Fabulous Complexity
Last weekend, relatives came to town and we went to the Bodies Exhibition at South Street Seaport. Let me tell you, folks: this was nothing short of awesome.The exhibit was well put together, moving deliberately and carefully through the various systems of the body, and working up in complexity. You could look at individual bones in cross section or at particular joints, and only then move on to see a whole skeleton put together. From there, you might go see a skeleton with deep muscles attached, and so on and so forth. I left with a far better understanding of human anatomy--and a far greater appreciation of it, too. It's truly amazing how round the ball in the shoulder joint is; how complicated our neural networks are; how fractal-like our blood vessels are.
The best part of the wholly-excellent exhibition, in my opinion, was the section on the circulatory system. Via a remarkable process whereby a cadaver's blood vessels are injected with some strong substance while the rest of the body is dissolved away, one ends up with displays of full-body blood vessels without any body to get in the way. It is TRULY awesome. The lungs are permeated by millions of tiny little blood vessels, as are the kidneys; the ankle has very, very few blood vessels flowing through it indeed; the artery on the inner thigh is absolutely huge. It's fascinating. Having seen how the bones and muscles fit together, this emphatically showed what was flowing through them in a way that you simply can't show by normal drawings or even dissections.
A few thoughts:
1. The brain is such a mystery! The Bodies exhibition devoted a whole room to the brain, and I couldn't help but think: yeah, the midbrain? I can see how that works. But the cerebellum? Nope. Here we have eight or ten different brains, whole, in vivisection, with chunks removed, etc--and they all look exactly the same. There are no moving parts, no (macroscopic) tubes carrying information or fluids or both. You can see how a muscle works, how the heart works, how neural impulses move through the body, how joints turn, even how the pituitary gland and medulla oblongata manage to do things. But the cerebellum, where we do our higher-order thinking and processing of an awful lot of sensory data, is just a mystery. It's just wrinkly grey stuff. Awesome.
2. It's strange but true that internal defects or illnesses are viscerally gross-looking. There seems to be no obvious reason for this. Why should a cancerous prostate, a clogged artery, smoke-weakened lungs, a stroke-stricken brain, or a cirrhotic liver look gross? Two hypotheses present themselves. First, maybe the world in which I've grown up has been sufficiently affected by knowledge of what sick body parts look like that our concept of the grotesque has been changed to reflect the idea that these things are gross. In other words, we have learned to think of certain shapes, textures, and colors as yucky because we have seen that they reflect sickness in the human body. Alternatively, to paraphrase a suggestion from Zq, maybe we can attribute this reaction to an inherent appreciation of symmetry and pattern. Cancers, nodules, lopsided shrunkenness or engorgement, and uneven coloration all offend against a human desire for predictability and pattern in the world. (I point out here that I think the first explanation here is more plausible, while the second rings truer when I think about the experience of seeing, in the final room of the exhibition, the malformed and diseased body parts. I certainly felt like my reaction and that of those around me was visceral in a pre-existing and reasonably unconditioned way.)
3. If you want to argue that there's a God, there's no better way then to go to an exhibition like this. People are so complex, and the way all our parts fit together is absolutely amazing. It is as nearly inconceivable that we could have evolved to be so fabulously complicated as it is that the gods might have created us so.
7 Comments:
What a great post!
All the information you provided was really interesting.
I wonder, too, if the knowledge of illness makes it look ugly, or if it's merely the non-conformity that makes us feel revolted by it.
Great post!
It's interesting how knowledge so strongly affects aesthetic judgments (whether that's going on in this case or not). It seems like our sense of beauty ought to be divorced from our sense of goodness or even just common sense (though Plato would disagree emphatically). We can have ugly bad things, and ugly good things too, and their ugliness has nothing to do with what we otherwise think of them.
But in fact, as you point out, Tai, these things usually are strongly linked.
Not exactly on point, but I've long been grateful that we are designed to enjoy so much in the world. As incentives, aesthetic appreciation, pleasure, and enjoyment are lovely, but not necessarily necessary developments. To recognize a sunset might be useful but to appreciate one is a wonderful bonus.
I hope this exhibition will eventually arrive in Vancouver, BC, where I am. I've read a lot about it (ie. the process of plastination) and I really want to see it for myself.
Dolf,
Funny to call you that.
You have an excellent point about aesthetic pleasures there. I like it.
It seems like self-aware, conscious creatures like ourselves may in fact need aesthetic appreciation, though. What other animals do on instinct we may refrain from doing on the grounds of rationality, which seems a unique or near-unique capacity. But what is rational for me may not be rational for humankind generally, or for its continued propagation. Physical, mental, moral, and aesthetic pleasures may fill in where instinct leaves off--or, indeed, may BE instinct.
This is a very interesting post on what sounds like a fascinating exhibit.
I have one thought: our aversion towards sickness and diseased organs could be instinctive.
Wild animals and birds naturally know when certain foods are poisonous to them. Something in them recognizes the danger.
Could it be that something in us recognizes the unhealthiness of oozing puss, or malformed organs as viscerally as animals recognize poison?
Hmm. Sure, it could indeed be, Crag.
We have such a hard time thinking of ourselves as animal. Our language is not really designed for that. It strikes me that it never occured to me that, just as a bird won't eat poisoned berries, maybe we shy away from infected wounds (or whatever).
I'm not convinced, necessarily, but I am open to the possibility and I don't have a very good way of choosing which of these possible scenarios is the most plausible.
Post a Comment
<< Home