I think the code of Shakespeare's creativity could probably be discovered through some application of the principle of symmetry. The neurologists say we prefer symmetry. Symmetry can be simple or so highly complex as to be too daunting for a person to decipher. By symmetry I mean not only the relative parallelism of one grossly identifiable thing to another but also the relative parallelism of billions of bits of things to one another (millions here being only an example of the seemingly numberless neural synapses taking place). I've referred to this before in my comments about ambiguity and associational likening, the as-if, and metaphor. The reason Shakespeare's creativity is mysterious and ineffible is simply because we shrink from the tedium (a lifetime and more) of explicating his range of symmetries. It's just a more sophisticated way of the aboriginal's counting: "one, another, many". Or it's a case of the monkey... plucking aimlessly at the keyboard will eventually produce Macbeth. WC
--- On Thu, 12/18/08, Michael Brady <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Neurology and "Art" > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 5:13 PM > On Dec 18, 2008, at 5:26 PM, William Conger wrote: > > > I don't understand why some here are so against > neuroscience and > > take pains to trivialize it. While it is true that > the science > > deals with material and events that are measurable, it > is also true > > that your alternative essence of consciousness, > presumably not > > material and therefore not measurable, cannot be > demonmstrated at > > all, in any way whatsoever, except by means of > subjective > > declaration. So if neurology is too limited and > trivial, what, > > indeed, what, is left and how do we know it? > > Here's an analogy you'll like: Those who reject > neuroscience and > similar inquiries into cognition, perception, even > "creativity" are > like creationists, who reject evolution in preference to > the mystery > and immanence of Creation. There's that ineffability > factor: In the > beginning was the ineffable act. It can't be argued. > Why try to figure > out what mechanism gave rise to Shakespeare's thinking, > much less his > creative playwriting, when 'ineffability" covers > it? And we can't be > sure that science can actually figure it out, anyway? > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [email protected]
