Hi everyone-- this is the topic for this Sunday's gathering in Santa Monica, which you are all invited to (see the Event posting next to this topic). Feel free to contribute your ideas here, whether or not you're planning to come to Sunday's discussion.
Here's how the topic was worded in the email I sent out to everybody on our emailing list:
SHOULD WE ATTEMPT TO DEMYSTIFY OR MYSTIFY THE WORLD? Which is more worthy of praise or celebration, "sacralizing" mysteries, or trying to tackle and solve all mysteries? Are certain mysteries better kept as a mystery? Should we attempt to rationally and/or scientifically investigate and explain all mysteries, or should we in some cases try to maintain (or increase) our sense of mystery and awe by refraining from such explanations?
Some claim that, while it is not necessarily bad or wrong to investigate all mysteries and unknowns, it's sometimes better to have and to experience the sense of mystery—one's life or character is better off for it. And, the argument goes, the attempt to define and analyze something destroys the sense of awe and mystery. Are we forced to choose between the two, or can we somehow get "the best of both worlds," both a sense of mystery/awe and a rational investigation of everything?
Here's how the topic was worded in the email I sent out to everybody on our emailing list:
SHOULD WE ATTEMPT TO DEMYSTIFY OR MYSTIFY THE WORLD? Which is more worthy of praise or celebration, "sacralizing" mysteries, or trying to tackle and solve all mysteries? Are certain mysteries better kept as a mystery? Should we attempt to rationally and/or scientifically investigate and explain all mysteries, or should we in some cases try to maintain (or increase) our sense of mystery and awe by refraining from such explanations?
Some claim that, while it is not necessarily bad or wrong to investigate all mysteries and unknowns, it's sometimes better to have and to experience the sense of mystery—one's life or character is better off for it. And, the argument goes, the attempt to define and analyze something destroys the sense of awe and mystery. Are we forced to choose between the two, or can we somehow get "the best of both worlds," both a sense of mystery/awe and a rational investigation of everything?
posted by:
|
Los Angeles
|
-
Re: SHOULD WE DEMYSTIFY OR MYSTIFY THE WORLD? (the 9-17-06 meeting topic)
Tue, September 26, 2006 - 11:43 PMLooks like I missed the meeting...could anybody provide a synopsis of the group's findings/discussion?
As a designer (architect/artist) I've concluded that I must mystify the world. A demystification taken to its end would leave an architect with the robotic goal of just rearranging raw material to serve the sheltering needs of organic creatures. This, I believe, leads to an attitude of pragmatism where the highest good is efficiency, measured in physical & monetary terms. Before you know it, billions of people are living in nondescript urban cubes, or, in faux-style suburban homes. A hive mentality develops with modernism...
I read a book in college about this very subject of demystification and I'd highly recommend it, "Reenchantment of the World" by Morris Berman.
-
Re: SHOULD WE DEMYSTIFY OR MYSTIFY THE WORLD? (the 9-17-06 meeting topic)
Thu, September 28, 2006 - 10:52 PMI believe that the demystification of mysteries is the most natural pursuit of intelligent beings. History has shown that demystification has only led to heightened mystification of other unsolved mysteries, both old and new. As for old questions, a prime example is the age old "Why are we here?" While this question has certainly been asked throughout history, think of the context in which it is contemplated now. We are able to place a human on the moon, clone animals and commuicate worldwide instantaneously - yet we are no closer to answering "why are we here?' than we ever have. And that is not for a lack of effort by our most noted philosophers. I think this question's mystification has increased by our progress in demystifying other areas and failing at this issue.
The same is true of new questions. A new question is based upon the explanation of old mystery (after a door is closed, a new door, previously unseen, tends to appear). No longer do people believe that Zeus throws lightning bolts down from the sky. The cause of lightning has been demystified. Yet, we cannot predict when and where lightning will strike. In solving the mystery of the creation of lightning, we now arrive at a new question. Undoubtedly, the answer to this question will pose another. As our knowledge base increases, it seems more puzzling as to why other questions cannot be answered. Thus, increasing mystification - not by burying our heads in the sand but by defining, analyzing and solving.
