I've been reading an essay entitled Petrarch, Dante, Cavalcanti
by Baranski. It talks about the complex relationship between Petrarch
and Dante, some of the ways this relationship has been interpreted by
other literary historians, and new ways to approach Petrarch's
appreciation of Dante. I'm wondering a lot lately about the general
questions of my thought over the past about five years: what is
modernity? from whence did modernity come? what does modernity
represent? what are the concrete manifestations of modernity? etc. This
essay sets up a dialogue in my mind that seats Dante in a classical
sense, and Petrarch in a modern sense, but it seems this is the opposite
of reality...
Baranski discusses Petrarch's criticism of Dante's Comedy. Petrarch's criticism comes from a few different angles: he examines the Comedy
and finds that Dante claims he is the sixth of a line of classical
poets. His authority rests within the poem that he writes, where he
claims greatness by associating himself with those personages. It's
almost as if he proclaims himself a prophet by imaging this journey into
the divinity, and by telling the story of his dream he is magically
granted authority. Petrarch examines and critiques this authority in
several different works, and even put together a letter to a fan of
Dante that hides subtle, yet powerful criticisms.
I'm
wondering if there is a crossroads here. Petrarch criticizes Dante for
his appeal to the common through the vernacular, and argues that his
work fails to meet classical standards because of this ambition.
Petrarch also argues that Dante's near-claim to divinity is impious and
debases his art. Petrarch positions himself as a poet that presents
something different, which includes more honesty about his non-divinity,
or more acknowledgement of personal failure. It seems Petrarch sets the
stage for modern poetry when he criticizes the Comedy for its claims to divine authority. The precedence that Petrarch sets in the Canzoniere is that of personal lyric poetry that doesn't make claims to high authority.
I'm
puzzling through a few different ideas here. Sometimes I want to think
of Petrarch as the progenitor of the modern, but then I find language
where he condemns it. Part of his criticism of Dante is that he's merely
writing the Comedy for vainglorious reasons: he wants the fame
of the now, so he crafts a story that is in the common tongue and speaks
to the common aesthetic. Petrarch argues that this betrays flaws in
Dante's ethic, or that it's a symptom of an imperfect virtue. Petrarch
believes that Dante crafted the Comedy with the intent of
establishing his own authority and equating it with those of the epic
poets of antiquity. Petrarch would rather seat himself in real, living
virtue, instead of dead on a pedestal amongst giants.
I've
gotta do more of an examination of Petrarch's Christianity, and his
ideas about poetic craft and history. There are a few epics he wrote,
and many of the sonnets and other poems in the Canzoniere I've
still yet to read. To me it seems he sits at the crux of the classical
and the modern, of the sacred and the secular. He seems to be the key to
what separates our modern conceptions of creation from those
mythologies of antiquity. All of this seems reductionist, but I needed
to write it out for my own understanding. Maybe the words work
themselves out, the libraries research themselves, the enjoyer enjoys
the enjoying.
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Reflection iv
The Philosophy of History is starting to feel a lot like a history textbook. I'm catching vibes of Cleveland's A History of the Modern Middle East, or something like Will Durant. I'm curious about his books of world history, I read his Story of Philosophy a while back. It's like there is this unfolding tapestry, or a broad vault of heaven that is this quilt, and everything fits into this scaffold deliberately but confusedly. Is that the beef between Kierkegaard and Hegel? Or the beef these professors say Kierkegaard had with those who attempt to fashion an all-encompassing system? I'm reminded of the Borges poem on Spinoza:
"Someone is building God..." Is that what everyone is doing? Is He personal and free? It seems like Hegel has an idea of man progressing to some ideal of liberty. I guess this is thoroughly situated in the modern ethos, predecessor of Kant, inheritor of the great Renaissance tradition. I have no idea what I'm talking about. It's funny some of the ways he talks about Persian tradition, Zoroaster and the concomitant deities. I wonder now if Nietzsche first became familiar with Zoroaster in this way...
Hegel says that Ormuzd in Persian tradition is "the Word thus personified." I keep thinking of Manichaeism from Augustine, or the origins of Christianity. There seems to be this struggle between positive conceptions and negative conceptions, something that comes up in 1 Peter 3. What are the consequences of devoting one's self to a conception of the supreme as Nothingness, or essentially impersonal and negative? What are the consequences of devoting one's self to a conception of the supreme was Everythingness, or essentially personal and positive?
Who else is out there creating systems and destroying them? Who else's prose is full of questions? What is more magisterial than the opening of the Confessions: a litany of questions for the deity? I can't find the scripture right now, but there's something in the paraphrase about being cognizant of one's failures or imperfections. I think there is a robust ethic in the "fall of man" story, or believing that we all sin. I think can it be overwhelming positive in its fruits, though at first it may seem overwhelmingly negative. I think it involves honesty and sincerity to be upfront about imperfection, and that there is great power in confession. That's my major take-away from Christianity thus far. Remember friends, there is no argument for God.
Baruch Spinoza
by Jorge Luis Borges
A haze of gold, the Occident lights up
The window. Now, the assiduous manuscript
Is waiting, weighed down with the infinite.
Someone is building God in a dark cup.
A man engenders God. He is a Jew.
With saddened eyes and lemon-colored skin;
Time carries him the way a leaf, dropped in
A river, is borne off by waters to
Its end. No matter. The magician moved
Carves out his God with fine geometry;
From his disease, from nothing, he's begun
To construct God, using the word. No one
Is granted such prodigious love as he:
The love that has no hope of being loved.
"Someone is building God..." Is that what everyone is doing? Is He personal and free? It seems like Hegel has an idea of man progressing to some ideal of liberty. I guess this is thoroughly situated in the modern ethos, predecessor of Kant, inheritor of the great Renaissance tradition. I have no idea what I'm talking about. It's funny some of the ways he talks about Persian tradition, Zoroaster and the concomitant deities. I wonder now if Nietzsche first became familiar with Zoroaster in this way...
Hegel says that Ormuzd in Persian tradition is "the Word thus personified." I keep thinking of Manichaeism from Augustine, or the origins of Christianity. There seems to be this struggle between positive conceptions and negative conceptions, something that comes up in 1 Peter 3. What are the consequences of devoting one's self to a conception of the supreme as Nothingness, or essentially impersonal and negative? What are the consequences of devoting one's self to a conception of the supreme was Everythingness, or essentially personal and positive?
Who else is out there creating systems and destroying them? Who else's prose is full of questions? What is more magisterial than the opening of the Confessions: a litany of questions for the deity? I can't find the scripture right now, but there's something in the paraphrase about being cognizant of one's failures or imperfections. I think there is a robust ethic in the "fall of man" story, or believing that we all sin. I think can it be overwhelming positive in its fruits, though at first it may seem overwhelmingly negative. I think it involves honesty and sincerity to be upfront about imperfection, and that there is great power in confession. That's my major take-away from Christianity thus far. Remember friends, there is no argument for God.
Monday, December 30, 2013
Reflection iii
More Hegel: "A State is a realization of Spirit, such that in it the self-conscious being of Spirit--the freedom of the Will--is realized as Law." Sounds like a bunch of nonsense! I think I watched a lecture on Aristotle the other day that talked about regime in these terms. Like the totality of culture, what's suggested by the language and reinforced by the institutions it authorizes. Like--I suppose in terms of Bhartihari--what the vernacular realizes. Sometimes I wonder why we still wander around saying, "Jesus!"
I suppose if I zoom too far out then everything gets a bland, objective character. Is the objective bland? I'm still wondering what freedom means. I did a little bit of research into Kierkegaard and find that he was a sharp critic of Hegel. The commentaries that I listened to and read talked about Kierkegaard's criticism in terms of a distaste for an all-encompassing system that removes mystery. Maybe I'm misinterpreting this. It seems Hegel is building a super-structure in which to fit all peoples, customs, cultures and histories. The whole gist of the thing seems patronizing in a sense that other cultures are "progressing" toward what he--I presume--appraises as a superior mode.
I want to hear what Kierkegaard has to say about the person of Jesus. There were several questions in my cursory examination of Hegel that came up about the spirituality of his theories. Just running around with the word "Spirit" has its own consequences. I guess we could translate it as Ghost. But what does freedom mean? It seems that Hegel is setting himself up--in Philosophy of History--to make an argument for a sort of middle path. Something that isn't a totally moralistic State, or a monotonous state, and something that isn't completely diverse. Something that aspires toward, or is inspired by, an ideally abstracted divine, but operates in the real with some authority. This is where I feel Jesus fits in.
I'm interested to see what he has to say about Buddhism as I trudge along. I think I've been led back into Christianity because I've had complex ethical questions. Reading a transliteration or a translation of Buddhist "ethics" or Hindu "spirituality" didn't do much to answer my questions about how to behave in the world, what is "right" or "true." I wonder if part of that is me not being able to participate in those narratives because I'm not in the language, in the culture, in the regime, in the flux of the national spectacle, in the tremor of the received religion...
I think for me Jesus is attractive as a mediator between those dual positions: the personal relationship between an essentially mysterious God and the real love, compassion, etc. that is our responsibility in the world. John 14:1-6:
I suppose if I zoom too far out then everything gets a bland, objective character. Is the objective bland? I'm still wondering what freedom means. I did a little bit of research into Kierkegaard and find that he was a sharp critic of Hegel. The commentaries that I listened to and read talked about Kierkegaard's criticism in terms of a distaste for an all-encompassing system that removes mystery. Maybe I'm misinterpreting this. It seems Hegel is building a super-structure in which to fit all peoples, customs, cultures and histories. The whole gist of the thing seems patronizing in a sense that other cultures are "progressing" toward what he--I presume--appraises as a superior mode.
I want to hear what Kierkegaard has to say about the person of Jesus. There were several questions in my cursory examination of Hegel that came up about the spirituality of his theories. Just running around with the word "Spirit" has its own consequences. I guess we could translate it as Ghost. But what does freedom mean? It seems that Hegel is setting himself up--in Philosophy of History--to make an argument for a sort of middle path. Something that isn't a totally moralistic State, or a monotonous state, and something that isn't completely diverse. Something that aspires toward, or is inspired by, an ideally abstracted divine, but operates in the real with some authority. This is where I feel Jesus fits in.
I'm interested to see what he has to say about Buddhism as I trudge along. I think I've been led back into Christianity because I've had complex ethical questions. Reading a transliteration or a translation of Buddhist "ethics" or Hindu "spirituality" didn't do much to answer my questions about how to behave in the world, what is "right" or "true." I wonder if part of that is me not being able to participate in those narratives because I'm not in the language, in the culture, in the regime, in the flux of the national spectacle, in the tremor of the received religion...
I think for me Jesus is attractive as a mediator between those dual positions: the personal relationship between an essentially mysterious God and the real love, compassion, etc. that is our responsibility in the world. John 14:1-6:
“Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God[a]; believe also in me. 2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going."
5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”
6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know[b] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Reflection ii
Hegel says, "True faith is possible only where individuals can seclude themselves--can exist for themselves independently of any external compulsory power." He keeps mentioning a little bit of the "nonage" I'm familiar with through Kant. When I watched a few lectures on Hegel and Marx they mentioned that some argue the genesis of Critical Theory is Kant, not Hegel. Not really that it matters, but I guess you can draft a more authorized syllabus with that information.
Words to examine: true, faith, individuals, seclude, exist, independent, external, compulsory, power. I've only been trudging through the first sections of Hegel's Philosophy of History, those concerning China and India. He says interesting things about patrimony, the analog between familial relationships and governments, and Supreme Power, or substantial being. Basically a bunch of semi-mystical hoo-ha but it's sometimes refreshing.
For example: when speaking of Chinese religion he says it's a religion which "regards as the Highest and Absolute--as God--pure nothing; which sets up contempt for individuality, for personal existence, as the highest perfection." I watched a few lectures by R.C. Sproul on the character of secularism where he explicated a few existential notions, and it all seems now to be about how we conceive of Time. I need to find a biography of Einstein, or some comment on the conversations between Tagore and Einstein maybe a century ago. I think there may be keys there on how to navigate the tipping point between science and spirituality, or even the subjective with the objective. Seems the philosophical speculation is so far removed from action in the world, though.
Do I have a "contempt for individuality" though? I'll run around the social media brandishing my "woe is modernity; woe is individualism; woe is relativism" jargon and propaganda, but to what purpose? But I think it will be useful to think of Modernity not as something antithetical to Religiosity, but as an outgrowth of it. Kind of like a spiritualization of the individual. I think this is why I have been drawn to Hegel through my study of Christianity. There is a certain sense of individuality in the person of Christ that gives me the intuition that it leads to broad ideologies that embrace the secular, relativism, or just subjectivity. Hegel seems to trace history as a "progress" from the objective to the subjective. What I may need to examine next is notions of "freedom." I think there is a "democratic" idea of freedom, and a different kind of freedom that takes into account notions of ethics or duty.
I'll dig into the remainder of the India sections in Hegel tomorrow, but he starts it off saying that in "China the patriarchal principle rules a people in a condition of nonage." I guess my personal politics has to struggle with conceptions of development, when, where and whether or not there is any appropriate "time" for a maturity opposed to "nonage," etc. What happens in a world of pure, true relativistic and subjective freedom, free of patronage and patriarchal principles? What is the consequence of a prevailing ideology that embodies this idea? Did Kant win through Hegel? Isn't this just a new hegemony that pretends it isn't a hegemony? What did Luther say about Christians? “A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject of all, subject to all.”
Words to examine: true, faith, individuals, seclude, exist, independent, external, compulsory, power. I've only been trudging through the first sections of Hegel's Philosophy of History, those concerning China and India. He says interesting things about patrimony, the analog between familial relationships and governments, and Supreme Power, or substantial being. Basically a bunch of semi-mystical hoo-ha but it's sometimes refreshing.
For example: when speaking of Chinese religion he says it's a religion which "regards as the Highest and Absolute--as God--pure nothing; which sets up contempt for individuality, for personal existence, as the highest perfection." I watched a few lectures by R.C. Sproul on the character of secularism where he explicated a few existential notions, and it all seems now to be about how we conceive of Time. I need to find a biography of Einstein, or some comment on the conversations between Tagore and Einstein maybe a century ago. I think there may be keys there on how to navigate the tipping point between science and spirituality, or even the subjective with the objective. Seems the philosophical speculation is so far removed from action in the world, though.
Do I have a "contempt for individuality" though? I'll run around the social media brandishing my "woe is modernity; woe is individualism; woe is relativism" jargon and propaganda, but to what purpose? But I think it will be useful to think of Modernity not as something antithetical to Religiosity, but as an outgrowth of it. Kind of like a spiritualization of the individual. I think this is why I have been drawn to Hegel through my study of Christianity. There is a certain sense of individuality in the person of Christ that gives me the intuition that it leads to broad ideologies that embrace the secular, relativism, or just subjectivity. Hegel seems to trace history as a "progress" from the objective to the subjective. What I may need to examine next is notions of "freedom." I think there is a "democratic" idea of freedom, and a different kind of freedom that takes into account notions of ethics or duty.
I'll dig into the remainder of the India sections in Hegel tomorrow, but he starts it off saying that in "China the patriarchal principle rules a people in a condition of nonage." I guess my personal politics has to struggle with conceptions of development, when, where and whether or not there is any appropriate "time" for a maturity opposed to "nonage," etc. What happens in a world of pure, true relativistic and subjective freedom, free of patronage and patriarchal principles? What is the consequence of a prevailing ideology that embodies this idea? Did Kant win through Hegel? Isn't this just a new hegemony that pretends it isn't a hegemony? What did Luther say about Christians? “A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject of all, subject to all.”
Monday, December 23, 2013
Reflection i
I feel clear and unclear; visited and unvisited; vacant and full; etc. I'm going to push myself through a lousy discipline and appreciate. I'm no different now that I've always been, yet I'm infinitely changed. I can remember writing without thought as a child, then thinking without writing, reversing the whole thing and wondering about a synthetic other-ness beyond it. Sometimes I feel like I'm lost while I'm found, like I'm in the middle of a terrible yet terrific paradox. I'll push through these reflections throughout 2014 with vainglorious intent. But I'll put without an expectation, or with the expectation to have no expectation, or with the feeling of no feeling, or with the paradoxical essence of no-essence coursing through my non-body...
I'm meditating on a bit of Tagore: "In order to find you anew, I lose you every moment/ O beloved treasure." Treasure isn't so bad. I'm in the middle of ambiguous conversations about the challenges of the everyday, how they give us the tolls to deal with the challenges of tomorrow, how the present is an unfolding nonsense that is never extinguished. I'm grateful for the difficult things, and I know with my whole heart and my whole disjointed faith that tomorrow will bring something immeasurably more terrible and traumatic. But what do I have within my will and power to push on? What steam and verve and vigor resides inside me that I can draw upon like a fount to push myself into the future? Is this pushing and this will--this will to believe--a vainglorious mission? Why do I have a question for myself?
I'm devising a four-pronged plan to push into 2014. There are four courses of study, probably to be supplemented with a physical aspect. I'm going to revisit my snuffed mantra of last year: discipline. I can understand why my cohorts at that meeting-of-minds weren't enthused about that word. But I'm going to need to push on as a duty to myself and my god, wherever she resides, in whatever guise or face she chooses to present herself, through whatever mysterious veil I imagine for her. The four-sided time I'll push through consists of: reading, writing, music and painting. Every day gets a deliverable. Every day gets a reflection (these are the preamble); every day gets a series of poems and writings; every day gets a meditation on an old song; every day gets a construction of an image--a representation in two-dimensional color.
I'm going to pray and hope and imagine all things beyond the real, a satisfied life of discipline where work demonstrates faith. I can't imagine myself in the future without a regimen of creativity. The artist creates; he doesn't philosophize about creation, criticize creation or even think twice about making. He makes, and that's the ethos I want to live with for the rest of my life. No longer any of this, "But I'm not good enough. But I'm not ready. But I'm not qualified, justified, inspired, etc." I am the arbiter of my time. I can choose to revolve myself about a productive calendar. I can choose to be the progenitor of myriad little spinning proverbs in a plethora of media. The only thing that's stopping me is myself.
So thank you all for listening and being inspiring. Thank the clouds and the grasses for standing silent or roaming with a whisper. Thank the bayous and gulfs for being beyond me. Thank the grand universe for spinning without a care for my vanity, thank all the words and languages, faiths and doctrines, for being this dew upon a grateful grass. Thanks for your patience that inspires mine. Thanks for the spirit that moves us all. Namaste.
I'm meditating on a bit of Tagore: "In order to find you anew, I lose you every moment/ O beloved treasure." Treasure isn't so bad. I'm in the middle of ambiguous conversations about the challenges of the everyday, how they give us the tolls to deal with the challenges of tomorrow, how the present is an unfolding nonsense that is never extinguished. I'm grateful for the difficult things, and I know with my whole heart and my whole disjointed faith that tomorrow will bring something immeasurably more terrible and traumatic. But what do I have within my will and power to push on? What steam and verve and vigor resides inside me that I can draw upon like a fount to push myself into the future? Is this pushing and this will--this will to believe--a vainglorious mission? Why do I have a question for myself?
I'm devising a four-pronged plan to push into 2014. There are four courses of study, probably to be supplemented with a physical aspect. I'm going to revisit my snuffed mantra of last year: discipline. I can understand why my cohorts at that meeting-of-minds weren't enthused about that word. But I'm going to need to push on as a duty to myself and my god, wherever she resides, in whatever guise or face she chooses to present herself, through whatever mysterious veil I imagine for her. The four-sided time I'll push through consists of: reading, writing, music and painting. Every day gets a deliverable. Every day gets a reflection (these are the preamble); every day gets a series of poems and writings; every day gets a meditation on an old song; every day gets a construction of an image--a representation in two-dimensional color.
I'm going to pray and hope and imagine all things beyond the real, a satisfied life of discipline where work demonstrates faith. I can't imagine myself in the future without a regimen of creativity. The artist creates; he doesn't philosophize about creation, criticize creation or even think twice about making. He makes, and that's the ethos I want to live with for the rest of my life. No longer any of this, "But I'm not good enough. But I'm not ready. But I'm not qualified, justified, inspired, etc." I am the arbiter of my time. I can choose to revolve myself about a productive calendar. I can choose to be the progenitor of myriad little spinning proverbs in a plethora of media. The only thing that's stopping me is myself.
So thank you all for listening and being inspiring. Thank the clouds and the grasses for standing silent or roaming with a whisper. Thank the bayous and gulfs for being beyond me. Thank the grand universe for spinning without a care for my vanity, thank all the words and languages, faiths and doctrines, for being this dew upon a grateful grass. Thanks for your patience that inspires mine. Thanks for the spirit that moves us all. Namaste.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
What Isn't Aesthetic? And Other Ruminations
I'm going to write this even though it's doomed to failure, all the finites are veritable nothings compared the the Infinite. We might could even argue they're incommensurate meaning there is no common measure between them therefore it is impossible to compare. Perhaps this is the necessity of allegory, the purpose of an art and the perpetuator of irrationals in our overly-empirical society. None of this makes sense, it makes nonsense. I never blogged as an academic, I'm with Debord on spurning footnotes and sourcing, but I'll quit with the apophasis.
Coomaraswamy wrote a killer essay destroying modern conceptions of "aesthetics." Lets just look at the word, that's what he did. Lets accept this definition of aesthesis as "an unelaborated elementary awareness of stimulation." Essentially we're talking about a sensual activity. Some synonyms cited include "sensation," "perception," "visual perception," "olfactory sensation," etc. When we talk about an "aesthetic experience" we're talking about something that happens to our body from the outside, something that affects us, stimulates our senses.
With "perception" is where a sort of duality emerges. Perception we find defined as "the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind." Here we're not limited to sensory input, we're caught in the infinitely regressive quagmire that is Intellect. An "apprehending of the mind." What, pray tell, is apprehended? Apprehend itself means in a sense "to perceive." We're getting a bit circular here, and then it just seems pointless, but traditional conceptions of Life, Time, etc. tend to be cyclic instead of linear anyways.
An aesthetic experience is, accordingly, first a stimulation of the body and then an apprehension of this stimulation by the mind. Now we get to the slipperyness that is "aesthetics" as a science of beauty. We're born into an endless stream of stimulations apprehended by the mind. In some sense the entirety of life is an "experience" of sensory stimuli "apprehended," or perhaps made-sense-of, by the mind, by processes of cognition, etc. At this point it may be advantageous to reference Huxley's discussion of "Doors of Perception."
What happens when you're born? You're overwhelmed by new sensory experiences your burgeoning mind must make some sense of. If your mind doesn't make any "sense" of them, you're not able to participate in the social structure and culture of the world. We learn as we grow to make distinctions (science) as to what is important and what isn't, what we ought pay "attention" to and what we may be just as well off disregarding. The process takes years. At first we're charmed and dissociated babies: all the surfaces, sounds, sights, all stimuli are dazzling and mysterious. Everything gets a touch, a sniff, a look and most times a taste. All the stimuli, all sensory input is examined, is "apprehended" and assessed. We live and breathe as miniature aestheticians.
As we grow, we amass some scientific tools. Science as a word comes from roots meaning "to separate" or "to divide." Perhaps because of our Will and drive, we make assessments and judgments about which bits of sensory input are most useful. Which are the tastes, sounds, sights, etc. that we must focus our "attention" or "apprehension" on as to be most effective in the world? Gets real close to questions of ethics and morality real quickly. What's an "effective" behavior? What is "useful"? Perhaps these are all just as pointless questions as that at the core of aesthetics: What is "beautiful?"
But we can't stop here. Lets jump to Kant's proposed "aesthetic attitude." We might define it as an "attitude of detached and disinterested, but engaged, contemplation." First of all, we'll note how silly it seems to posit an "attitude" that is aesthetic when the very substance of our Life Experience is aesthesis (sensory stimulation). In my humble opinion one would be hard-pressed to find someone roaming this real world without incurring sensory stimulation. But this is beside the point and there are some ways in which this concept can be applicable, and, yes, useful.
The artist performs a remarkably curious task of assigning an "aesthetic" value to an object. This "object" need not be a physical thing, but may also be a process, a lapse of time, a series of events, etc. The artist, the genius, "sees" this object in a certain way, approaches it with a curious "attitude." Now within the modern mindset, we look to these "administers," these "artists' for what to consider as an "art," what to consider an "aesthetic object" or experience. But in reality we each have innumerable aesthetic experiences every moment, what the artist does is merely assume an attitude.
Now we'll get to my proposed spectrum. What are we considering "aesthetically valuable"? At our birth, when the "doors" are open, all our sensory stimuli are treated with the same awe, the same sublimity with which we later treat art objects, aesthetic objects. We then are nurtured into a society in which, by necessity, we make judgments about what is important to view with this attitude of awe, and what isn't. The reality of it is that all these "objects" are all equally dazzling, all worthy of examination, all embodiments of beauty, etc. What I propose is an idea that an artist has more of their "doors" open, assumes an attitude receptive to the dazzle in all things, and this allows them to choose particularly effective exemplars of this sublimity.
It gets kind of close to being a little crazy, having a "split mind," or not being able to make distinctions between what is "valuable" or "useful" and what isn't. I've noted this with autistic children as well. In my view, the issue is a sort of inability to discern between what is socially important stimuli and what isn't. Whereas a cognitively normal person knows what sounds, what sensory input is most important for sociability with other humans, these children can't make the distinction. This manifests in a seeming ability to hear better than others or notice things that a typical person doesn't. In my view this isn't because they possess special sensory abilities, but because they lack what others have as far as discerning ability.
The genius sees the worth of all beyond the confines of human society. There is no distinction made between what is "important" for participation in the Logos and what is important on a scale beyond humanity. Whereas it is useful for us to note those stimuli which make us more effective persons in the social sphere, what is admirable in an artist or a person with curious thought is their ability to note those stimuli which, while they may not be socially useful in the conventional way, are encapsulations of an essential quality of a Universe that human beings are merely part and parcel of. We see at one point of this spectrum those who have concern merely with what is useful socially, and on the other extreme those dazzled by both applicable stimuli for humans, and stimuli that has nothing to do with us at all.
I know I've wandered on this one. I have no discipline. It's difficult to force myself to write things out, to get to the task. I feel like de Lubicz as I've written before. As much as I depend upon word analysis, philology for argument, words and symbols remain hopelessly inadequate. The Infinite cannot be captured in a finite and writing out more words to try and capture it with some hope of getting it "all" in is delusional. It demonstrates no knowledge of the meaning of Infinite, a word that means very clearly "not finished." A symbol is by nature finished, static, the Universe, this Life and Being are dynamic. There's a perpetual tension between the two that's been discussed by men and women across all culture and era. To suppose we are the only ones with an insight into this quandary is ridiculous. Keep loving, keep being, keep trying, it never ends.
On that note I'll close with a little Tagore paraphrased by a student years later. Often we are dazzled by that which is exotic, which we have no schema for, which we've never encountered. Often we are most receptive to that which is novel and new to our ears. We note this in music listening habits, artistic consumption trends and otherwise. People have a tremendous yearning for something "new" and "original" though the Bible is quick to tell us there is "nothing new under the Sun." The desire and drive remains. It's only difficult to have those fresh and curious eyes about those things which are most immediate to us, most local. To find a beauty and a worth in those things which we've learned to tune out is a true accomplishment. As Tagore has said, "I have spent a fortune traveling to distant shores and looked at lofty mountains and boundless oceans, yet I haven't found time to take a few steps from my house to look at a single dew drop on a single blade of grass."
Coomaraswamy wrote a killer essay destroying modern conceptions of "aesthetics." Lets just look at the word, that's what he did. Lets accept this definition of aesthesis as "an unelaborated elementary awareness of stimulation." Essentially we're talking about a sensual activity. Some synonyms cited include "sensation," "perception," "visual perception," "olfactory sensation," etc. When we talk about an "aesthetic experience" we're talking about something that happens to our body from the outside, something that affects us, stimulates our senses.
With "perception" is where a sort of duality emerges. Perception we find defined as "the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind." Here we're not limited to sensory input, we're caught in the infinitely regressive quagmire that is Intellect. An "apprehending of the mind." What, pray tell, is apprehended? Apprehend itself means in a sense "to perceive." We're getting a bit circular here, and then it just seems pointless, but traditional conceptions of Life, Time, etc. tend to be cyclic instead of linear anyways.
An aesthetic experience is, accordingly, first a stimulation of the body and then an apprehension of this stimulation by the mind. Now we get to the slipperyness that is "aesthetics" as a science of beauty. We're born into an endless stream of stimulations apprehended by the mind. In some sense the entirety of life is an "experience" of sensory stimuli "apprehended," or perhaps made-sense-of, by the mind, by processes of cognition, etc. At this point it may be advantageous to reference Huxley's discussion of "Doors of Perception."
What happens when you're born? You're overwhelmed by new sensory experiences your burgeoning mind must make some sense of. If your mind doesn't make any "sense" of them, you're not able to participate in the social structure and culture of the world. We learn as we grow to make distinctions (science) as to what is important and what isn't, what we ought pay "attention" to and what we may be just as well off disregarding. The process takes years. At first we're charmed and dissociated babies: all the surfaces, sounds, sights, all stimuli are dazzling and mysterious. Everything gets a touch, a sniff, a look and most times a taste. All the stimuli, all sensory input is examined, is "apprehended" and assessed. We live and breathe as miniature aestheticians.
As we grow, we amass some scientific tools. Science as a word comes from roots meaning "to separate" or "to divide." Perhaps because of our Will and drive, we make assessments and judgments about which bits of sensory input are most useful. Which are the tastes, sounds, sights, etc. that we must focus our "attention" or "apprehension" on as to be most effective in the world? Gets real close to questions of ethics and morality real quickly. What's an "effective" behavior? What is "useful"? Perhaps these are all just as pointless questions as that at the core of aesthetics: What is "beautiful?"
But we can't stop here. Lets jump to Kant's proposed "aesthetic attitude." We might define it as an "attitude of detached and disinterested, but engaged, contemplation." First of all, we'll note how silly it seems to posit an "attitude" that is aesthetic when the very substance of our Life Experience is aesthesis (sensory stimulation). In my humble opinion one would be hard-pressed to find someone roaming this real world without incurring sensory stimulation. But this is beside the point and there are some ways in which this concept can be applicable, and, yes, useful.
The artist performs a remarkably curious task of assigning an "aesthetic" value to an object. This "object" need not be a physical thing, but may also be a process, a lapse of time, a series of events, etc. The artist, the genius, "sees" this object in a certain way, approaches it with a curious "attitude." Now within the modern mindset, we look to these "administers," these "artists' for what to consider as an "art," what to consider an "aesthetic object" or experience. But in reality we each have innumerable aesthetic experiences every moment, what the artist does is merely assume an attitude.
Now we'll get to my proposed spectrum. What are we considering "aesthetically valuable"? At our birth, when the "doors" are open, all our sensory stimuli are treated with the same awe, the same sublimity with which we later treat art objects, aesthetic objects. We then are nurtured into a society in which, by necessity, we make judgments about what is important to view with this attitude of awe, and what isn't. The reality of it is that all these "objects" are all equally dazzling, all worthy of examination, all embodiments of beauty, etc. What I propose is an idea that an artist has more of their "doors" open, assumes an attitude receptive to the dazzle in all things, and this allows them to choose particularly effective exemplars of this sublimity.
It gets kind of close to being a little crazy, having a "split mind," or not being able to make distinctions between what is "valuable" or "useful" and what isn't. I've noted this with autistic children as well. In my view, the issue is a sort of inability to discern between what is socially important stimuli and what isn't. Whereas a cognitively normal person knows what sounds, what sensory input is most important for sociability with other humans, these children can't make the distinction. This manifests in a seeming ability to hear better than others or notice things that a typical person doesn't. In my view this isn't because they possess special sensory abilities, but because they lack what others have as far as discerning ability.
The genius sees the worth of all beyond the confines of human society. There is no distinction made between what is "important" for participation in the Logos and what is important on a scale beyond humanity. Whereas it is useful for us to note those stimuli which make us more effective persons in the social sphere, what is admirable in an artist or a person with curious thought is their ability to note those stimuli which, while they may not be socially useful in the conventional way, are encapsulations of an essential quality of a Universe that human beings are merely part and parcel of. We see at one point of this spectrum those who have concern merely with what is useful socially, and on the other extreme those dazzled by both applicable stimuli for humans, and stimuli that has nothing to do with us at all.
I know I've wandered on this one. I have no discipline. It's difficult to force myself to write things out, to get to the task. I feel like de Lubicz as I've written before. As much as I depend upon word analysis, philology for argument, words and symbols remain hopelessly inadequate. The Infinite cannot be captured in a finite and writing out more words to try and capture it with some hope of getting it "all" in is delusional. It demonstrates no knowledge of the meaning of Infinite, a word that means very clearly "not finished." A symbol is by nature finished, static, the Universe, this Life and Being are dynamic. There's a perpetual tension between the two that's been discussed by men and women across all culture and era. To suppose we are the only ones with an insight into this quandary is ridiculous. Keep loving, keep being, keep trying, it never ends.
On that note I'll close with a little Tagore paraphrased by a student years later. Often we are dazzled by that which is exotic, which we have no schema for, which we've never encountered. Often we are most receptive to that which is novel and new to our ears. We note this in music listening habits, artistic consumption trends and otherwise. People have a tremendous yearning for something "new" and "original" though the Bible is quick to tell us there is "nothing new under the Sun." The desire and drive remains. It's only difficult to have those fresh and curious eyes about those things which are most immediate to us, most local. To find a beauty and a worth in those things which we've learned to tune out is a true accomplishment. As Tagore has said, "I have spent a fortune traveling to distant shores and looked at lofty mountains and boundless oceans, yet I haven't found time to take a few steps from my house to look at a single dew drop on a single blade of grass."
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Metrical Studies, Astrological Musics and Meanderings...
Lets talk about this chart for a little while since I haven't written in a while. I've been doing a lot of experiments with metrics in poetry, with prosody, and learning how to chart natural phrases. I'm planning a series of sonnets that may be in a sort of ghazal mode, as in they're going to approach themes of love and separation. Some of the things I've been thinking of as hallmarks or points of guidance for it are some of Berryman's Dream Songs (specifically for their use of recurrent characters), Borges' sonnets on some of his literary and other idols, and some Shakespeare. I never read any Shakespeare outside of school until recently and it only just started making sense. Sometimes I feel like the course I've followed for myself, my own sort of curriculum since 2006, has lent me a pretty solid yet amorphous foundation for further experiments.
But lets get back to this chart for a minute. I've also been learning a lot of geometry, I want to learn the calculus, especially its necessity. I'm a huge Borges fan, I read Borges learned Zeno's paradoxes from his father on a chess board. There are so many beautiful and romantic things about that image to me. Follow me long enough and you'll know two of my biggest idols are Borges and Duchamp. I'm imagining myself right now watching them play chess, something about the Ruy Lopez or a Spanish Opening. I tried for a long time to learn chess openings, some tactics and strategies, but I'm not into it enough to practice on a daily basis. Apparently I'm into writing and singing enough to practice those things, I tweet enough to aggravate the living shit out of most people and if you hung out with me I'm constantly either singing or playing Precorder...
I still haven't made it to the chart! This is a post about a nonchart, a nonmap and a nonplan. I been reading this terrific biography on Tagore and it has really touched me. I'm not one for, what seems to me, the forced sappiness of the Lin sect, but I'm all about sincerity in love in the mode of Hafez. I keep wondering about oppositions, the nature of the world in its dualism, how object and subject oppose and all the concomitant polemics. I think I read once about a "passive" oriental mindset, something opposed to the Nietzschean "superman," or active principle. I'd guess its like a Kinsey scale, there is no black nor white, there is merely a spectrum in between. But sometimes gradations and solid degrees are good tools, are good ways for us to frame an analysis.
Lets see how long he can avoid the chart.. I've also done some studies of chakra, though when I say I "study" it usually means about 6 hours or at most two days. I'm pretty keen sometimes, though. I did some drawings mapping out what I perceived as a concordance between 7 scale degrees and Western accepted 7 chakra positions. It made a lot of sense to me when I read it at the time, the seat of voice being 5th chakra, seat of melody in song being 5th degree. I'm working on a cosmology of sorts, ha. I'm always working especially by not working. Maybe I'll look into the etymology of work, Debord said "never work"? Reed wrote a song about Warhol, about Drella, and the lyric was "the most important thing is work." I guess that's why I find myself writing this today, weasel words and all.
Finally lets look at this chart! I promise! Vernal equinox was about 10 days ago, we see Sun a little past 10th degree Aries. Aries is the initator, the beginning of the cycle. Vernal point because it begins our Spring, Aries is associated with the head and with the sprouting of the seed. Here we see a conglomeration of luminaries. Mercurial intellect just turned around (retrograde) and initiates communications; expansive Jupiter sits mid-Aries opposed to Saturn, we get a fiery expanse; Sun soon conjoins Jupiter in this opposition, putting benefic, good luck, ego across from the scythe, Father and karmic ender Saturn. I wrote a little analysis once about the recent revolutions and how it's curious that Uranus (the Revoluter) is at Aries point for these events. Still we see Mars soon conjoining Uranus, so the conflict does not end soon, it stays martial.
Essentially the chart stays stressed. Pluto runs the T-square from 7 degrees Capricorn. Cardinal signs are shook by a series of squares. When Sun hits 8 or so degrees Cancer we'll get another flux of energies as it completes a Grand Cross. All of this is vague and awful. Astrology takes the truth of astronomy and grafts a traditional method of interpretation. We take the Moon's cycle and use it as an analogue for longer cycles. I feel a bit demoralized? The magic of my art is my vulnerability. I'll keep working through these metric studies and then the sonnet (song) cycle with the Buddha, with Ibn Arabi's Her, with all the love and heft of attachment/detachment will emerge. It's my malware, I assume the most innocuous form to infiltrate the system. Sorry I meander, stay lovely all. Especially those who don't read.
But lets get back to this chart for a minute. I've also been learning a lot of geometry, I want to learn the calculus, especially its necessity. I'm a huge Borges fan, I read Borges learned Zeno's paradoxes from his father on a chess board. There are so many beautiful and romantic things about that image to me. Follow me long enough and you'll know two of my biggest idols are Borges and Duchamp. I'm imagining myself right now watching them play chess, something about the Ruy Lopez or a Spanish Opening. I tried for a long time to learn chess openings, some tactics and strategies, but I'm not into it enough to practice on a daily basis. Apparently I'm into writing and singing enough to practice those things, I tweet enough to aggravate the living shit out of most people and if you hung out with me I'm constantly either singing or playing Precorder...
I still haven't made it to the chart! This is a post about a nonchart, a nonmap and a nonplan. I been reading this terrific biography on Tagore and it has really touched me. I'm not one for, what seems to me, the forced sappiness of the Lin sect, but I'm all about sincerity in love in the mode of Hafez. I keep wondering about oppositions, the nature of the world in its dualism, how object and subject oppose and all the concomitant polemics. I think I read once about a "passive" oriental mindset, something opposed to the Nietzschean "superman," or active principle. I'd guess its like a Kinsey scale, there is no black nor white, there is merely a spectrum in between. But sometimes gradations and solid degrees are good tools, are good ways for us to frame an analysis.
Lets see how long he can avoid the chart.. I've also done some studies of chakra, though when I say I "study" it usually means about 6 hours or at most two days. I'm pretty keen sometimes, though. I did some drawings mapping out what I perceived as a concordance between 7 scale degrees and Western accepted 7 chakra positions. It made a lot of sense to me when I read it at the time, the seat of voice being 5th chakra, seat of melody in song being 5th degree. I'm working on a cosmology of sorts, ha. I'm always working especially by not working. Maybe I'll look into the etymology of work, Debord said "never work"? Reed wrote a song about Warhol, about Drella, and the lyric was "the most important thing is work." I guess that's why I find myself writing this today, weasel words and all.
Finally lets look at this chart! I promise! Vernal equinox was about 10 days ago, we see Sun a little past 10th degree Aries. Aries is the initator, the beginning of the cycle. Vernal point because it begins our Spring, Aries is associated with the head and with the sprouting of the seed. Here we see a conglomeration of luminaries. Mercurial intellect just turned around (retrograde) and initiates communications; expansive Jupiter sits mid-Aries opposed to Saturn, we get a fiery expanse; Sun soon conjoins Jupiter in this opposition, putting benefic, good luck, ego across from the scythe, Father and karmic ender Saturn. I wrote a little analysis once about the recent revolutions and how it's curious that Uranus (the Revoluter) is at Aries point for these events. Still we see Mars soon conjoining Uranus, so the conflict does not end soon, it stays martial.
Essentially the chart stays stressed. Pluto runs the T-square from 7 degrees Capricorn. Cardinal signs are shook by a series of squares. When Sun hits 8 or so degrees Cancer we'll get another flux of energies as it completes a Grand Cross. All of this is vague and awful. Astrology takes the truth of astronomy and grafts a traditional method of interpretation. We take the Moon's cycle and use it as an analogue for longer cycles. I feel a bit demoralized? The magic of my art is my vulnerability. I'll keep working through these metric studies and then the sonnet (song) cycle with the Buddha, with Ibn Arabi's Her, with all the love and heft of attachment/detachment will emerge. It's my malware, I assume the most innocuous form to infiltrate the system. Sorry I meander, stay lovely all. Especially those who don't read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)