张璐
Lu Zhang
aka Almaz

        In my mind’s eye Einstein was the man who drew the map of “all the happenings in the Universe in all time”, using time as a dimension. This is indeed an all-encompassing chart including everything that could even be/happen in the whole Universe, albeit completely static. It was the summit of western scientific achievement, and thenceforth the decline. 

       After Einstein, any further exploration of the Universe conducted by scientists or philosophers alike following the western approach, are proving that the western way of perceiving the world is inadequate. This “western way” is actualized and perpetuated through western languages. Most European languages have rigid structures that divide time into past, present, and future, and people are forced into living in different tenses compartmentalized through grammar. Sentences are formed following very specific structures, the most extreme example of which is Latin, which is the foundation of Latino languages such as French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese. 

       We started this conversation in the police station in Fancun. While waiting for the processing of residence certificate, I distracted myself from the boredom by reading a book on “Sacred Geometry” by Robert Lawlor. 

       “Modern thought has difficult access to the concept of the archetypal because European languages require that verbs or action words be associated with nouns. We therefore have no linguistic forms with which to image a process or activity that has no material carrier. Ancient cultures symbolized these pure, eternal processes as gods, that is, powers or lines of action through which Spirit is concretized into energy and matter.” 

       These sentences interested me, and I invited Giacomo, who was lost in boredom, to read together. 

       “This reminds me a book I was reading, ‘The Order of Time’, by Italian physicist Carlo Rovelli. In that book he said that the way we perceive time proves that this world is made up of continual changes, not concrete elements.” 

       “Oh, that’s exactly what is being explained here too.” 

       “Yes. And he also said that Plato’s idea that the world was made of five basic elements was wrong, because he focused on unchangeable elements as the basics of the world. And that was how ancient Greeks perceived the world.” 

      At this particular moment in “time” the police officer came to give us Giacomo’s residence certificate, and told us that it was required by law that he came back for re-registration within ninety days. 

       We left the police station on rental bikes, very convenient means for transportation between short distance in China. Like many other locals, we were biking on the pedestrian path against the flow, while carefully dodging the running children, fruit stands, buses entering stations… The late October wind in Guangzhou feels hot like summer. The air is humid and dense, filled with a mixture of vehicle exhaust, funny smell of food from nearby market, and something that marks this place. It is the typical steamer feel of Guangzhou. 

       At some point Giacomo managed to appear on my right side again. He said: 

       “Aristotle was the one to propose that time exists relative to the way we perceive motion. If nothing moves then there’s no time. This was the main philosophical view on time, until Newton appeared to propose that time exists on its own. But now we know from Einstein’s theory of relativity that this notion is not true. We know that time is relative to motion, which points back to Aristotle’s ideas.” 

       After a short distance of relative motion we stopped at a traffic light. I finally had my thoughts organized and responded to all the ideas he shared with me. 

       “I don’t agree that Plato’s five element model to describe the basics of the world was simply ‘wrong’. Geometry is a way to describe relationships, which is interaction, changes, transformation, and processes. It all depends on the way you look at it. I do agree that putting them down in concrete shapes like polyhedrons encourages a more static way of thinking about the elements and the world, which could be considered the first step towards a different direction from the ancient cultures’ ways. But since the western languages are so limited and rigid, that might be the best way to demonstrate certain ideas. 

       On the other hand, while I myself prefer a more flexible way to understand the world - as I am Chinese, after twelve years of living in the west I am happy to be back in my own culture where I feel magic everywhere, in everyday life - I really don’t feel comfortable calling the other way ‘wrong’. I remember when Einstein had that famous conversation with Tagore in 1930, they basically agreed to disagree. Einstein was a man who needed to observe and study the world as a total outsider, only under this condition would he consider it ‘pure science’, or ‘truth’. Anything less than that is not worthy. Of course I myself I am more on Tagore’s side… projecting my own imagination into the reality all the time. But I also understand and respect Einstein’s way of looking at the world. Because if there was a God out there looking at his creation, what God sees would be exactly the same as Einstein’s vision. As long as some people intuitively perceive the world like that then it is valid. This is my way to philosophy, to science.” 

    That was the end of our conversation. 

       I admit my way to science as I told Giacomo might sound a little too humanistic. Science can be understood as a language we human beings use to study our Universe. The language evolves as our understanding expands. There is probably no right or wrong in terms of the way we perceive the world, but there is definitely more or less appropriate. 

       It was after the discovery of quantum mechanics that western scientists started finding the inadequacy of western mentality. At the same époque, around the beginning of 20th century, there were great revolutions in the world of art as well, coupled with breakthroughs in philosophy. The western civilization was busting with vitality, as always, in initiating what looks to me like the last outbreak of a purely western revolution, in which they incorporate much of the oriental philosophy of thoughts. 

       Ours is a time of cross-cultural communication, a time of bridging and merging. The secret of development lies in how much we could open to a completely different mindset from another culture, how fast we could abandon prejudice and discrimination, how open we are in embracing diversity. This is a complex issue because opening up requires going deeper in our own tradition.  (End)