In February 2001, while washing the dishes, I suddenly had a fleeting realisation of a similarity between the base purpose of science, and the base purpose of art. I had to stop working for a few minutes, and go to the computer and make some quick notes, before the idea had a chance to fade. I have lost some of my best ideas by not writing them down in the past, but have gradually learned not to depend on my memory where thing I consider important are concerned. Of course, once I write it down, I couldn't forget it if I wanted to. Heh. Here it is:
Science and art share a common goal, and that goal is survival of the species. As explained in an earlier essay, they also share a common root, both born under the same name, magic, which only later divided into two distinct disciplines.
If I had to name a single base purpose for the entire field of science, in this first year of the twenty-first century, I would have to say that is the 'search for the theory of everything.' I'm sure that this broad generalisation will raise a chorus of disagreement from the scientists, but the idea still has merit, since there is no single other discovery (please tell me if you know of one) that would have consequences as global, as far reaching, as a theory that was capable of uniting the physics of the large. (Einstein's General Theory of Relativity) with the physics of the very small (quantum mechanics, string theory, etc.)
For those who are not familiar with this issue, I will explain briefly:
A long time ago, science had one set of rules, usually attributed to Isaac Newton. These rules work really well here on earth. A straight line is straight. A yardstick is always 36" long, even if you put it on a fast jet, a pound weighs a pound under all conditions, and a second is a second is a second.
Then Einstein came along, and determined that in the larger universe, Newton's laws did not work as perfectly as they seemed to work on Earth. Eventually we came to realise that Newton's laws were only workable within the limited set of conditions found in our everyday experience here on earth, while Einstein's theory worked both here on earth, and also while traveling at speeds approaching the speed of light, and under conditions of extreme gravity.
One place where Einstein's theory doesn't work is at the subatomic level, when dealing with atoms, and the particles (or waves) that they are made of... in the realm of the very small, where quantum mechanics is presently the theory with the greatest predictive power.
Keeping this discussion in the simplest, briefest terms possible, science is presently working with two completely separate theories, one for the large-scale universe, and one for the small-scale universe. (actually it's all the same universe) Unfortunately, the two theories do not fit together nicely; they are a little like oil and water, and don't mix. A Grand Unified Theory (or theory of everything) would mean that science would have a single set of tools to manage all situations, large and small. It would also mean that science had achieved a much deeper understanding of the real truth of the natural universe.
The field of fine art does not examine the physical world in search of truth, but rather it examines the world of human emotions, to find the closest thing to truth that such a landscape has to offer... in a word, honesty.
Where science seeks a larger, unifying truth that will unite the large and small scales of the universe, art seeks a degree of honesty that will help reconcile the difference between the truth we know within ourselves, and the truth we present to the world. Call me a cynic, if you want, but I see the human race as a species of habitual liars. While it is certainly true that this applies more to some individuals than it does to others, at the level of species, I see this character attribute as possibly the greatest single impediment to human progress. On the other side of the same coin, I am convinced that it does not have to be this way. Call me a starry eyed optimist, if you want, but I believe the human species has the capacity to change; to quit smoking, to quit killing itself with booze and dope, and stupid wars, and to give up its addiction and love affair with bullshitting, lying, prevaricating, bending the truth, little white lies, you name it... at least to the degree necessary to allow the species not to erase itself from the universe.
From the early days of human civilisation, when magic divided into two separate disciplines, science and art have traveled parallel but individual courses. Now, in the beginning of the new millennium, we are beginning to see the need for universal consilience. In science, we have reached the point where advancement of knowledge in the field of biology can no longer progress independent of chemistry, and chemistry can no long progress independent of physics. Study of the human mind and genome cannot progress without the many disciplines that drive the computer and information technologies, and we cannot begin to grasp our human impact on the planetary environment without consilience between all of these disciplines, and others as well.
All of the knowledge and progress outlined in the above paragraph is, however, completely dependent upon whatever disciplines exist, that can guide us as a species to a greater degree of emotional maturity. Our lies, deceptions, and falsehoods are the foundations that support all manner of silly and dangerous behaviours. We live in a world where, among other things:
In spite of the physical fact that except for Scandinavia, all of the glaciers in the world, and the ice masses at both poles are in rapid retreat, much of the world is in denial that the planet is warming up. Many people who are seemingly intelligent insist that before any plan to limit the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses can be implemented, absolute and irrefutable proof must be presented, that the release of such gasses has an appreciable effect on global warming. By the time a diagnosis is made, the patient will be terminal.
The spread of HIV has reached pandemic proportions, especially in Africa, and yet, individuals and governments continue to act in ways that are sure to accelerate the spread of the disease.
The planet is, in spite of our having developed the knowledge and means to overcome such problems, riddled with huge areas of poverty, starvation, ignorance and rage, and most likely (although it would be hard to measure) its human inhabitants are spending more of their energy and effort to make things miserable and unpleasant for each other, and to steal from each other, and if they cannot steal, then to destroy the thing, so that if they cannot have it, neither can anyone else... than they are spending on constructive behaviour.
Scientific truth without emotional honesty is just a loaded gun in the hands of a very, very pissed off species.
This may be the time for the disciplines of science and art to find consilience. Picasso said that art was the lie that exposed the truth. He may have really been onto something, there. He also said that if he knew what art was... he would keep it to himself. A good reason for such a statement might be, that each individual must find out for themselves, what art means. Truth is universal, the same for everyone, but honesty is as personal and unique to an individual as their fingerprint. Emotional maturity cannot be legislated, it must be grasped.