---------------------------------

Leslee asked:

What is the difference between order, balance, and harmony? I am a scientist considering a career
change. Science seems to be mainly about order; the arts, which I am increasingly drawn to, seem to
be more about balance and harmony. I sense the three are not mutually exclusive, but I think if I can
figure out the difference between these concepts, I will be better able to design a career that meets
my needs.

============

An interesting question... one is tempted to refer you to the Greeks, but then you'd just learn what
theythought. My take on this issue, for what it's worth, is that when you refer to "order" you mean
something like the marshalling and organizing of facts, data, into regularities, then possibly into laws.
This is a classical picture of science, and it's probably mostly correct.

Balance and harmony... here you could be referring either to internal, i.e., subjective, feelings; or to
some sort of objective standards, e.g., for the right kinds of structure in a work of art. Let's just explore
the subjective, because that seems to be the general tenor of your question.

Feelings of balance and harmony come either immediately upon the "viewing" (I'm using the term
more generally than just vision) of a work of art (and Kant has a lot to say about this also in the
Critique of Judgement), or as a kind of general feel or orientation that one has when one does work,
for example, that one loves. Now if you're referring to the second of these, this discussion is too
specific for you, and my comment is merely that if doing art satisfies you and science does not, in
terms of this general feeling of well-being, go do art (but I hope you have money saved up).

Let's take the first, however: the specific feeling that one has upon viewing a particular piece. How is
this different from feelings that one has upon viewing a well-written, profound scientific paper? There
may be no difference at all; or the difference might be due to your own preferences... we come here
to either the issue in the above paragraph; or to the difference between art and science. That
boundary blurs in either of their higher reaches, in my opinion, since both (again in my opinion) serve
to reveal some aspect of reality to ourselves and others. But art usually emphasizes feelings, while
science emphasizes objective knowledge. So what is revealed in the case of art, or better, the
emphasis on what is revealed is some truth about one's own, or humanity's in general, feelings. While
in the latter case what is revealed is some truth about facts... which can be very aesthetically moving,
but does not deal directly with feelings, i.e., feelings are not the operators in science, although they
can be the subject of scientific investigation, of course.

So it's beginning to seem as if what you might be moving toward is a desire to investigate and to
manipulate feelings on a much more specific level than the general feelings of aesthetic satisfaction
that you get from viewing a good paper. I've just got to throw in a plug here for the Jungian (simplistic
as it is) four-part analysis of the personality; and his dictum that as we mature we move toward other
areas of the psyche. This sounds to me like what's happening with you, and that's great, in my
opinion.

Now... I haven't said exactly what "balance" and "harmony" are. One can talk about this and that
being opposites and needing to be "evened out", so to speak; I'm afraid that I'm rather atypical in this
area, since I have a rather profound skepticism about the validity of analyses purporting to dissect the
human psyche (although Aristotle did this and so did Jung... and many others). But let's take the
general point of feeling versus analysis, or the intellect versus the emotions... whatever categories
you want to use here. There does indeed seem to be a separation here, and as you probably know,
that separation is backed up by neuroanatomical data. Again, what you seem to be wanting is more
emphasis on the emotions, and perhaps what you mean by "balance" refers to a very general
evenness, let us say, between emotional manipulation and awareness, and intellectual operations.

The advantage of doing art is this direct manipulation of feelings. The disadvantage is that you can't
really say anything specific... what does a sonata mean, or a piece of sculpture, etc.? On the other
hand, the pros and cons of science are just the opposite, aren't they... you know what you mean, but
not how you feel about it in any specific sense. You can say profound things about the world, but is
what you're saying beautiful, not to mention howyou're saying it? Not usually. Yet on the other hand,
what do you getwith beauty... besides very general, vague comments on the (subjective or objective)
world? Yet, on the otherhand, although, through science, you find out all sorts of specific things
about the world... there's always the realization that there's got to be more than just the facts, right?
Hesse addressed this issue rather directly in The Glass Bead Game.So far as I know, most of the
literature rants and rails about the above separation, without (with a few exceptions, like Hesse) trying
to synthesizeart and science in any direct, specific way. Oh, there's plenty of art aboutscience, or art
that usesscience in some way or another, but that's not the point, is it.

So, you can do bothart and science, but remember that it takes about a decade of hard work,
usually, to master something. You can continue with science, and gradually do more exploring of your
feelings through viewing, reading about, etc., art, psychology, and so forth. That's the usual method.
You can go the art route, take the 5-10 years to master an art form, be poor (unless you've got
savings), and finally, if you're lucky and talented, find that you are exploring and manipulating feelings
directly. That's the unusual method, and very few manage that... but some do. Or you can do
something like become an art dealer or collector, after studying for the 5-10 years to achieve mastery.
But then you're not an artist, although you're on the fringes, and being on the fringes is always a bit
frustrating unless you're someone who is totally reconciled and satisfied with not being an artist, while
still loving art.

Steven Ravett Brown