God, Order, Symmetry, and Asymmetry

[Kurisu35712]

So this idea is pertinent to my current architecture project, which is based pretty heavily on architectural and philosophical theories (particularly object oriented ontology and speculative realism). I started wondering about symmetry, and its relationship to Creation, us included.

Humans are naturally attracted to symmetry for various reasons, biological, psychological, aesthetic and so on. But very few things, outside of geometric forms and such, are actually perfectly symmetrical. Human faces are a good example. Similar in their symmetry, but not identical, as that actually looks kind of strange, or at the very least unlike the original person. Our God is one of order, hierarchy, perfection, etc, and yet seemingly symmetrical things have the slightest asymmetry, which I personally liken to the Baroque musical counterpoint. Counterpoint being a harmonious relationship between two otherwise very different musical lines. One half of a human is in fact pretty different from the other, especially internally. Also, as an artist/architecture student, asymmetry is unusual, but also more moving, unbalanced, dynamic etc.

I’m not saying that God should have created everything to have perfect symmetry or anything, just speculating on what the reasons for slight asymmetry are, if any. We are drawn to symmetry, and yet can never find it except in ideals like perfect geometric forms and shapes. Thoughts?

 

[fhansen]

Just some random thoughts. Beauty and truth and perfection are related to symmetry. Perhaps this life can reflect it imperfectly but only aspire to it in perfection, conceiving of it as an archetype, an innate hope and ideal. God, alone, is perfect, and creation realizes its own perfection only to the extent that it’s nearer to union with Him.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Just some random thoughts. Beauty and truth and perfection are related to symmetry. Perhaps this life can reflect it imperfectly but only aspire to it in perfection, conceiving of it as an archetype, an innate hope and ideal. God, alone, is perfect, and creation realizes its own perfection only to the extent that it’s nearer to union with Him.

To an extend, I agree with this. I have to, symmetry is what it is, and it is often beautiful (especially in Baroque churches). But then at the same time, asymmetry, despite often being associated with disorder, isn’t necessarily the opposite of symmetry, in regards to beauty/truth/ideal. There is a great deal of asymmetry in some very beautiful rock formations. It’s most noticeable in movement. Asymmetry in sculpture, for example, evokes a dynamic sense of motion and interest, so in that regard, I’m not sure how that fits in with symmetry=beauty.

That said, biological examples are… well I can’t think of anything that isn’t either bilaterally or radially symmetrical, other than certain species of tree. And fruit and leaves tend to be symmetrical even if the branches aren’t.

I like your point about the imperfection of nature being a form of aspiration to reach complete perfection in God.

 

[GEddie]

While it is true that the human body is internally quite asymmetrical, the “visual body” is far less so, and indeed, the closer to symmetrical the body gets as seen from outside the skin, the more appealing the appearance. Only students of anatomy normally see the internal organs.

A biological being will never be perfectly symmetrical unless never acted upon by unbalanced forces or processes during development, which is vanishingly unlikely.

ICXC NIKA

 

[JuanFlorencio]

So this idea is pertinent to my current architecture project, which is based pretty heavily on architectural and philosophical theories (particularly object oriented ontology and speculative realism). I started wondering about symmetry, and its relationship to Creation, us included.

Humans are naturally attracted to symmetry for various reasons, biological, psychological, aesthetic and so on. But very few things, outside of geometric forms and such, are actually perfectly symmetrical. Human faces are a good example. Similar in their symmetry, but not identical, as that actually looks kind of strange, or at the very least unlike the original person. Our God is one of order, hierarchy, perfection, etc, and yet seemingly symmetrical things have the slightest asymmetry, which I personally liken to the Baroque musical counterpoint. Counterpoint being a harmonious relationship between two otherwise very different musical lines. One half of a human is in fact pretty different from the other, especially internally. Also, as an artist/architecture student, asymmetry is unusual, but also more moving, unbalanced, dynamic etc.

I’m not saying that God should have created everything to have perfect symmetry or anything, just speculating on what the reasons for slight asymmetry are, if any. We are drawn to symmetry, and yet can never find it except in ideals like perfect geometric forms and shapes. Thoughts?

We like symmetry, and architects try to produce symmetrical forms as well; but if we look too closely at their results, surely we will discover asymmetries in their productions. Nevertheless, amid the imperfection, symmetry might appear before us as an agitating “conatus” which will impress us and move us.

Beauty has been considered to be the splendor of truth; and symmetry is clearly the splendorous manifestation of a regularity, a law, an idea that practically will act upon our intelligence, illuminating it. However, a given regularity can be so poor, that it will not produce in us a strong emotion. Variety is needed. Richness is needed. It has to have the power to open many roads before us to our intuition, so that we can see the promise of our own future almost as a fact. But, for that, variety needs to shine through certain unity; otherwise it will require too much intellectual effort from us. It will be obscure. It will not be beautiful.

If in certain asymmetries you can see “movement”, it is because there is an idea, a unity, that shines in them to you. It is your own movement which you discover; or, better, it is a movement which the object -the asymmetric unity-, acting as an intellectual catalyst, uncovers in your soul.

It would seem that beauty, being the splendor of truth, must be a perfect rational product; so that if you are working intellectually hard enough in your work, it will be necessarily beautiful. All the rational rules that you diligently followed for its production should appear in your work with strong, shining and moving evidence. But it is not the case. The strict application of the rules might appear neatly to many, but not shining. Beauty needs to be a clamorous agitating “conatus” which demands the presence of the spectator to be ideally liberated. The beautiful object always requires a prepared spectator in which an intellectual resonance can be produced and perfection finally -but also fugitively- can be liberated and obtained…, as a promise.

 

[fhansen]

To an extend, I agree with this. I have to, symmetry is what it is, and it is often beautiful (especially in Baroque churches). But then at the same time, asymmetry, despite often being associated with disorder, isn’t necessarily the opposite of symmetry, in regards to beauty/truth/ideal. There is a great deal of asymmetry in some very beautiful rock formations. It’s most noticeable in movement. Asymmetry in sculpture, for example, evokes a dynamic sense of motion and interest, so in that regard, I’m not sure how that fits in with symmetry=beauty.

That said, biological examples are… well I can’t think of anything that isn’t either bilaterally or radially symmetrical, other than certain species of tree. And fruit and leaves tend to be symmetrical even if the branches aren’t.

I like your point about the imperfection of nature being a form of aspiration to reach complete perfection in God.

Here’s a quote from the Summa that’s related, first part, ques 5, art 4:
**“On the other hand, beauty relates to the cognitive faculty; for beautiful things are those which please when seen. Hence beauty consists in due proportion; for the senses delight in things duly proportioned, as in what is after their own kind–because even sense is a sort of reason, just as is every cognitive faculty”. **