{"id":7160,"date":"2012-03-31T05:06:32","date_gmt":"2012-03-31T05:06:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/zenpundit.com\/?p=7160"},"modified":"2012-03-31T05:47:04","modified_gmt":"2012-03-31T05:47:04","slug":"having-eyes-to-see","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/?p=7160","title":{"rendered":"Having eyes to see…"},"content":{"rendered":"

[ by Charles Cameron<\/strong> — looking through the eyes of tech, math, art, flies, and intelligence ]
\n.<\/p>\n

Imaging the winds<\/strong> and the waters<\/strong>…<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I’ve been raising questions about the varieties of ways of seeing<\/strong> here — asking whether guardian angels can be more than guys on night watch<\/a> and if so what that “more” means, invoking William Blake’s <\/strong>fourfold vision<\/a> [see move 4], and so forth. And I tend to emphasize the visionary over against the material.<\/p>\n

I thought I’d do something different this time, and show you two views of the world that science brings us, that we couldn’t have seen half a century ago unless you were Theodore von K\u00e1rm\u00e1n<\/strong> (below, upper image)…<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

let alone a century ago, unless you were Vincent van Gogh<\/strong> (lower image).<\/p>\n

*<\/p>\n

In descending order, these four images are:<\/p>\n