Archive for July 20th, 2010
Goethe Month: Theory of Colours, Day 5 — Goethe vs. Newton and a whole lot of Heisenberg with bonus Fermi hotnessJuly 20, 2010
A famously uncertain doc.
Goethe’s colour theory has in many ways borne fruit in art, physiology, and aesthetics. But victory — and hence, influence on the research of the following century — has been Newton’s. (60).
(Werner Heisenberg, “Bermerkungen zur Theorie der Vielfacherzeugung von Mesonen.” Die Naturwissen-schaften Vol. 39. 1952)
Heisenberg was deeply interested in Goethe’s Farbenlehre. He delivered a lecture in 1941 on the differences between Goethe’s and Newton’s color theories, in which he essentially argued that both were right but that what Goethe had done was outline very specifically and accurately the phenomenon of human perception of the spectrum, while Newton’s thrust was more toward definition and demonstration of the spectrum’s essence and proveable existence itself.
The views Heisenberg espoused of Goethe’s experiments being valid insomuchas they are observably repeatable and scientifically sound have fortunately come to be the modern perception of Goethe’s color theory research — that Goethe was accurately exploring the definition of a physiological, human sense of color and drew credible conclusions about colors and the human eye.
Prior to a re-surge of interest in Goethe’s color theory that began in the 1930’s and was legitimized largely by Heisenberg’s lecture and writing, Goethe’s work had been suffering for most of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century under something of a cloud of suspicion due to his theory’s eclipse by Newton’s with popular physicists. In his book Goethe Contra Newton, British physicist and scholar Dr. Dennis Sepper beautifully describes the shadow of early, dichotomous criticism which hung over Goethe’s Farbenlehre and was part of a larger debate in science:
A characterological or typological trait of the poet prevents him from grasping the real essence of science. On the other hand, the scientist must, to some extent, be open to the demands of spirit, and science is fundamentally part of a grand ethical quest. Goethe’s apparent inability to grasp the essence of Newton’s science reveals the chief differences between those who cultivate imagination and human truth and those who pursue objective truth in nature.
(Sepper, Dennis L. “The Critical Dilemma.” Goethe Contra Newton: Polemics and the Project for a New Science of Color. Cambridge: University Press, 1988. 6.)
I feel like these different thrusts of firstly poetry and science, and secondly the science of physiology and psychology, faith and beauty-based, rather than a perception of a more “hard” science are completely exemplified in the above shot.
A flock of pigeons takes off from the steps of the Hagia Sophia cathedral in Istanbul.
Here is hard, natural science, pure biology, that is also poetry — a bird in flight — and all against the backdrop of human faith as symbolized by the cathedral, which is furthermore situated in one of the oldest cities in modern existence, through which millions of human feet have passed. That is one fucking deep picture of pigeons. Am I right?
That was fun. I think I’ll suss out and post up some other famous critical responses a different day.
Home is the place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in.
I hope they do not find it too much a chore with me — I’m bringing biscotti, pignolas, and a little kid half of them have never seen.
I am happily and firmly ensconced once more in the land of crick gypsies by now, I reckon. It’s a comfortable place to be. To go from the tony cabins on the lake in to the deep woods and see assorted family is my favorite transition to make. In the case of these photo choices, I need to defend what people from “Down South” (ie: anything below Boise) seem to consider to be the overabundance of prefab and mobile homes in the fam’s neck of the woods. I was born and bred in the briar patch and let me tell you it’s a good thing, not a white trash thing. Here’s what it means to me:
Parker Posey via suicideblonde. Isn’t she lovely?
It means it’s a place where people actually understand that less house and more land is the way it ought to be, and not an endless pursuit of the opposite in the very antonym of the symbiosis which our Earth deserves. It is a move against space-waste and toward conservation of personal resources. I say yay to trailers and have actually said for many years that my ideal house, once my child(ren?) had grown and gone, would be not even a singlewide but a small camper or lite RV on some land by a river.
I know, I know: I will have plenty of time for that when I’m living in a van down by the river. But really.