Philosophy Now Forum

Nick. The mystery of dark spaces that make one think of depths which transcend the normal transience of life. These are found in dark great cathedrals or even in empty and deserted industrial buildings.The night sky, far horizons at sea or among the hills,or deep reflections that we see far into still water. sunsets with lenticular clouds. All of these can be real or depicted in art. Sexual ecstasy is analogous to religious ecstasy see Bernini's the Ecstasy of St Teresa.
In musical sound what seems to transcend everyday sounds is broad, slow, and grand without much harmonics or any discords, for instance Handel's Largo, or Bach's Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring when the melody sounds through the counterpoint.
In nature birdsong is famously evocative of what is better than transient and has been made much of by poets.
In theatre the relief of kindness after loss. In nature or in theatre, birth and death alert us to what feel like eternal truths.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:02 pm Of course the secularist will claim that that religious emotion is all subjective without any qualitative distinction. I believe this is a psychologically harmful misconception.

A totally false statement in my book!

One can have mystery emotions which neither preclude or include merely religious feelings. In fact, such may offer a far greater spectrum of vehemence than those whose main source is mostly theistic or, put another way, contra secularist.

Much of the above doesn't seem to display much interest in actual art, as though art ideally only exists to serve some social or personal meaning.

Do we need art to reflect all the stuff we perceive anyway back at us? I see art as an oasis, a respite, from the relentlessly obsessive social focus of human society. It seems that simply absorbing and enjoying beauty for what it is, is passe. Art seemingly must always refer to aspects of society or of the human condition [sic].

I see this attitude in music reviewers who spend most of the time discussing lyrics and ignoring the actual music. I hear it in radio programming that seemingly disregards our ears in favour of image and commercial stylisation. And I see this disregard for "the art of arts" in conversations like this where the innocent beauty of patterns and the talents of performers are ignored, ephemera, while the human agenda behind the art is discussed passionately. It's the same kind of human-obsessive dismissal as perpetrated against nature - the objectification of everything to serve personal, social and economic ends .

This is why humans can easily be replaced by machines in music - if people are so caught up with the lyrical and social content of music that the talent, skill, passion, excitement, sensitivity and playfulness of musicians aren't noticed then what does it matter if you replace the band with a sequencer? Now musicians increasingly try to ape machines. This economic rationalisation was facilitated by the neglect of musicianship as a virtue, with skills either ignored in the so-called search for meaning in the art or hero worshipped.

As John Lennon said, "Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans", and that's what we so often do when we listen to music. How many notice which instruments are playing or the nuances of the performances? To us, so often everything is just an object to help support our personal, social and professional agendas. The curse of "the strategising ape" is its inability to switch off and simply enjoy and appreciate "this moment in life". These strategies - ultimately serve to objectify, to reduce everything to a commodity. Art, nature, inconvenient people - their reality is only investigated in terms of their value or detriment. Thus, for instance, we don't much think about the friendships and attachments within a herd of beef cows prior to slaughter. They are objects. Food. Yet, if you take the time to observe and communicate with them, they are beautiful creatures that form close bonds and, of course, like all social animals, they can also be dominating shits to each other. Not that that matters - they're only cattle, right?

Just as ignoring the subjective realities of objectified entities, this determination to have art "mean something" is the antithesis to the idea of universality and universal love. The latter just accepts art and nature, innocently enjoying its beauty and foibles, and it hopes to better understand while. By contrast, the demand for meaning is a means to control and direct. One cannot simply switch off and enjoy some music. Oh no, art must supposedly be "higher", "better", of The Source or The One to be valid or of worth. Really?

The inability to switch off speaks of our fear of life and death, always trying to strategise and analyse to advantage, even when supposedly in our downtime, ostensibly enjoying art. I don't see art as necessarily fuel for our next endeavours. Art is valid and wonderful in itself for no other reason than it's so much sweeter and more enjoyable than most other aspects of human life.

I don't deny that art can and does bring transcendent feelings, just that I'd rather it be spontaneous, not the strategic filling of yawning pits of need within. If it happens, it happens. If not, no drama.

Art and beauty naturally and non-conceptually attract the senses. The eye sense, the ear sense, and so on. No effort required.

The mind and body wander where they will but the senses turn to art and beauty wherever they appear in the moment, like a sunflower turns to the sun. This is how folks walk in beauty.

Words are also an art form. They attract the mind-sense with the beauty of form married to conceptual truth.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2017 9:33 pm Nick. The mystery of dark spaces that make one think of depths which transcend the normal transience of life. These are found in dark great cathedrals or even in empty and deserted industrial buildings.The night sky, far horizons at sea or among the hills,or deep reflections that we see far into still water. sunsets with lenticular clouds. All of these can be real or depicted in art. Sexual ecstasy is analogous to religious ecstasy see Bernini's the Ecstasy of St Teresa.
In musical sound what seems to transcend everyday sounds is broad, slow, and grand without much harmonics or any discords, for instance Handel's Largo, or Bach's Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring when the melody sounds through the counterpoint.
In nature birdsong is famously evocative of what is better than transient and has been made much of by poets.
In theatre the relief of kindness after loss. In nature or in theatre, birth and death alert us to what feel like eternal truths.

I agree we can experience these emotions but I am introducing the concept of relative quality. Obviously the more emotions are a product of our preconceptions and fears, the lesser their quality. When emotions are an expression of our objective presence they re of a greater quality. Explaining this requires skills greater than mine so I'll refer to Jacob Needleman:

http://religiondispatches.org/how-does- ... needleman/

RD: In your book you refer to William James’ discussion of religious emotion, how he says on the one hand that anything can generate a feeling of the sacred, but on the other, that there are some feelings that are purely religious. What does he mean by that?

JN: Yes it’s an important question. And apart from what James says, it’s a general question. Religious emotion is sometimes understood as an ordinary emotion about a religious entity, or a religious theme, or a religious object, or religious teaching. In other words, I can be excited at a football game by the San Francisco 49ers, and I can, with the same quality of energy, the same part of myself, be similarly excited by the Bible, or the teachings of Jesus, or Buddhism, or something of that kind. The object is different, but the actual emotion can be the same. You can even say, “I love hamburgers!” and then, “I love my child.” Is it the same emotional entity, only the object happens to be different? One wouldn’t want to say that exactly.

And so that’s one aspect of religious emotion, when we’re lost in a mystical thing, or lost in the Avatar movie, or something like that. How I understand it, is that there are different qualities of what we would loosely call emotion. I make a distinction between feeling and emotion in order to talk about them.

There is such thing as deep, essential feeling which is part of our human nature. And we have it under many conditions. In relationships, or with a child, and especially in a spiritual context. And that comes from a different part of ourselves—a literally organically different part of ourselves. We are born with that capacity, and it is an instrument of knowledge as well as feeling—and it doesn’t always have to be positive, it can be even be anger. Like Christ in the temple, chasing the money changers out. There is divine anger as well. The distinguishing characteristic of this kind of feeling is that it is non-egoistic.

However, almost all the emotions that we know, especially in our “fallen” state, are somewhat egoistic; not necessarily always bad, it’s just they’re concerned about me, with my gain, and my social standing, or how I feel about myself, or what I want to get materially, psychologically, socially.

The question about religious emotion cannot be answered without making that distinction. And real spiritual feeling is an entirely different thing. it’s non-egoistic. It’s very personal, but it’s not me me me.

Can an atheist feel religious emotion?...............................................

I am suggesting that visual art of a certain quality can arouse the complimenting quality of emotion for people sensitive to it.

It is the same with sound. Vibrations of a certain quality we experience in the skin and through hearing can open a person to the experience of the complimentary quality of emotion. But to produce this quality of vibration in the echoes of a cathedral for example requires precise knowledge that the person casually expressing themselves does not have.

Art is a form of communication that the cheapening of secular influences is increasingly depriving us of. Is it any wonder than that secularism doesn't distinguish between art and expression?

All this tosh about cathedral acoustics and - FFS - "secular" influence on music. A great example of not really listening but focusing on what the music represents and lionising ideals never even experienced.

Some people can't tell the difference between secularism and economic rationalism and then they blame the former for the sins of the latter. The Trumpettes and so forth, which is why they invited the fox to tend the hen house.

Meanwhile, most hardline economic rationalists in politics are also hardline theists; God's Own Party is the party that has always pushed economic rationalisation hardest, and becomes ever more theistic and more rationalist with each administration. That's a conundrum for intolerant theists who despise atheist and agnostics and want to lumber them with the blame for rationalisation's privations.

Greta wrote:

Much of the above doesn't seem to display much interest in actual art, as though art ideally only exists to serve some social or personal meaning.

Art is partly nurture and partly nature.

Do we need art to reflect all the stuff we perceive anyway back at us? I see art as an oasis, a respite, from the relentlessly obsessive social focus of human society. It seems that simply absorbing and enjoying beauty for what it is, is passe. Art seemingly must always refer to aspects of society or of the human condition [sic].

I think we do need art to reflect meanings. Meanings are intrinsic to being human. The sensuous nature of art is also a fact. Analysis of art doesn't detract from the sensuousness of it. Human nature is sensuous , and the wiser religions home on to this fact see how the Puritans historically and today in the form e.g. of Islamic puritanism are against music, dance, colour,and the human body.

I see this attitude in music reviewers who spend most of the time discussing lyrics and ignoring the actual music. I hear it in radio programming that seemingly disregards our ears in favour of image and commercial stylisation. And I see this disregard for "the art of arts" in conversations like this where the innocent beauty of patterns and the talents of performers are ignored, ephemera, while the human agenda behind the art is discussed passionately. It's the same kind of human-obsessive dismissal as perpetrated against nature - the objectification of everything to serve personal, social and economic ends .

I don't like high- falutin chit chat either. I felt a little self conscious in my answering Nick especially as I am not Simone.

This is why humans can easily be replaced by machines in music - if people are so caught up with the lyrical and social content of music that the talent, skill, passion, excitement, sensitivity and playfulness of musicians aren't noticed then what does it matter if you replace the band with a sequencer? Now musicians increasingly try to ape machines. This economic rationalisation was facilitated by the neglect of musicianship as a virtue, with skills either ignored in the so-called search for meaning in the art or hero worshipped.

"the talent, skill, passion, excitement, sensitivity and playfulness of musicians" are what I call the sensuousness of music . True all of those can be and are imitated for commercial purposes, and for religious and political propaganda . Is it ever possible that good music, pictures, sculpture or architecture can result from base motives? I think it can and does, as epiphenomena. Medieval cathedrals, the gardens of large historic country houses, the paintings etc commissioned by the Medicis, and those commissioned by the Church, the music of Bach which was essentially church music or owed much to church music. What about Nazi art, has it any intrinsic merit? What about natural sounds and artificial 'radiophonics' , can those ever be good art and be inspired by" the talent, skill, passion, excitement, sensitivity and playfulness of musicians". I think that native talent can use any and all sources as the instruments of their genuine art.

As John Lennon said, "Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans", and that's what we so often do when we listen to music. How many notice which instruments are playing or the nuances of the performances? To us, so often everything is just an object to help support our personal, social and professional agendas. The curse of "the strategising ape" is its inability to switch off and simply enjoy and appreciate "this moment in life". These strategies - ultimately serve to objectify, to reduce everything to a commodity. Art, nature, inconvenient people - their reality is only investigated in terms of their value or detriment. Thus, for instance, we don't much think about the friendships and attachments within a herd of beef cows prior to slaughter. They are objects. Food. Yet, if you take the time to observe and communicate with them, they are beautiful creatures that form close bonds and, of course, like all social animals, they can also be dominating shits to each other. Not that that matters - they're only cattle, right?

If you mean that people who go to performances or art galleries sometimes do so from snobbish motives I agree. If you mean that we should appreciate the form and to hell with the meaning I agree, although the meanings, the lyrics if you like are also important for us . I am not a musician but I think that The Beatles' music needs the lyrics. On the other hand German lieder would be better without the words.

Just as ignoring the subjective realities of objectified entities, this determination to have art "mean something" is the antithesis to the idea of universality and universal love. The latter just accepts art and nature, innocently enjoying its beauty and foibles, and it hopes to better understand while. By contrast, the demand for meaning is a means to control and direct. One cannot simply switch off and enjoy some music. Oh no, art must supposedly be "higher", "better", of The Source or The One to be valid or of worth. Really?

But art is often commercialised or otherwise pimped by partiality. Art can be the medium for both truths and lies. How can we be on our guard against bad art, against untruths, unless we criticise and analyse? I submit that pornography is emotive but tells lies about human nature.

The inability to switch off speaks of our fear of life and death, always trying to strategise and analyse to advantage, even when supposedly in our downtime, ostensibly enjoying art. I don't see art as necessarily fuel for our next endeavours. Art is valid and wonderful in itself for no other reason than it's so much sweeter and more enjoyable than most other aspects of human life.

I don't deny that art can and does bring transcendent feelings, just that I'd rather it be spontaneous, not the strategic filling of yawning pits of need within. If it happens, it happens. If not, no drama.

The Apollonian and Dionysian is a philosophical and literary concept, or dichotomy, based on certain features of ancient Greek mythology. Many Western philosophical and literary figures have invoked this dichotomy in critical and creative works.

In Greek mythology, Apollo and Dionysus are both sons of Zeus. Apollo is the god of rational thinking and order, appealing to prudence and purity. On the other hand, Dionysus is the god of the irrationality and chaos, appealing to emotions and instincts.

The Greeks did not consider the two gods to be opposites or rivals, although often the two deities were entwined by nature.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 10:00 am

This is why humans can easily be replaced by machines in music - if people are so caught up with the lyrical and social content of music that the talent, skill, passion, excitement, sensitivity and playfulness of musicians aren't noticed then what does it matter if you replace the band with a sequencer? Now musicians increasingly try to ape machines. This economic rationalisation was facilitated by the neglect of musicianship as a virtue, with skills either ignored in the so-called search for meaning in the art or hero worshipped.

"the talent, skill, passion, excitement, sensitivity and playfulness of musicians" are what I call the sensuousness of music . True all of those can be and are imitated for commercial purposes, and for religious and political propaganda . Is it ever possible that good music, pictures, sculpture or architecture can result from base motives? I think it can and does, as epiphenomena. Medieval cathedrals, the gardens of large historic country houses, the paintings etc commissioned by the Medicis, and those commissioned by the Church, the music of Bach which was essentially church music or owed much to church music. What about Nazi art, has it any intrinsic merit? What about natural sounds and artificial 'radiophonics' , can those ever be good art and be inspired by" the talent, skill, passion, excitement, sensitivity and playfulness of musicians". I think that native talent can use any and all sources as the instruments of their genuine art.

Good point. Yes, great things sometimes come from selfish or cynical motives. Consider the pyramids. I think any large, shared endeavour is going to exploit smaller players and bystanders to achieve what they do. It's the nature of any large scale thing to unknowingly stomp over smaller ones.

Belinda wrote:

As John Lennon said, "Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans", and that's what we so often do when we listen to music. How many notice which instruments are playing or the nuances of the performances? To us, so often everything is just an object to help support our personal, social and professional agendas. The curse of "the strategising ape" is its inability to switch off and simply enjoy and appreciate "this moment in life". These strategies - ultimately serve to objectify, to reduce everything to a commodity. Art, nature, inconvenient people - their reality is only investigated in terms of their value or detriment. Thus, for instance, we don't much think about the friendships and attachments within a herd of beef cows prior to slaughter. They are objects. Food. Yet, if you take the time to observe and communicate with them, they are beautiful creatures that form close bonds and, of course, like all social animals, they can also be dominating shits to each other. Not that that matters - they're only cattle, right?

If you mean that people who go to performances or art galleries sometimes do so from snobbish motives I agree. If you mean that we should appreciate the form and to hell with the meaning I agree, although the meanings, the lyrics if you like are also important for us . I am not a musician but I think that The Beatles' music needs the lyrics. On the other hand German lieder would be better without the words.

Yes, to appreciate the form. Not so much "to hell with the meaning" so much as a balance between form and meaning. I think the current focus in, say, music is highly extramusical, especially with the drive to multimedia. Oh well, I guess I'm just another oldie grumbling about the world changing in ways that don't suit me.

Belinda wrote:

Just as ignoring the subjective realities of objectified entities, this determination to have art "mean something" is the antithesis to the idea of universality and universal love. The latter just accepts art and nature, innocently enjoying its beauty and foibles, and it hopes to better understand while. By contrast, the demand for meaning is a means to control and direct. One cannot simply switch off and enjoy some music. Oh no, art must supposedly be "higher", "better", of The Source or The One to be valid or of worth. Really?

But art is often commercialised or otherwise pimped by partiality. Art can be the medium for both truths and lies. How can we be on our guard against bad art, against untruths, unless we criticise and analyse? I submit that pornography is emotive but tells lies about human nature.

Sure, I suppose it depends on where you set the bar. If one sets the bar of acceptability at, say, massive ancient works, then I'd say such a person doesn't actually much like art unless it is sufficiently grand. As a musician, I need not guard against bad music - that's just the material that I don't enjoy.

Should we worry about art which, like food, is not always healthful? I don't know. I have my own relationship with the arts and its appreciation, like diet, love life and choice of poisons, is ideally a personal affair.

Probably nothing reveals the collective loss of a conscious human perspective more than expression and art being defined as synonymous and distinguish only by subjective interpretation. Welcome to the benefits of modern progressive education and its glorification of mediocrity.

What art is requires what so far seems lacking: a clear definition of the process that leads to it. Try this: "Art is the product of completely and carefully guided impulse." A bucket of paint hurled at a wall does not create art because the result is wholly random since the result was not controlled by the hurler.

nancy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 2:30 am What art is requires what so far seems lacking: a clear definition of the process that leads to it. Try this: "Art is the product of completely and carefully guided impulse." A bucket of paint hurled at a wall does not create art because the result is wholly random since the result was not controlled by the hurler.

Yes, art is made with care and attention which have been sharpened by long practise of the particular skill. This may be said of all useful artefacts. The difference between art and other artefacts is that other artefacts are not intended to have any meaning apart from plain use that's to say no symbolic or aesthetic meaning.