John Grays once said that “people need to believe

that order can be glimpsed in the chaos of events.”

Through emotion, senses, language, and reason people
will consciously or subconsciously try to organize the
world into terms which their cultural background allows
them to comprehend, allowing them to understand the
chaos without eliminating it. This is a really long sentence
that states two different ideas so it would probably be
better to separated into two. Maybe “People can
consciously or subconsciously try to organize, rather than
eliminate, their knowledge into terms which their cultural
background allows. Through the use of emotion, senses,
language, and reason, people can understand chaos.”
This can be seen through I’ve never particularly liked this
transition. Try “An exemplification of these happenings
are made understood in the” examination of two areas of
knowledge, the natural sciences and the arts.

It is during the creation of art, not replace with

“rather than” the viewing of art, that an attempt replace
with “which attempts” to organize chaos is first
attempted. Art can be defined as something that is
manipulated by humans in an attempt to express an
emotion. I feel like you could put another thought in here
to explain. Artists usually will create a piece of art based
upon something they have experienced. When this
happens, they try to organize what they have perceived,
and felt into terms which have one of two aims Felt into
terms? Ya idk about that, how about “and categorize
them into components with one of two purposes”.

From here I’m rearranging some stuff. The first

purpose that an artist will either use the art as a way is to
personally understand the events around them, or to
attempt to make others understand the events.
Sometimes artists will use their art to make sense of
something that is mentally or physically happening to
them. Expressing themselves in some form of art allows
them to distance themselves from the events and gain
some perspective. We studied a painting in Spanish class
which better explains this. It was a painting by Salvador
Dali depicting melting clocks, entitled “La persistencia de
la memoria.” The artist used his dreams as inspiration for
this work as well as many of his others. In this scenario
Dali took the chaotic world of his dreams and tried to
create a painting that would show his dreams in terms
which he could understand.
 While the painting by Dali is his attempt to organize
chaos, some might say that “La persistencia de la
memoria” does not organize chaos because it appears
chaotic to the viewer. While it is true that the painting
does appear chaotic at first glance, after understanding
the history of the painting, the viewer can place the
painting in context and begin to make sense of it. How
each person will interpret the painting depends on that
individual person. The painting, or other work of art, will
stir some sort of emotion in each viewer. The more
appeal the painting holds for each person the more
organized the seeming chaos of the painting will be. The
language and culture of the person will also change the
way in which the viewer will organize the painting in their
mind, as organizing the painting into terms the can
understand will be limited or an enhanced by the
differences or similarities of the viewer’s culture with the
culture of the painter. Good thought but give a tiny
example, it’s probably not good to conclude something in
TOK essay without basis. Even if a person leaves the
painting still considering it chaotic, they will have
attempted to understand it and will leave with the belief
that someone can understand it. Also Replace with
“Furthermore”, when an artist creates a work of art with
the intention to organize his own chaotic feelings, he
does not necessarily expect others to be able to
understand.

Artists will also attempt to organize chaos in an attempt

to convey a message to the viewer, basically to attempt
to make others understand the events moved it here
from the first paragraph. It is the hope in this situation
that what they are trying to convey can be simplified into
terms such that others can understand. Sometimes this
will mean speaking in poetic terms, rather than in
realistic terms Peoetic? Try imaginative. This attempts to
force the viewer to accept or reject a situation in an
emotional fashion rather than in a rational fashion. In
Spanish we also read Poema 20 by Pablo Neruda. Upon
first reading it I thought that the poem was speaking
about a lost love, in reference to a woman. As my teacher
explained to the class the history of Pablo Neruda I came
to the understanding that the poem is talking about the
destruction of his homeland. In this case the artist was
describing his heartbroken emotion in a format which can
impart to the viewer the full impact of his emotion,
instead of just stating the fact. In this way, Neruda hopes
to elicit an emotional response in the reader which will
hopefully provoke a response to help his side of the fight.
In this case language inhibited my ability to fully
understand the emotion Neruda was conveying. It
seemed slightly chaotic to me at first because I was
reading it in an unfamiliar language. Upon reading it both
in my natural tongue, English, and in the language it was
written, Spanish, I was able to combine the feelings of
both readings and gain what I felt was an understanding
of the work.

In photography the whole point is to try to capture all

the chaos of one moment in a single image. This can be
extremely difficult to do and often times Why is this
here?? Lol.

A rationalization of the world in generaldoesn’t sound

good. Try the world “as a whole” has also been
undertaken. Everydayspace in between every day!,
scientists attempt to organize the chaos of the world in
terms by which they can understand. The entire point of
natural science is to explain the world uhmm maybe
instead to simplify the world or to make the world more
understandable. The scientific theory of “niches” explains
this. In biology last year I learned that an ecosystem is
not just a random configuration of plants and animals.
Instead, each animal and plant has its own niche, or place
where it fits within the ecosystem. This is only one
example of science’s attempt to organize everything. For
it seems logical that this sounds too conversational
everything would have its place within the ecosystem,
but some scientist had a need to explain it in detail.
Actually I don’t like this sentence at all. You should stop it
at niches. Science also has a complex system of
classification in which all known animal and plant species
are classified.

Science is also extremely persistent in its attempt to

create order. A scientific idea can only be accepted as
viable if it has the ability to be proved wrong. If and when
something is proved wrong, scientists simply regroup in
another attempt to explain the world. This never ends. If
it did scientific study would also be at an end. Thought it
might seem obvious, explain why this example is
important to proving your thesis because I wasn’t entirely
sure.
 As a knower, everyone who takes a scientific study
as correct,no comma is doing so because they have a
need to believe that the world they are living in makes
sense. They attempt to verify the scientific ideas by
comparing them to previously held ideas and use reason
to test the validity of these ideas; in the end they believe
that the theories are true. Many people tend to equate
knowledge and understanding of the world as
enlightening not the right word. Desirable?. The idea of
living in the past scares many people. This fear is partly
inspired by the cruel and foolhardy acts that people
committed in the past because of a lack of understanding
of the way the world works. However, the idea of living in
the past also scares people because of how much less
they would know about the world. There would be more
unanswered questions and more chaos, leaving the
person feeling less in control of the situation. And this is
what truly scares them. WOAHH where did this past thing
come from? It’s not that I don’t think it’s good but I don’t
think it should fit into your essay, it just throws off the
flow for me.

It can be argued that science does not attempt to

organize the chaos of the world, merely to describe it.
While science cannot physically reorganize the world into
a way which people will better understand, merely
describing the world allows for organization. Because of
the descriptions of the world science provides, each
person is able to take that information and organize it
into terms which they can understand, allowing them to
better understand the chaos of the world. Through this
organization understanding of the apparent chaos is
reached. You didn’t really disprove the counterargument.
Rather, your counterargument was made into a stronger
argument for your side-soooo idk if this counts.

So, while humans are incapable of eliminating the

chaos which replace with “that” intertwines with all of
life, they are constantly reorganizing it so that they can
replace with “in order to” understand the chaos, thereby
lessening it not lessening it, it’s chaos is still there, it’s
just easier to understand. Idk how you want to word it,
but change it. Each organization is different and
independent from others, depending on the personal
history of each personYou didn’t really talk about this
(individuality) in your essay so don’t include it in the
conclusion. This need to understand the chaos is one that
will continue in the ages to come.
Hope it helps! :D