>Crystals are only symmetrical to a point. It's a >convenient and reasonably
>good approximation, but >perfect symmetry runs afoul of the second law of
>>thermodynamics, leading to things like point defects >and dislocations
OK, so I'm getting the idea that perfect symmetry does not exist in nature,
such a piety.
However, has anyone read the book by Dr. Masaru Emoto, The hidden
Messages in Water.
Dr. Emoto, has found and photographed the formation of water crystals.
Polluted water, or water subjected to negative thoughts, forms incomplete,
asymmetrical patterns, with dull colors, and water from clear springs, exposed
to positive thoughts forms brilliant complex, symmetrical, and colorful
snowflake patterns.
In Buddhist, and Hindu art, one finds perfect symmetry in the form of
mandalas, which represent perfect Enlightenment.
Is it wrong for humans to try to achieve perfect symmetry? It seems nature
is trying.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
----- Original Message -----
From: guy_and_liz Smith
To: LUTELIST ; Manolo Laguillo ; Michael Thames
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
Crystals are only symmetrical to a point. It's a convenient and reasonably
good approximation, but perfect symmetry runs afoul of the second law of
thermodynamics, leading to things like point defects and dislocations.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Thames
To: LUTELIST ; Manolo Laguillo
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
>b. Symmetry is one of the least interesting forms of >composition. It is
>a cheap trick, and it is wise to avoid it. BTW, the nazi >architects
>(Albert Speer...) used it a lot
Interesting to note, the best lutemakers of the ren. were Germans.
> Actually symmetry does not exist in nature, but >something much more
>exciting: the appearance of it, without really being it
I'm not sure, but would venture to say, symmetry exists in ice crystal,
and crystal formations?
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitarscom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Manolo Laguillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LUTELIST"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 9:38 AM
Subject: was: Stradivari lute? now: symm/asymm & perfect/imperfect
> Sorry, but I can't agree with the two ideas expressed below by Michael
> Thames:
>
> 1. poor workmanship on the part of old lutemakers
>
> 2. symmetry equals to perfection, therefore asymmetry = imperfection.
>
> Because:
>
> a. They had a superior craftmanship level, and could have done the lutes
> perfectly symmetrical if they would have the desire and need to do so.
> We only have to look at the perfectly spherical stone "balls" present in
> so many buildings of the Renaissance. The sphere is, by the way, the
> representation of absolute symmetry...
>
> b. Symmetry is one of the least interesting forms of composition. It is
> a cheap trick, and it is wise to avoid it. BTW, the nazi architects
> (Albert Speer...) used it a lot.
> Actually symmetry does not exist in nature, but something much more
> exciting: the appearance of it, without really being it.
> In the japanese aesthetic there is a word I can't remember now for this
> idea of being perfect precisely through imperfection.
>
> All this relates with something of paramount importance in the
> interpretation of early music, that we all know, and that I am going to
> express with an example: if we have a measure with 4 /\ /\ , each one
> has to be played with a different accent, stressed differently. This is
> difficult for us because we were born in an epoch where everything is
> mechanic, and handmade objects are luxury... Remember William Morris?
>
> I will dare to recommend you a book, Michael, that you could enjoy a
> lot: Lewis Mumford, Technics and Civilization.
>
> Saludos,
>
> Manolo Laguillo
>
>
>
> Michael Thames wrote:
>
> >>Lundberg did not say that lute bellies weren't symmetrical, >just that
the
> >>
> >>
> >lute
> >
> >
> >>as a whole doesn't have a clear center line.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Without getting lundbergs book out, he says something to the
> >effect that there isn't a straight line on the lute except the strings.
> > I guess it depends on how you look at it. I prefer to think in
terms
> >that the lute has a center line and the neck is tilted.
> > From my experience with the few different lutes I've made, the
> >originals are not perfectly symmetrical. For many reasons age, stress
etc.
> >poor workmanship. For this reason alone, coming across Stadivari's
template,
> >and seeing first hand that lutes were conceived from the beginning to be
> >perfectly symmetrical cleared up at least for me some of the mystery.
> > I know many makers will copy a lute with every distortion, and
> >imperfection, it seems for me that this might not be the way to do it.
> > I wonder if these early makers had some mind set to stop just short
of
> >perfection?
> >Michael Thames
> >www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Garry Bryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "lute list" <[email protected]>
> >Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 5:54 AM
> >Subject: RE: Stradivari lute?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: Michael Thames [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 10:55 AM
> >>>To: Lute net
> >>>Subject: Stradivari lute?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I noticed a lute template of the belly ( 11 course French lute) made
> >>>
> >>>
> >from
> >
> >
> >>>thick paper, folded down the middle to from the centre line,
indicating
> >>>
> >>>
> >to
> >
> >
> >>>me, that lutes were originally conceived to be symmetrically prefect,
> >>>
> >>>
> >and do
> >
> >
> >>>in fact have a clear centre line, contrary to what Lundberg says.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>[GB>]
> >>
> >>Lundberg did not say that lute bellies weren't symmetrical, just that
the
> >>
> >>
> >lute
> >
> >
> >>as a whole doesn't have a clear center line.
> >>
> >>If you'll look at page 76 ( Practicum One: Making the Form ) in
> >>
> >>
> >"Historical Lute
> >
> >
> >>Construction", you'll notice that Lundberg's instructions coincide with
> >>
> >>
> >what you
> >
> >
> >>describe above.
> >>
> >>I'm sure that Martin Shepherd (first name out of the brain this
morning.)
> >>
> >>
> >or
> >
> >
> >>someone else can probably give a concise description of the "asymmetry"
of
> >>
> >>
> >the
> >
> >
> >>lute. It's too early for me; I need more coffee >:)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>To get on or off this list see list information at
> >>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
--
