Archive

Tag Archives: facts

There was a time, many years ago, when I was an active birder and kept a life list. On one trip to the beach in South Carolina, I added 27 new species to my list. I was pretty chuffed about it. I don’t remember how many my list totaled by the time my interest shifted to something else, but it was in the hundreds. The checklist published in BirdLife magazine’s Handbook of Birds of the World catalogs 11,524 species of bird in the world, so my list is hardly detectible in the murmuration of life lists by serious bird watchers. 

I had done the same for wildflowers before that. Many of them, I even had learned the scientific name for, which drove my wife nuts to the point she teased me about calling them all, “Know-atia dudiflorum.” Naming and cataloguing have been among the main preoccupations of humankind at least since Adam.

Mine has been a lifetime of learning — trying to learn everything. A quixotic quest at best. 

In third grade, I learned — or seemed to learn — the names of all the popular dinosaurs. In fourth grade, I did all the whales. There seemed to be an endless supply of things to learn about. And that is the problem. 

There is too much of everything. No one can grasp it all. Not even all of a limited subgroup, or sub-subgroup. Pigeons of Southeast Asia or sharks of the South Atlantic. You can find books about most of such things. 

By most standard rankings, I am a reasonably well-read man. But I have looked up at the night sky in the desert wilderness, 50 miles from the nearest paved road, and seen millions of stars and the Milky Way, and thought, “That’s how many books I have not read.” 

It may once have been possible to read almost everything ever published. After getting his Masters degree from Cambridge University in 1635, poet John Milton took six years off, reputedly to read everything available in English, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Old English and Dutch. As impressive as that is, he did not read Chinese, Japanese, Sanskrit, Arabic, Aramaic, Turkish, or any other written Asian tongue. That is a lot left out of his erudition. 

Over the years, I have collected thousands of books, and know that, like the birds or beasts, there are so many more out there that I have not even known existed. The sum total of human publication I doubt anyone has ever fully tallied. It would not be possible, even for a single language. 

It is that way with almost anything. Too much. Even a post-doctoral scientist, who may know more than any other person about the subject at hand, will not have been able to read everything in that field. There is too much. Even the experts are mere dabblers, given the immensity of the task. 

Take movies. I have seen more than most people. I spent part of my career for my newspaper as a back-up and later, temporary film critic (until a new full-time critic could be hired after the previous one left). My experience is with film from all over the world, not just Hollywood. But it is estimated that American film studios have produced more than 25,000 movies since they were invented. In 1940 alone, 1,973 films are listed. And that is just the U.S. Overall, the count is nearer 500,000 films worldwide. In fact, more films are listed as lost than I have seen — by far. It is estimated that half the films made before 1950 have been lost. Early Hollywood never carefully archived what it produced. 

What about painting? Pablo Picasso produced more than 13,000 paintings over his 78 year life, to say nothing of the estimated 100,000 prints, 34,000 illustrations, 1,200 sculptures and thousands of ceramics. Admittedly, he was preposterously prolific, but he was just one artist. Consider all the paintings in all the galleries, museums, and private collections around the world. How many has any one person seen? What minuscule percentage? How can anyone claim to be an expert based on knowing such a small sample? 

I have been going to concerts since I was 16. I can’t count them. I have a huge collection of recordings — thousands of them — but I know that I cannot ever reach the end of classical music. Yes, there’s Mozart and Stravinsky, and all the familiar gang, but what about Joseph Martin Krauss (the “Swedish Mozart”), Mieczysław Karłowicz (who was killed in an avalanche), or Johann Georg Pisendel (friend of Vivaldi). To say nothing about all those Italian Baroque composers: Corelli, Tortelli, Tartini, Martini, Spumoni (well, maybe not that last one). Wikipedia lists 406 Italian Baroque composers. Not even Naxos has recorded music by more than a fraction of them. 

There are even more German Baroque composers, most with three names, beyond Johann Sebastian Bach. There were Johann Philipp Krieger, Johann Jeremias du Grain, Johan Gottfried Walther, Johann Heinrich Buttstett, Johan Paul von Westhoff, Johann Jacob Löwe, Johann Gottlieb Janitsch… And that’s not even leaving the “Johann” list.

Bach alone counted among his ancestors and descendants more than 50 musicians and composers (one list counts 77), beginning with Veit Bach, born about 1555. In parts of central Germany at the time, the name “Bach” was a synonym for “musician.” 

And all that is merely a subset of European composers. I am humbled. 

Even if we look at popular music, it’s the same thing. Irving Berlin, alone, wrote an estimated 1,250 songs (even he had no accurate count). Yes, everyone knows God Bless America, and probably Blue Skies and Alexander’s Ragtime Band, but what about Alexander and his Clarinet, The Blue Devils of France, or Everything in America is Ragtime? 

No one can count the number of songwriters who wrote for the publishers on Tin Pan Alley: Harold Arlen; Irving Berlin; George M. Cohan; George Gershwin; Dorothy Fields; Scott Joplin; Fats Waller. And uncounted more. The 19th century gave us Stephen Foster, Philip Bliss, Joseph Skelly, Eva Carter Buckner … There really is no need to list them all, even if I could. And these are just Americans. Songs were being written everywhere, and continue to be.

Shirley Gunter and the Queens

Try to tally up all the rock and pop bands, beginning in the 1950s and ’60s. For every Bill Haley and the Comets, there are a hundred Bill Black Combos and Shirley Gunter and the Queens (Oop Shoop). For every Beatles or Stones, there are a thousand Jive Fives and Dyke & The Blazers. A few pop up infrequently on Golden Oldie radio stations, but most are buried under the avalanche of whatever followed, only for those to be buried in their turn. 

There are more than 7,000 languages in the world, not counting languages long extinct. I’m proud of being able to manage the simple vocabulary of a French newspaper. Milton could read 10 languages. Pikers, all of us. There is so much more. 

How many types of apples are there? How many breeds of pig? There are 7,500 cultivars of apple in the world, 2,500 grown in the U.S. No one knows how many wild strains have not been catalogued. As for hogs, according to a study by Chinese universities, around 600 breeds of pig have been created by farmers around the world, mainly in Europe and Asia. 

The same could be asked of sheep, goats, kine, cats, dogs, and, I’m sure, even for fleas.

A million insect species have been formally described, but scientists estimate the true total is closer to 5.5 million. There are approximately 17,500 to 20,000 known species of butterflies worldwide. They are found on every continent except Antarctica, with roughly 750 species found in the United States and Canada. 

There are eight billion people in the world. How many of them do you know? That’s a million of them eight thousand times over. If they were a parade and it moved past you at one soul per second, it would take 250 years to reach the end, but by then, the first billions would have died of old age, and billions more born to join the queue — so you would never reach the end. 

This is all not to disparage expertise. We need people willing to learn as much as possible about as many things as possible. Ignorance is never a helpful contribution. But it is meant to foster a healthy humility about what we do know and what we even can know. Each of us is limited; the world is too vast, varied, and ever changing for any of us to claim much. There are as many recipes for cassoulet as there are families who prepare the dish.

I always remember what my wife told me. She was a primary school teacher and one day a third grader complained about how much they were expected to memorize. 

“My mama told me the human brain can only hold so much or it will explode,” he said. He was serious.

Mathematics. We all have our personal sums and divisions. I was once 20; I am now 70. The years have added up, and what is left is now a fraction. 

When I entered college in 1966, I was just over half the age of the professor who had the most influence on me. He is now 85 and have become exactly 14/17ths his age. I am catching up. The ratio has narrowed. 

(If we both live long enough, I calculate by my birthday in 2025, I will be older than him by seven months.) 

There was once a great difference in our ages and in our wisdom; now we are roughly equal. The piling of years does that; the gathering of experience. 

I have spent my life learning. It is the basic drive, like women for Don Giovanni, or gathering corporate acquisitions for Warren Buffett. But more math: Every time I increase what I know by 2 percent, I double what I don’t know. I learn arithmetically, I become ignorant exponentially. It is as if I am splashing in an inflatable wading pool on the beach next to the ocean.

When I was young, I was a complete idiot, and my ambition in life was to know everything. Seriously: everything. I suppose underneath the surface, I understood that was impossible. But you have to have some kind of aspiration. 

But back then, being an idiot, I still thought being intelligent meant knowing a lot of stuff. And I knew a lot of stuff. Piles of facts and factoids. I could explain the Defenestration of Prague in 1618: the shifting taxonomy of lions from Felis leo to Panthera leo to Leo leo; the use of the Neopolitan sixth chord as the subdominant in a minor key. And perhaps I showed off a bit too much. But now I understand that knowing stuff is mere accumulation. Nothing to take credit for: These things stuck in my mind because my brain is gummy. 

Besides, the more you learn, the more you discover that what you once took to be fact has either been superseded by later research, or been misunderstood, or turned out to be canard and cant. I.e., Cliff Clavinism. 

I have a pile of books and music scores that keep me going, and I add to that all the things of the real, the physical world, that I observe — the seasons changing on the trees, the birds chirping, the clouds ranging over the skies.

I am hungry to take it all in. 

But there is another delusion: that being intelligent somehow means being rapid of apprehension. Quick. Sharp. Fast on the uptake. While it is true that a fast comprehension comes with intelligence, it is, as they say, necessary but not sufficient. 

People who know they are smart tend to sort things very quickly into their silos, eager like tennis pros, to volley the next shot back. C’mon, you can bring’em faster than that! But sorting isn’t intelligence. Quickness of wit is fine; it is fun, it is exhilarating, but it doesn’t get us to the core of things. 

This is something I have come to understand over many years. Two people, more than any others, more than any book or class, taught me what to value in whatever mote of intelligence I possessed. 

The first was my wife. She was the most intelligent person I ever knew, although, on first hearing her, you might be confused over that issue. She could say the most surprising things: “Andrew Wyeth is more abstract than Jackson Pollock” or “You can fall into blue.” (We once argued over that last one for three full days and nights, before I capitulated. I always gave in. She was always right, although you had to think sideways or give up long-held unreflected prejudices. Wyeth is abstract in the sense that he abstracts a visual essence from the world and flattens it into an image made of blurts and squiggles, while a Pollock painting is no abstraction: It is palpably and solely a painting; it is what it is and nothing else. As for blue, I have been drowning in it since that fight.)

What she had was complete and utter openness to input. A failure to plop input into those silos. She didn’t so much think outside the box, but was unaware there was a box. I marveled at her insight, which she was basically oblivious to. It just was. 

It led me to my doctrine of volitional ignorance. That is, to approach any subject from the point of view of complete innocence. Forget what you think you know and just take in the new experience. 

The second person, and earlier lesson came from that professor, now frail and failing, who forced me to engage with the material. 

When I first got to college, I knew I was bright, and I responded to classes by doing what I had always done: giving the teacher what he or she wanted. I was good at that. But in my class of English Romantic Poetry, I handed in my first paper, saying exactly what I knew my professor wanted me to say and he gave me back my paper with a big, red “D” on it. (Technically, it was a D-plus). I was dumbfounded. There was nothing in the paper that didn’t repeat what he had said in his lectures. It couldn’t have been that far wrong.

But what he wanted from me was not what I thought he wanted. He wanted me to engage with the material. To know something, not to know about something. There is a difference, not just in magnitude, but in kind between knowing about and knowing. 

That is where engagement comes in. Paying attention. Not sorting to be done with, but holding something between your thumb and fingers, twirling it around, seeing it from all sides, squeezing it to see how hard it is, cutting it open to see what’s inside. 

You must start from the simplest things. Looking at a painting, do not decide what the subject is or means, but first look. Long and hard. Describe everything you see, however slight. Don’t forget the corners, what is hidden in the shadows, describe the exact color of the blank parts of the background, what the fingers of the subjects left hand is doing. Get all the bits in first. Take time. I once spent seven hours in front of a single painting. It takes time and commitment. It takes engagement.

Only when you have spent all the time you need should you then essay to understand what the art might be about. Ingest it first, digest it second. 

Fifty years ago, my professor forced me to engage with the material. I wasn’t there to learn facts about Shelley, but to engage with the work and see what it might teach me. I have been attempting that ever since. It is a hard practice to keep up: so much easier to categorize and dispense and move on to the next. More efficient. Gets things done. 

But if you really want to partake in this life, be embedded in the world into which you have been dropped, it is essential to pay attention, to know in your bones how little you truly understand.  

 For the world is infinitely complex and can obey no schema you toss over it. Engage with it on any level and extract whatever you can. Savor it.