“There's no financial aspect to stats.”

Mitry, Jean; King, Christopher. The Aesthetics and Psychology of the Cinema (1999). Indiana University Press. [ISBN 0-253-21377-0], p. 176.

Source: The Strength To Dream (1961), p. 214
Context: Art is naturally concerned with man in his existential aspect, not in his scientific aspect. For the scientist, questions about man's stature and significance, suffering and power, are not really scientific questions; consequently he is inclined to regard art as an inferior recreation. Unfortunately, the artist has come to accept the scientist's view of himself. The result, I contend, is that art in the twentieth century — literary art in particular — has ceased to take itself seriously as the primary instrument of existential philosophy. It has ceased to regard itself as an instrument for probing questions of human significance. Art is the science of human destiny. Science is the attempt to discern the order that underlies the chaos of nature; art is the attempt to discern the order that underlies the chaos of man. At its best, it evokes unifying emotions; it makes the reader see the world momentarily as a unity.

On Contradiction (1937)

44 : God Alone Is, p. 72.
The Everything and the Nothing (1963)
Context: Infinite consciousness is infinite. It can never lessen at any point in time or space. Infinite consciousness being infinite includes every aspect of consciousness. Unconsciousness is one of the aspects of infiniteconsciousness. Thus infinite consciousness includes unconsciousness. It sustains, covers, pierces through and provides an end to unconsciousness — which flows from, and is consumed by, infinite consciousness.

The close of his Nobel lecture: &quot;The Statistical Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics&quot; (11 December 1954) http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1954/born-lecture.html <br class="br">Context: Can we call something with which the concepts of position and motion cannot be associated in the usual way, a thing, or a particle? And if not, what is the reality which our theory has been invented to describe?<br>The answer to this is no longer physics, but philosophy. … Here I will only say that I am emphatically in favour of the retention of the particle idea. Naturally, it is necessary to redefine what is meant. For this, well-developed concepts are available which appear in mathematics under the name of invariants in transformations. Every object that we perceive appears in innumerable aspects. The concept of the object is the invariant of all these aspects. From this point of view, the present universally used system of concepts in which particles and waves appear simultaneously, can be completely justified. The latest research on nuclei and elementary particles has led us, however, to limits beyond which this system of concepts itself does not appear to suffice. The lesson to be learned from what I have told of the origin of quantum mechanics is that probable refinements of mathematical methods will not suffice to produce a satisfactory theory, but that somewhere in our doctrine is hidden a concept, unjustified by experience, which we must eliminate to open up the road.

Source: 1960s, "The Use and Misuse of Game Theory," 1962, p. 110

Second Week, Fourth Day, Book i. Compare: "That sweet aspect of princes, and their ruin", William Shakespeare, King Henry VIII, Act iii, Scene 2; "With grave Aspect he rose", John Milton, Paradise Lost, Book ii, line 300.
La Seconde Semaine (1584)

On Contradiction (1937)