Thesis is finished. Next?
Science and religion work together to order randomness and chaos. In Book 1 of Genesis, God gives creates the universe, he separates the light from the dark, the land from the sea. In science, a homogeneous substance is more stable than a heterogeneous substance. Homogeneous reactants are not reactive unless stimulated by another substance, a catalyst. In Genesis, before God created the universe all matter existed but had no order. God is the catalyst. By creating the universe, He separates matter into homogeneous substances and orders the chaos of the physical world. Before science, God gave an easy and definite answer to the questions of the universe. Science reveals a complicated order of nature, and leads to more questions than answers. God is a simple answer to complicated questions.
Maimonides says “When one thinks about these matters one will feel a great fear and trepidation, and one will know that one is a low and insignificant creation.” The understanding about the complexity of nature reveals the greater glory of God and reminds man of his insignificant place in the universe.
God and nature are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Science is used by philosophers in the Middle Ages as a tool to find the greater meaning of God. Science is also the principle upon which the earth is governed, and for the Medieval philosophers, God governs the earth. Therefore, God is at the foundation of science. Science and religion do not conflict with each other, rather, science links God to the material world. Nonetheless, the tension between science and religion saturated the philosophy of the Middle Ages and shaped the humanist movement, the next stage in western history.
It took me a long time to begin to understand abstract art.
Kandinsky says, “There are two kinds of people: those who content themselves with the inward experience of phenomena (including inner phenomena, among them the work of art); and those who seek to define this inner experience.”
I’m the classical sort, the type that seeks to define this inner experience. Kandinsky aims to strip this need, to take away all recognizable objects and leave the viewer with unadulterated experience.
In my thesis, I am exploring how different people, with different environments and backgrounds can find the same conclusion. I couldn’t help but comparing the United States, the country of my grandi, and France, my location, in this same light.
My bookshelf is filled with books for my thesis alongside books about and of France. I read history books for context and novels for the shared experiences. These novels are stuffed with inside quips for the bicultural, such as an obscure reference to the cinemas on rue des ecoles, just beyond the reaches of tourism but accessible to all who look, or the particular usage of words such as chauvinism or excité.
Its strange to exist in this transformative limbo. I just took a test on the Rosetta stone, and I got 97% on the oral section, but a mere 27% percent on the reading section. I orally absorb French culture and language, yet on paper exist only as an Ango Saxon. I read children’s books in French, such as Le Petit Nicolas (now a major motion picture) and Tin Tin, but most of my reading and all of my writing exists in English. I travel in an American bubble, with American books and American concepts.
I wonder what will happen when I return to the United States, when everything will come so much easier. I won’t have to think about what I say before I say it. I’ll be released from my perspective as an outsider, and return to mon habitude.