our world and the tragic losses from competition,
>revel in competition in their own world. They might write plays about
>what terrible things come from someone setting themselves as Gods compared
>to others, but those who do this well become writer-Gods whorshiped by
>their minions, and seem quite comfortable with this arrangement.

Possibly, sheer envy. Those who have a tendency to lambast the world and then turn on their heels and profit from the very characteristics of the lambasting, may tend to feel envy. Later success and recognition in one' s field can soften the wrangle.

It seems to me that this type of personality profile are issues of behavior and not a feature of the artist, but of the person. Similar traits are readily identified in an angry youth who blasts the corporate world for capitalism, then ten years later drives a BMW and vacations in St. Martins. The anger associated with envy summons up emotions that warrant expression, thus the baton passes to the artist for his ability to express. Such expression sometimes done in reptilian ways rather than ways that might consider the long-range effects.

The psychology of creative achievement and self-aggrandizement, or even cultural icons, reaches far back into the bowls of civilization. Just today I was at the Getty Museum viewing the sculptures of Greek and Roman Gods. How large they stood. How perfect in body and beauty.

Adjacent to the subject, but interesting in regards to Gods-mongerings: Scientists such as Newton and Galileo where made into superhuman heros by some peers, possibly to obtain recognition and money, by myth making (inspiration flashes by Newton when he saw a falling apple and discovered gravitation, or an inspiration flash by Galileo when he watched the pendulum swing in the Pisa Cathedral and discovered isochronism.)

Natasha Vita More [fka Nancie Clark]: Transhumanist Art Centre - Home of Extropic Art: **NEW** Transhuman Culture InfoMark: PRESS RELEASE: "We are transhumans ..." Meme Orbits Saturn in 2004!

"The best defense is an aesthetic offense."