J.T.
Maybe Logic
Ladies, Fish and Gentlemen,
I like the Trickster theory: it has less holes than most and it makes sense on an emotional/intuitive level (to me).
Which makes me wonder about the balance of art and science in the exploration of the unknown.
The trickster (or any variant of similar ilk) theory seems to strike a balance between the artistic/intuitive and the sci/math sides, as opposed to the mostly nuts & bolts approaches that have been attempted with negligible results (the less said about the artist-only attempts at solving the puzzle the better - the religious, the crazy and the crazy religious).
The religious and atheist views are both one-sided, so I vote for the agnostic. The artist in me thinks this should remain a mystery and as such enrich and enchant us. The scientist side wants to peek behind the curtain.
"Mystery is the essential element of every work of art. If a work of art is clear, then my interest in it ends." - Luis Bunuel
I like the Trickster theory: it has less holes than most and it makes sense on an emotional/intuitive level (to me).
Which makes me wonder about the balance of art and science in the exploration of the unknown.
The trickster (or any variant of similar ilk) theory seems to strike a balance between the artistic/intuitive and the sci/math sides, as opposed to the mostly nuts & bolts approaches that have been attempted with negligible results (the less said about the artist-only attempts at solving the puzzle the better - the religious, the crazy and the crazy religious).
The religious and atheist views are both one-sided, so I vote for the agnostic. The artist in me thinks this should remain a mystery and as such enrich and enchant us. The scientist side wants to peek behind the curtain.
"Mystery is the essential element of every work of art. If a work of art is clear, then my interest in it ends." - Luis Bunuel