Perfection

Today I was sitting at a desk working on the classification project, with thesauri, dictionaries, and encyclopedias spread out before me, drawing diagrams with a pencil and notepad and doing a lot of erasing. Vivian was shelving some books nearby, and at one point, having long since lost my ability to concentrate on the work at hand, I started watching her. Not overtly staring, mind you, just sort of surreptitiously, casually glancing every now and then while I pretended to look busy. I found myself captivated by the way she shelved the books, so... I don't know how else to put it... elegantly. Just like when she stamped the due date cards. Every motion seemed perfect. I don't mean in a mechanical way, but in a graceful way. It was almost like watching some kind of ballet. And--well, I know this is going to sound funny, since Vivian is probably 15 or 20 years older than me--she seemed, in that moment, strangely beautiful. I don't mean to say that I like her, not in that way anyway. I just mean that she appeared to me to possess the kind of beauty that a ballerina does. It's not so much sexual as it is aesthetic.

Anyway, this got me to thinking about culture and civilization, and how they are by definition a human addition to nature. In case you don't see the connection, I'll explain. Vivian's elegance, it occurred to me, isn't so much her "natural" way of moving as it is a cultivated sophistication, just as a ballerina's movements are. Like music, poetry, architecture, or for that matter any kind of technology, her movements are human constructions, "improvements" upon nature if you will. But aren't human beings themselves part of nature? If so, how can anything we do or make be un-natural? To distinguish the artificial from the natural seems to suggest that human beings can somehow transcend nature. And if we can transcend nature, isn't that an amazing thing? Perhaps it is human nature to transcend nature, if "nature" means that which is given to us, and to add something of our own creation.

I see that Mr. Phillips takes this approach to classification. He doesn't care so much about his system being a mirror of nature as he is interested in creating a great work of art... beautiful yet arbitrary. Well, there's nothing wrong with that, I suppose. But my approach has been to try to figure out nature itself... the way things are. I can assure you this is easier said than done. Science and philosophy attempt to do this, and they are famous for being intellectually challenging disciplines. Scientists at least have physical stuff to work with, things they can observe and verify. Philosophers deal in abstract ideas, logical relationships, metaphysical entities. Perhaps it is too much for me, or perhaps for anyone, to attempt to construct a library classification system by simultaneously constructing a philosophical system, rather than basing it on already existing philosophical principles.

At any rate, I don't see why Mr. Phillips thinks of his system as a work of art and yet strives for it to be "perfect". I don't know why I never noticed this apparent discrepancy before. How can one say that a work of art is perfect? Does he just mean in an aesthetic sense, as we would say that a certain song or painting is perfect, by which we would mean that it is flawless and perfectly executed? Up till now I have thought of a "perfect" classification system as one that perfectly expresses the structure of reality. By now I'm starting to become disillusioned with the possibility of attaining such a thing. I do believe that reality has a structure, but I've come to realize that it's a lot more complex and intricate than we can ever hope to understand. Is Mr. Phillips right? Should classificationists (if that's what we're called) consider what we do an art more than a science?