Academic journal article Romanian Journal of Artistic Creativity

Erwin Schrodinger and the Quest through Illusion: The Connection with Brancusi

Academic journal article Romanian Journal of Artistic Creativity

Erwin Schrodinger and the Quest through Illusion: The Connection with Brancusi

Article excerpt

Schrodinger and the master-method of ever-new creations

After the publication of revolutionary works such as those written by Jacob Bronowski (1981, etc.) and Friedrich Cramer (1993), and in view of revelations such as those provided to us by brilliant personalities like Henri Coanda, Constantin Brancusi or Aldous Huxley, artistic and scientific creativity are bound to unite their ways, which have been artificially separated basically since the Renaissance and the Enlightenment with a view to overspecialization. In itself, however, overspecialization may indeed be a mark of scientific and artistic evolution. Yet, as theorists like Jacob Bronowski, Friedrich Cramer, Ken Wilber, etc., have pointed out in one way or another, scientists use, perhaps unconsciously, artistic "laboratories" just as artists use, perhaps also unconsciously, scientific "laboratories." A presentation of a few aspects of this phenomenon in Erwin Schrodinger's thought and in the thought of other scientists and artists will suffice to show its importance and relevance for both science and art. We will consider mainly two famous writings by Schrodinger, What is life (1944) and Mind and matter (1958), in which the Nobel laureate Austrian physicist develops a programme in many of its aspects romantic in nature; a crucial notion in this sense, having romantic affinities, is that of "ever-new creations," which Schrodinger explores as a major method used by nature in order to "pierce through time" (Coanda's expression) by a ruthless, often cruel, "everlasting strife" (a Hobbesian "war of all against all"). We will hereby underline the importance of Schrodinger's ideas in the general development of science and the relationship between these ideas and romantic theory, hoping thus to open a new kind of debate in contemporary literary criticism, which may prove to be unexpectedly rich with consequences for both art in general and science.

Searching for answers: quantum evolution and evolutionary transcendence

If we understand deconstruction as looking for deep insights into things with a view to finding contradictions, then this new kind of analysis may result into "deconstructing" science by agency of art/literature, and vice-versa, into "deconstructing" art by agency of science. The result of this process, however, may well prove to be to a certain extent a science of interfinitude (finitude-infinitude simultaneously)--given the unfathomable depth structure of the law-freedom paradox of reality--in the sense that by fusing together the two aforementioned laboratories (the scientific and the artistic) a single scientific reality emerges that carries in itself the paradoxical unity-totality equation defined by the law-freedom paradox. This equation unfolds its countable and uncountable infinities for ever in accordance with the interfinitude hypothesis we propounded in our fundamental research (Stroe 2004). In this sense, Kurt Godel observed the following:

Nothing has been proved so far relative to the question what the power of the continuum is [...]. Not even an upper bound, however high, can be assigned for the power of the continuum. (Godel 1990ii: 178)

There might be, according to him, one other infinity in between, or a million, or a countably infinite number, or even an uncountably infinite number of infinities between the integers and the continuum (cf. also Robertson 1995: 279). More than that, Godel had crucially shown the following:

There might exist axioms so abundant in their verifiable consequences, shedding so much light upon a whole [discipline] field, and [furnishing] yielding such powerful methods for solving [given] problems (and even solving them [in a constructivistic way] constructively, as far as that is possible) that, [quite irrespective of their intrinsic necessity] no matter whether they are intrinsically necessary, they would have to be [assumed] accepted at least in the same sense as any well-established physical theory. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.