Another day, another prime number.
When I was a math undergrad prime numbers were among my favorite recreational math interests, perhaps due to all the prime-related work we did under Shahriari … number theory, combinatorics, you name it. The distribution of primes, their role in algebra (group and field theory in particular) … but now that I’m humanities-only they are less than a hobby.
And my knowledge of and interest in is looked down upon, one might say, by my other humanities peers. Since I should focus on my non-prime dissertation this is not without merit.
While in New York I’ve achieved little dissertation forward movement, few breakthroughs or new ideas, though walking through Central Park today on my way to the Guggenheim did have me thinking briefly of Hegel and his “Aesthetics,” or lectures on aesthetics. “analogical” things play only a small role, but a distinct one — allegory, metaphor, and simile are all clumped together at the end. Symbol and the symbolic have a larger role over all because of Hegel’s conceptualization of the history of art and artistic expression. But I think the argument can be made that the cognitive role of similarity or even the philosophical role or use of similarity is (are) not what interest(s) Hegel. He’s not interested in the idea of similarity or analogy as a means to bridge rational systems, or to get from sense data to concepts. Which is to say that analogy is not a salient feature of his aesthetics or philosophy; it does not stand out as a tool or as particularly important, and I have to keep this in mind, because it is impossible to avoid metaphor and about as equally impossible to avoid analogy, not just in language but in rhetoric. And thus one can easily come to the claim that there is nothing “special” about studying it in the realms where I’m doing so. One could say, “Ah, yes, analogical reasoning has been studied and is well-known,” while at the same time missing the crucial points — it has been studied in certain ways: either too narrowly and focused primarily as an alternative to logical discourse, or too broadly, such that no meaningful statements about it can be made, and I’m trying to situate myself between these positions, one might say.
But enough of that.
I walked through Central Park, entering somewhere north of 97th, I think, and I crossed not quite straight west to east, but came out just north of 97th. Then I walked south along 5th Ave. until 89th, at which point I got to the Guggenheim, which is currently under renovation. But a number of sections remain open.
The collection is primarily “modern” and thus 20th century, but for a few late 19th century impressionist and similar works. But that Neo-Impressionist collection is impressive, with a couple Seurat’s and similar, as well as some Italians I don’t know. But of those, more in the Divisionist school (and the use of complementary colors together — parallel blues and yellows, for example), were quite fascinating, and I saw one, sort of an elliptical composition with angels in the sky and composed greatly of golden tones, that reminded me of the types of things I like to draw — at least in terms of flow and lines and atmosphere.
I also walked home via the park, at least until I got to the west side, and then up. I meant to get pizza, to come home and get my stuff and go out for coffee, but once I returned to the apartment I had things to write, Charmed was on … and then, alas, I was just sitting at the table, at the computer. Sedentary.
Our Chinese guests — Cindy and her mother — are leaving sometime tomorrow (via LaGuardia, back to Oklahoma, I suppose). I might go to the MOMA, and/or the Empire State Building. Jyoti and I still need to do a down-Downtown + Staten Island Ferry + Ellis & Liberty Islands day. The weather was magnificent today; I just hope it holds.
