6 Comments

Maybe I was missing the point and perhaps I should go back and read it again from the beginning, but I felt quite strongly at the start that when you said symmetry you really meant asymmetry. The left and right hemispheres are not symmetrical, in fact their asymmetry is precisely the point. One half does things the other half can’t. Perhaps complementarity is a better word.

But lovely and excellent all the way through. Thank you.

Expand full comment
author
Jun 9·edited Jun 9Author

Back then I was preparing a workshop on composition for visual art. And I dove into symmetry, thinking it was rather straightforward. But like you I felt an unease from the first things I was reading. The theoretical perfection in maths was simply applied to the arts. And the slight asymmetry that makes a face beautiful and specific was dismissed as a flaw. The horrible idea that you can calculate the perfect composition still seems very much alive. It is the same as thinking we can replicate and get away with it.

Finding Iain McGilchrist saying the slight asymmetrical is the point was the first time I saw my 'feeling' confirmed. I think this is a big insight. If it is true, its heretical to modern science. Because it renders the equal sign untrue. Would love to see this discussed by minds a lot smarter than me.....

My point is, that if uniqueness is the essence, then this universe is an ongoing creation. Every breath you take. And I am still trying to get my head around that.

Expand full comment

and not just uniqueness, but incompleteness (or imperfection, or asymmetry) - it’s the desire for completion that drives everything. If perfection (whatever that is) were ever obtained, that would be death (or stasis)

Expand full comment

"Inner knowing is the symmetric bigger half of outer knowing. The knowledge of the world does not teach the inner wisdom. The inner knowing embraces the outer experience. The inner not doing shows the how to act. It reveals brand-new words..."

I like this definition of symmetry. sym (= together) + metron (= measure) ~ a common measure, even proportions. The question is, what is being measured? Quantity of information doesn't translate into knowledge. While quality of knowledge may transfer wisdom.

Thank you for sharing this pondering on symmetry.

Expand full comment
author

In Dutch there is a saying, meten is weten, measuring equals knowing. I don't think it's true. Doesn't German differentiate between wissen and kennen as very different ways of knowing?

I am reading the Zhuangze at the moment, and it seems to ridicule knowing altogether. It's fun, sometimes useful, but ultimately non relevant.

Is wisdom transferable through language? The Dao seems to say it is not....

Expand full comment

The Dutch equation might be based on the rhyming pattern. This is not unusual in the vernacular...

Yes, the German wissen is closer to wisdom, and kennen is closer to cognition. Wissen is more an inner sense of knowing, and kennen more a rational process. Kennen is also related to können (English can = ability). Therefore you could say that kennen is more related to the physical and wissen more to the metaphysical.

If wisdom was transferable through language, there would be a lot more wise people around... Language can transfer information, but it can also deceive and manipulate.

Wisdom, in my understanding, can be gained through integrated experience (= experience which has been processed and fully assimilated)

Expand full comment