Cotidiano de uma brasileira em Paris, comentarios sobre cultura, politica e besteiras em geral. Entre le faible et le fort c'est la liberté qui opprime et la loi qui libère." Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

We have seen that music occupies the dimension of time, one that is universally experienced by the inner consciousness.  Time has only one dimension; it is best thought of in terms of a flowing point.  Strictly speaking, variety is never experienced at one moment in time; unity must be imposed on it if it is to be experienced in this way.  Basically then, music is pure succession, in which variety is experienced successively, rather than simultaneously.  As such it is an image of our restless, mutable, everchanging life.  Yet nothing that is apparently simple in nature is in fact so; all reality is the product of a combination of antinomies.  Part of our being derives from the unity that comprises two, three, or a multiplicity of diverse elements.  The harmony made up of simultaneously sounding notes that are concordant with each other, and which, though diverse, form a unity, may well, in fact, represent in audible terms the internal structure of life.  This harmony is the truly mystical element in music, one which does not demand some powerful reaction from progression in time, but which strives for the infinite in the indivisible instant.  So we see in fact that the modern development of harmony originated in Christian worship at a time when men had lost that sense of free movement in the phenomenal world, and that energetic rhythm of the ancients, at a time when the psyche was looking inwards in its search for a higher life.  The solemn church anthem expresses this striving for spiritual union in the dimension of the suprasensual.  Music can express every degree of worldliness, every degree of spirituality (...)
August Wilhem Schlegel, emphasis mine


To hell with reality! I want to die in music, not in reason or in prose. People don't deserve the restraint we show by not going into delirium in front of them. To hell with them!

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

PlaTonic

The discussion that day was about loss of self, about Plato's four divine madnesses, about madness of all sorts; he began by talking about what he called the burden of the self, and why people want to lose the self in the first place.


"Why does that obstinate little voice in our heads torment us so?" he said, looking round the table.  "Could it be because it reminds us that we are alive, of our mortality, of our individual souls--which, after all, we are too afraid to surrender but yet make us feel more miserable than any other thing?  But isn't it also pain that often makes us most aware of the self?  It is a terrible thing to learn as a child that one is a being separate from all the world, that no one and no thing hurts along with one's burned tongues and skinned knees, that one's aches and pains are all one's own.  Even more terrible, as we grow older, to learn that no person, no matter how beloved, can ever truly understand us.  Our own selves make us most unhappy, and that's why we're so anxious to lose them, don't you think?  Remember the Erinyes?"

"The Furies," said Bunny, his eyes dazzled and lost beneath the bang of hair.

"Exactly.  And how did they drive people mad?  They turned up the volume of the inner monologue, magnified qualities already present to great excess, made people so much themselves that they couldn't stand it. ..."
Donna Tartt, The Secret History, p. 32



Socrates' speech begins by sorting out the category of mania. Madness comes in two general forms: the diseased state of mental dysfunction, and a divergence from ordinary rationality that a god sometimes brings (see 265a–b). Divine madness in turn takes different forms: love, Dionysian frenzy, oracular prophecy, and poetic composition (244b–245a). In all four cases the possessed or inspired person (enthousiazôn: 241e, 249e, 253a, 263d) can accomplish what is impossible for someone in a sane state. All four cases are associated with particular deities and traditionally honored.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Humannoyeds

The apparent clear line which separates the objective, scientific form of thought from subjective or "artistic" approach is becoming blurred.  It is both fascinating and confusing.  It stretches logic and, if one observes what is said and goes on around one, it is hard to escape the conclusion that these two modes of thought have been exchanged between these seemingly mutually exclusive fields and the ppl who operate within them.

More clearly, it seems scientists, who traditionally concern themselves with discovering a truth about the physical world, are increasingly adopting the concept of beauty in representation of said truths-- heretofore the domain of the arts-- in not only their conclusions (insofar as that is possible in any "absolute form" in scientific discourse) but also in their pursuit, their research; while contemporary artists, on the contrary, have become more preoccupied with how accurately their work depicts reality  and "authentic experience" more than ideals-- of beauty, of representation, or of the imagination.

The root(s) of this curious development, to me, can be found in scientific development and linguistic shifts, but also, and perhaps mainly, in the way in which society has integrated political frameworks and goals.  It is not controversial to say humanity as a whole has made considerable progress when it comes to improving ppl's daily life.  Basic needs have largely been met in rich countries (of course with pockets of poverty), and countries in development have made considerable progress in that regard.  This has not been achieved without pragmatic measures; priority has been given to utilitarian concerns (physical well-being comes first, everything else is secondary).  While this may be an acceptable way to get ppl out of poverty, it does not come without some consequences.

Here, then, I'm interested in the outcomes this has had for thought, and how scientists and artists engaged in this curious free trade.

Roughly speaking, the line which traditionally separated scientific thought from the arts and religion was (and is) the idea that the former starts from a question about a given phenomenon and the latter presents a vision, an interpretation, of something.  The former focuses on the meticulous steps involved in getting an answer--whatever that might turn out to be-- and the latter is an interpretation and a representation of a person's subjective sensations, out of the imagination.
Scientists ask how something works and set out to find out; artists tell us what they sense.  Human sciences attempt to explain how these non-scientific mechanisms work.

But I see the shift.  This is no longer the case most of the time.
What I see now is how thought has developed since the Enlightenment, when early scientists really did ask totally open-ended questions and presented the research and conclusions regardless of what the outcome might be, largely because they were not funded by any corporation or government; there was no line to tow, no section of the population to appease, no political concerns to take into account; curiosity reigned.  
Man's Reason took the place of "revealed truth", discovery replaced description. 

In the arts, Romanticism emerged from this rigid mode of thought that is the Enlightenment; but there was also a number of artists who adopted this framework in their representations of the world and how they think about art.
Suddenly, ideas became more important than ideals in art.  No longer were we facing a picture of Man or the world which presented to us what could be, but only what is.  From interpretation and subjectivity to faithful description and a kind of decontextualized objectivity.
Previously, even in the arts, when the main mode of thought had been mimetic (largely vis-à-vis Ancient Greco-Roman art), artists kept the "ideal" in their work, whose main purpose is to elevate what  is, transforming reality and highlighting perception, the imagination.  After Romanticism, this disappeared.  
Thought, not feeling, has come to dominate the arts.

Going to any museum today will give anyone evidence of this. If one looks at works made in the early XXth century and before, there is no brochure, no "statement" from the artist apart from the art itself; in music, there is no obvious political (or otherwise) message outside of the lyrics, or somehow "embedded" in the work via a lengthy text or PR statement telling us how a sequence of notes is representative of concerns with global warming.

Conversely, in scientific discourse, we no longer get the straight-fwd, open-ended possibilities we have come to expect from the scientific method; after all, the main role or purpose of science is to tell us what we do not know, it is to challenge common sense and to discover how something we do not understand works.  What is curious about science today is that it seems to "discover" exactly what the political consensus says.  It is true that some political changes occurred after important scientific discoveries, but today, science seems to be directed by politics, with a dose of corporate money thrown into the mix.

And art is directed by a strange type of scientific realism, politics, and the application of a distorted version of democracy.  

It is as if we have become so disenchanted with the way political and scientific discourse have evolved that we simply displace the modes of thought inherent to these systems to art and artistic endeavour.

The misapplication and misconception of the idea of subjectivity is largely to blame in how ppl have come to think about art.
Thinking everyone is an artist and that everything is art means that no-one and nothing is.  To declare something Art does not make it so. To have two million people say it is art, good, bad, or mediocre, does not make it so either. To have two million people say it isn't art also does not make it true!

But, important though these points might be, what really confuses me is this:
Humanism, the main philosophical foundation of the Enlightenment, the spring of science, is being denied, disavowed, diminished, by many many ppl, scientists, politicians (through their misuse of the word), as well as some non-religious secularists!
If the core of a philosophy is that there is no revelation, only discovery, then it follows this can only be accomplished by Man -- with his Reason, as posited by Kant -- and that all other kinds of knowledge are not acceptable because not scientifically sound, i.e. cannot be verified by anyone, given the nature of subjectivity.
So... it follows, too, that if Man's Reason is no longer trusted to be able to do the job (="ppl are stupid" a phrase we hear often, and maddeningly, to me, it comes with either a pro or an epilogue: Einstein said that, yknow!  And he did, too! "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.")
Goya, los caprichos, #39 Hasta su abuelo
If scientists themselves think Man so low, what is the basis for their opinion that the truth can be got at via Man's Reason?  If the basket of Reason has a hole in it, why should anyone put all his eggs in it?  If we aren't to trust our Reason, if we are in fact no better than an ape or an ant or a dolphin (and some even say these other species are better than Homo sapiens because they have some kinesthetic abilities we lack), why should one fund ANY scientific exploit anymore, what is the motivation in asking questions if the answers-- and the questions themselves-- will be regarded as anthropocentric illusions? Delusions of anthropological superiority?

Bizarrely, the three monotheistic religions have Homo sapiens as the center of the Universe, as the most important creation.  An utterly Humanistic position!  And one non-religious secularists dislike!  
It is very confusing to me.  How can I, at the same time, hold that...:

1- Knowledge has to be got through the use of Reason;
2- The scientific method uses Reason as the foundation of all inquiry;
3- Any knowledge not got at through science cannot be trusted to be the truth about the Universe;
4- Dolphins are not scientists;
5- Man is stupid

Goya, los caprichos, #42 Tù que no puedes
...and say I am a humanist?  

And with all that, mathematicians and physicists see beauty in mathematics and physics.  This is more than I can say for most artists these days, who not only do not see beauty in art anymore, but aren't even attempting to create anything beautiful.  When it comes to truth, artists have been presenting truths which are so realistic they become contrived, and thus, paradoxically, are transformed into lies, since art is not produced like a chemical compound.

Recently, I have been interested in Hegel. Hegel's dialectics is a v useful tool when thinking about anything.  Comparing things, having a dialogue in the mind helps one arrive at a conclusion which takes into account more elements from the things one is analyzing than mere observation of a solitary object.  So applying this idea, I look at science, and at art.  What I see is that scientists who used to start their inquiry from an open question, now start from the conclusion and attempt to find experiments which will demonstrate this conclusion is correct; artists, who used to start from the end, from a vision akin to a revealed truth, now start from concepts, ideas, open-ended questions about society and all the rest of it, and produce things which depend on 30 pages of explanatory text in order to put their "points" and "messages" across.  

Even as "opinion polls" and "public opinion" are most venerated, opinion, as such, which one may encounter in a conversation, is dismissed.  Tell someone what you think about something and, if it does not come with the scientific stamp, it is more likely to be dismissed; if it does not come with 13 pages of Google results which can back it up, it is not going to be taken v seriously. But ppl claim to want novelty, originality.

Monday, January 2, 2012




What is free trade, what is free trade under the present condition of society? It is freedom of capital. When you have overthrown the few national barriers which still restrict the progress of capital, you will merely have given it complete freedom of action. ...

But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

Marx & Engels, 
On Free Trade (1848)