Ruminations on "Dialectic of Enlightenment"

Read the beginning of "Dialectic of Enlightenment" and had a few thoughts. Haven't gone long-form in a bit so excuse my indulgence, not without vanity. I resist constantly an urge to simplify, monadify, I'm a Cancer like Leibniz and shouldn't there be an universal schematic? Again it's vanity and I can't remember when my thought wasn't fractious, amorphous, lacking in linear narrative. I sat and read the Adorno and Horkheimer and had the sense of the schema dissolving. There's the recurring analogue I've touched on before; the "total-field", Ganzfeld I've imagined (imaged) the Infinite. I had a thought of the good art dismantling schematics, being the Miró of the mind, truly destructive. But the apophatics, the negation, whatever they'll posit opposed to positivism becomes illuminating.

I see the systems, the "ways," the "scare quotes," the curious "stream-of-consciousness" I'm continually accused of (ha!). The systems are sets erected, "erector sets" to use a juvenile metaphor. I've imagined them as maps, sections of roadways, literal "ways", paths, Tao(s). It's a construct, imaginative, a self-realized blueprint or means of orientation. I've built my own system and felt the vainglory, been consumed by my concoctions, a victim of fantastical conceptions. I try and laugh with Borges outside myself (ecstatic), observe the "philosophical wreck[s]" with a Duchampian disaffection. Yet I slip inevitably into the trap of my own system! I, me, my own system! Ha! When my system disintegrates I feel the infinity of my being; the prior map is discarded, the exterior (the image) molts and the dynamic, cyclic reality of saṃsāra prevails. The great difficulty of the systems are the finity and NO SYSTEM ESCAPES A FINISH.

I had a few thoughts about "unit," proportion and "standard" as well. There's a curious relation between "unit" and "unity", there was the insistence on proportion and the "movability" of the module in de Lubicz. I've encountered the same in my polemics against fixed-do and alphabetic musical notations. The proportion, the relation, the allegory, analogue and association are of import, not the "quantity." A listing of the frequencies of Chopin's Études gives me no sense of its musicality and only sends me reeling for another map. The relation to the standard is of no import, the relations of the composite parts ought to have supremacy. "Dialectic" begins with "The Concept of Enlightenment" following a preface deprecating the increased ad-ministration of society. I think of ad-mixtures, ad-juncts, ad-monitions and the choice of word. I imagine (image) the superimposition of the system, the adding of superfluous layer, the seemingly endless labyrinth of bureaucracy perpetuating... They've chosen "concept" as a bit of the title not without purpose. I'm brought continually to meditations on the first lines of the Tao, bits about "name" and note Adorno and Horkheimer's usage of "nominalism" and my own flagrant misuse of terminology I do not understand. I note again my meandering of thought.

I can't assume the enthusiasm they embody in launching their "new school," the conviction in the utility of their ideas even while they deprecate Platonic utility. I note the bloated, juvenile enthusiasm of an art manifesto; the storm and stress Pound claims is of vital poesy but Schopenhauer terms a mimesis of text. I admire the vitality of it, the innocence, the idealism and its purposive activity. But I find it no less fantastic than a plain fiction. Again a manufactured system; an all-too-human technology imbued with our own inherent (and private) ability to err. Yet a system of nonsystems is itself a system. An apophatic theology remains a theology. A negative "definition" of God remains a definition (finition). The systems and maps suffer finity yet continue their quest to encompass the infinite. These seers, vatic seculars are all-too-quick to forget their principles, their maxims and aphorisms. In service of their selves they build their systems, intoxicated by an ornamentation of themselves. I can't seem to avoid the moralizing of my younger long-form work, the melodrama and supposed grandeur of its conclusions. I know nothing; I know nothing; I must remember! All these words finish the nothing of my self, obscure my base continuity, the personal irrationality of being, etc.

Unreality

So I saw 'Inception'. And I thought it was lovely, much like everyone else. Lets see if I have anything valuable to say about it, though the web is filled with too much about it already.

Many of the themes Nolan explores in 'Inception' are not new. In fact, I could argue that none are new (but I am prone to arguing that no themes can claim true novelty). For the past decade many films have themes concerning the nature of our reality (or un-reality). Immediately we find precedent for 'Inception' with Scorsese's 'Shutter Island' from earlier this year. And not so surprisingly we encounter again Leonardo DiCaprio in a role where the sanity of his character comes into question.

Nolan is no stranger to these thematic explorations. 'Memento' explored many of the same issues. Increasingly directors have begun to toy with narrative in their movies. This is not a new thing, but the last decade or so has shown that mainstream audiences are increasingly compelled by meta-narratives. Films like 'The Matrix' involve the viewer in different levels of seeming-reality, a sort of puzzle you're encouraged to contemplate, an alternate labyrinthine reality to systematize.

Nolan creates this involving meta-world very successfully. To get us all contemplating is enough proof of value. It's almost as if what was so compelling 70 years ago in a Borges' short story is finally making its way to the mainstream, albeit with a little more flash-bang and ooh-aah. But then again I'm overstating its importance, many movies of the past decade have explored themes of memory and consciousness, reality and unreality, the mind's participation in its reality and the way these things relate to narrative. Gondry has done so delightfully.

And a final note on Nolan's deft and tidy use of ambiguity. He stresses a dream's unreality in contrast to a conscious reality, but allows this analogue to slyly stretch further. By the end of our ride we are unsure whether what we've considered our reality is truly real. What are the bearings by which we prove our reality? How can we ever be sure the things we believe we experience are not illusory? As soon as he has us really contemplating these things, he leaves us hanging.

So overall, I think 'Inception' is a lovely tool for contemplation. In the end I find it useful, and this I value highly in art. Nolan has us discussing and contemplating many questions that have perplexed humanity since time immemorial, and will undoubtedly continue to perplex us. By weaving some modern action, suspense and firepower with questions about dreams and their 'unreality', he has made us all take a step back and think. What more could we ask of an artist?

It begins ...

So here it is; I've done it finally. Yet another one of those lousy Millennial bloggers joining this maelstrom of gooberness. But to continue: it's been around 10 years since I first began pacing uncomfortably around the room trying to put some thoughts together for an entry, and here I may finally do so with proper capitalization and punctuation. And I'll even try to avoid parenthesis (yea right ...) But I may finally have found a focus for a proper blog; let me explain:

Always I've been a kid (now a man?) concerned with the vagueness that is 'Art'. There is the collection of old crayon and otherwise drawings I did as a child that my mother still has; there is my curious seven-year-old aerial imagining of my elementary school used for its yearbook cover; there are my numerous memories of building brackets and tournaments with my brother for paper-airplanes and matchbox cars among other things (art?); but it wasn't until my years at UNO that what may be becoming my 'mature' outlook began to materialize.

One course determined this focus. 'The Philosophy of Art'. What a curiously vague thing! At the time I truly had no idea what even 'philosophy' was, but I sure had some ideas about Art. Or so I thought! I quickly dove straight into what has become the crux of most of meditations over the past five years, the perennial questions of aesthetics: What is Beauty? What is Good? How are works of art judged and evaluated? What is this supposed objective standard that allows us to call one thing 'better' than another with any credibility?

These are the questions I intend to explore through this blog. I'll approach various topics: how popularity and sales comment on a work's value, questions of hype and backlash, what truly makes art memorable, beautiful or useful. I plan on posting my opinions regarding pop music, movies, whatever it is I've been reading, or generally just whatever I'm seriously contemplating at the time (which if you know me you're aware changes frequently). We'll see how this experiment goes; though I can't really say I'm new to the blogosphere, I may be able to say that it's new for me to approach it with some professionalism (how much of a joke is that?). Hopefully I'll be able to voice some interesting opinions on some interesting topics. Alas, it begins!