|
Feynman has a comment in one of his two autobiographies where he describes an argument with an artist friend — about, I think, the beauty of a rose. His friend believed that "dissecting" the rose, breaking it down to its biological components chemical processes, took away from the beauty of the rose. Feynman disagreed — couldn't understand how knowing more about the thing could possibly take away from it. It was the one thing I read from him where I disagreed with him. It seems strange to me he didn't see naivety, wonder as things someone might cherish. Those are things that you are in danger of losing when you come to know too much. I'm probably belaboring my point, but I remember when I was in my 20's pointing out to my girlfriend at the time some of the more well known constellations in the night sky. They were not well know to her. I'd try to point to a star, point to another — "There, that's Scorpio. You can see the one reddish star, Aldebaran in the center..." No, she could not see it. Christ, like Orion, I can't look up at the night sky in winter and not see it. What does she see in the sky at night? Oh, that's right, an amazing jumble of mysterious points of light — like I used to as a young boy. Funny when I later came across "When I Heard the Learn’d Astronomer". |
Do you also find that you enjoy magic tricks less when you know how they're done?
Personally I find the "not knowing" kind of painful. I can't imagine cherishing ignorance.