The engagement with art and beauty

What are we looking for when we view art? 

If a child were in a gallery and two walls were covered by paintings. One side has the works of Rothko, Mitchell, Miró. The other Eyck, Veronese, Rembrandt.
Which side would they be attracted to?  

The engagement to art results the valuation. 
Each genre requires its own engagement, which can be regarded as a mode of experience. And experience is unbearably rich. 

What I find enjoyable in abstract paintings is meaninglessness. I hope the work tells me nothing; I want free-quality of colour and shape; aesthetics without reference. 
But I know the beauty of a Rembrandt is not in Rembrandt. It is in the source- the viewing person. The Rembrandt is a stimulus which evokes. Proof: many are indifferent to paintings. 

Now think of nature. It has a similar engagement-requirement. 

"Nature...is nothing but the inner voice of self-interest."
- Baudelaire 

One can extract aesthetic sense from a mountain, a beach, a Pollock, while another cannot and will not because they're not able to affirm, or do not even have, a secret to play with. 

Imagine you could form one sentence to communicate the reality of beauty experienced.

“That for which we find words is something already dead in our hearts...”
- Nietzsche 

And why do people buy millions worth of paint hazardly splattered on a canvas? 
It's an investment like real estate. Don't think too much of it. 

   




        


Top
Mark Rothko - Blue, Orange, Red - 1961 
Joan Mitchell - City Landscape - 1955
Joan Miró - Ciphers and Constellations in Love with a Woman - 1941

Bottom
Jan van Eyck - Madonna at the Fountain- 1439
Paolo Veronese - The Wedding at Cana - 1563
Rembrandt van Rijn - The Storm on The Sea of Galilee - 1633

on writing

I am wondering how to write. 

I'm reminded of Nietzsche. In The Gay Science his prose was, in comparison to his later works, boring. I think he had a distaste for writing so practically. His thoughts changed; to read what he had had wrote made him cringe. And so, he later wrote as to make the text ambiguous. The perspectives were welcomed. And he was made more than what he was.  


Reading someone's blog posts, the same person I've silently ridiculed because of how detailed and verbose and well-done they write, I'm inspired. There exists what I want in this person; to write, and do it with conviction. Their writing looks like worship. 


I'm hateful of stereotypical writing techniques when trying to write a blog. I'm agitated at having a model of a 
blog post when I am writing. It kills creativity and motivation. 

I want to write more. My life feels over-saturated with meaning and I want to express it. I have grown a nightmare out of silence. 


It is hard to translate floating thoughts into syntax and grammar. Intimidating, when you've always done it with your most buoyant ones. Words are like cages.


When I was younger I admired long and tangled sentences. Sentences like garden hoses. I considered them signs of high ability, and I emulated them. Now, I'm over it. I like simplicity, minimalism. Emily Dickinson is right for me. 


I want my thoughts to be fatty. My writing like a razor. The process: to trim and make lean.


I think of how I appear to others through my writing. A thing I've naturally learned by writing short stories is that there is an amateurish engagement where one is trying to convey to the reader who and what one is through the story. 
This is noticeable to nearly anyone, and lame. 
The writer is an epigram-generator. They are trying to translate the drama of movie scenes, abusing tropes, ending every paragraph with a closure, placing pointless references. Trying too hard, hoping and begging for the reader to see them through the words. I've written like this. I don't, or I'd like to think so, write like this anymore. 

Writing is vulnerable; I have to be okay with how others view me. Not uncaring, but okay. I dislike this audience in my head, especially because I like to think they're not there. Notice I did not say hate.

 

Poetry in the 21st

Speed disciplined the mind. 

The mode: time translated to purpose.

I've considered poetry to be in-conducive, a fight with memory, shuttled through a black box.

What information do you need? 
You are experiencing through words- What? 

To sit alone and read was once strange. One had to speak the word, or sing, to an audience. Augustine appeared other-worldy in his chair, reading silently. 



Is there contempt for inner music? 



I am content

The one with science and technology being sensationalized idiosyncrisis

I express some thoughts on Neuralink, physics and AI. I consider science to exist also as a commercial industry, and much of what we know of it is sensationalized because the platforms we use to get scientific knowledge, for the majority of people, function like businesses that are selling highly marketable products (ideas), which naturally causes a loss of scientific rigour and accuracy. So we are filled with a kind of pop-science understanding of AI, space, physics, and technology. And thinkers who provide sober and realistic perspectives are less considered and more disincentivized to partake in mainstream scientific discourse.  Basically, when confronted with any public thinker we have to ask ourselves: What is this person trying to sell me?  Scientist I forgot the name of: Sabine Hossenfelder 
  1. The one with science and technology being sensationalized
  2. Ramblings – on meaning
  3. Intro- My goal
  4. I am content

The hidden Hegel within Nietzsche

The master-slave dialectic for Hegel is the driving force of history, its annulment is the end of history. The equalization of master-slave for Nietzsche brings with it a dissolving of their contradicting values (morality).

Is Nietzsche merely continuing the Hegelian necessity?

I think what Nietzsche foresaw that Hegel didn’t is that through destroying the dichotomies of master-slave; a transitionary period of nihilism would be initiated which leads into absolute spirit after its completion. Nihilism would create the fertile grounds for a revaluation of values, where the highest values devalue themselves and it is through this negation that new values can emerge. These values are part of an absolute morality (free from the contradictory values of master/slave) that is a constituent part of absolute spirit. I think Hegel was too preoccupied with the historical aspect of his system and Nietzsche picked it up on moral grounds where he expounded the moral implications of master/slave fading away.

This would be a Nietzschean objection: absolute morality is free from master/slave values but through creating new values it still perpetuates a moral system that is objective and not free for the individual; the difference of this morality compared with the old one is that it expels the dialectical opposition but still places objective moral principles that confine subjects in its morality.

I think that we have to accept, as social beings, the fundamental essence of morality is slavish; it unifies people and acts as an authority of value-positing for a ‘power’. It is a power structure you cannot rid a social group of because the social body is always comprised of power relations (a will to power); you can’t escape this element or else you go into moral-relativism which leads-again-into nihilism. The subjective morality Nietzsche advocates is a tumultuous transition of a process that gradually solidifies an objective morality. We can’t be morally subjective tenably; ‘will to power’ will always designate an object morality through a process of contradictions being resolved through time (subjective morality engenders the fecundity for antagonisms that reach a dialectical completion into a ‘universal’ morality). This newly completed morality will (possibly) never degrade into nihilism because it is not tensionally conflicting itself in a dialectic. I think Nietzsche’s greatest alluding task was creating the principles for which we could articulate and implement the process (unbeknownst to him) that fruitions this objective morality.

Nietzsche was a child of his times; a product of the historical milieu that manifested his individuality. He was a being in a specific point in history that found within his profound thought a kernel of an historical becoming. The thought he was trying to get away from (Hegelian Dialectics) was actually the very reality he was situated in. The events and philosophy that preceded him allowed him to elucidate what Hegel couldn’t: the coming of nihilism and the moralistic consequences that accompanied the end of the master/slave dialectic. Hegel had made the mistake of placing absolute spirit at the end of history; he could not foresee the moralistic implications and the turmoil that ‘the end’ would cause to ‘spirit’ from becoming absolute; spirit will have to go through an anguish of nihility, where it detaches itself from what constrained it, and then reconfigures itself in a process that will bring about its absolute completion. The thought of Nietzsche was able to continue Hegelian thought in a route that was not historically available for Hegel: this is why both thinkers should not be taken in conflicting terms; the alliance of their thought can be critically and genealogically used to unveil the hidden mechanisms of our society and reality.

 


Note: The Nietzschean “overman” is a bridge towards the Hegelian “absolute spirit”

Norman Bates and his Mother

Psycho is a fascinating film that explores the inner-workings of a mental illness pertaining to a man whose sense of self is dominated by a mother figure. His mother had died long ago but the ‘ghost’ of her remained within Norman. He compensated for this death by going into episodes where he would take on her role. The role was a defensive mechanism towards what Norman felt as a threat towards himself through the perspective of an over-protective simulacrum of his mother.

At the end of Psycho 2, we find the truth. Normans real mother appears and we learn his dead mother was actually the real ones sister. Norman, showing no sign of distress and operating with an erie calm, strikes his real mother in the head with a shovel after she reveals the truth. Why would Norman kill his actual mother when, for what it seemed, he so desperately needed a mother figure in his life? This end scene provides a startling revelation.

For Norman, it was never about the reality of the mother, it was always about the fantasy. The mother signified the highest authority figure, who would look after and give orders to an insecure and scared little boy. The outside world was taught to be impure and dangerous by the mother figure, this led Norman to live a reclusive life that depended on the mother for safety. After her death, through the years, living alone in the house his mother once occupied, Norman created the perfect mother figure, the perfect bringer of peace and order in a world of chaos and evil. This imaginary mother figure engendered by the death of his former mother was the culmination of all that Norman desired in a paternal figure. The appearance of a living mother that would replace this imaginary matriarch is a stoppage of the fantasy.

Fantasy dissolves when coming face to face with reality, it no longer works because fantasy finds life within a realm of death (a void) where the virtuality of imagination is free to set itself up whatever it can possibly desire, unconstrained by any shortcoming of actual reality. The real mother that presented herself to Norman had to be killed and from her body and the actuality of her death; Norman found the sustenance to perpetuate the virtuality of fantasy. The mother lives on but only through death. She lives on in the all-encompassing spirit of Normans most primary desires. It was never about a mother, it was what a mother signified and the signification was suited so perfectly for him that he wouldn’t let the real sully it.

Love is the greatest Evil

Love idealizes imperfections making them perfect. It has potential to idealize the most heinous and despicable. Man loves too much and greed is born, he’ll rob and steal for this love. Man loves his ideals, he would kill millions and plunge the world into darkness for one idea that is an extension of all that he loves. People murder and torture for the love of god. They wage wars and kill for the love of country.  Through love, hatred is born. To hate is a drive to destroy the thing that opposes the love. One would sacrifice millions for a single love. One would conceal a murderer from justice out of love. The greatest evils are done out of love. Violence finds its purpose with love. Wars are waged purely for love.

A world without love is unimaginable, a world with only love is intolerable.

On capitalism

Capitalism is a historical necessity brought on by the purpose of consciousness which is creation to satisfy desire. In capitalism we shape the world through desire and its fulfillment, through capitalism we have made the world, we have instilled meaning in the world, capitalism is an art, it is an expression of our humanity and natural desires, it is the most natural progression that had to happen that stemmed right from our very nature. We have manifested our desires in the physical world through capitalism, we can be our true selves through it. In capitalism humanity is free but it is also enslaved by its freedom, it is a slave to its desires and its nature. Capitalism creates the symbolic order which structures the very fabric of our reality. Capitalism has created a culture , this culture stems from the very connection our consciousness has with the world we live in. A unity is built from this connection, the connection of external and internal, where both play equal roles in shaping the world we live in. There is no humanity with the abolishment of capital and capitalism, we cease to extend ourselves within reality, to extend our humanity. Capitalism is art, it is a creative expression, it is an almost spontaneous and free expression originating from the core of the human condition.

Capitalism is also a necessary component in shaping history. The over-surplus and indulgence is the progress that moves history forwards, the actualization of global communism will end history by removing the over-surplus and stagnating history.

Sexuality is Dead

The over sexualization of our american culture has smothered sexuality to death. The indulgence of our sexual appetite  and the constant consumption of these desires in our everyday lives has normalized sexuality into something that is completely arbitrary and part of the “background” of our lives. This has made it lose all its value, all of the fantasy and everything that made it special. Instead of being a small secret world filled with eroticism and immense pleasure, it has become our entire world which has destroyed it of all sensuality and mystery. It has become so common to see provocative images, phrases, lyrics, clothing etc., and all it furthers to do is ruin all vivacity associated with sex by dulling its stimulus and incorporating it into our full societal ideology which renders it to be too “familiar” and that familiarity  makes it meaningless by instilling one ruling meaning and snuffing out the rest till it becomes authoritarian in nature and in a way we have made a tyrant out of sexuality. Sexuality has become oppressive, it is now the main ruler and we are complacent in our oppression, it has taken over our lives, it is not any longer another aspect of being human but it is everything humans are and this leads to nothing but hedonistic degradation and it is one where we are never satisfied because now it’s not about being satisfied when it encompasses our entire world, it is a cycle of constant feeding to the master, its become a monotonous life  and we have become puppets to be exploited by our own inherent basic desire without even realizing the exploitation because it has become too deep rooted in our culture.

Sex is no longer a spontaneous enjoyment where the possibility is harbouring on contingency eliciting excitement, it is to be expected and in a way we are forced into it, its act has become necessarily the way it should be, the fantasy is not your own, it has already been manufactured for you, you must comply. 

Sex was an escape of the monotony of life and the boring, it has now become part of the monotony of life and the boring and that is a very sad thing.