Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[JackDaydream]

@Count Lucanor

I probably did not pay enough attention to your emphasis on evolutionary biology. My own view is that there is a lot we do not know about the development of the evolution of consciousness. I believe that the ancient thinkers thought in a very different way to the way we do. I am influenced by Julian Jayne's , 'The Origins of the Bicameral Mind' and its emphasis on human beings not having the same division of outer and inner reality which we have. I am sure that problem solving was extremely important, but I do believe that the picture of early human beings as primitive may be misleading. I am thinking of such sophisticated culture as in ancient Egypt. and Greece.

I can see that the collective unconscious is difficult to see as a scientific theory, if we stick to the physical sciences alone. I believe that the social sciences are also useful, but it is here that it gets more complex, especially in the realm of psychology because the premises of the theories involve specific assumptions and interpretations. Jung's idea of the collective unconscious and the idea of archetypes can be seen as related to the idea of Forms of Plato and ideas such as Hermeticism, and other esoteric systems of thought on one hand, but on the other, Jung did suggest that the collective unconscious was not an aspect of nature.

[Nick_A]

Nick_A

I think that what you say about copying is interesting because that can be taught much more easily than art or art forms which come from imagination directly. At school, I was taught to do still life and life drawing, although the subjective does come into play, because each person's representation is different or rendered uniquely.Of course, the ability to create a 'wet' effect is related to copying but it goes beyond and can also be the starting point of style. I am sure that aspects of style development also come into play in other ars, like music.

However, in creating art which is not from memory or copying, it is harder. I have experimented in drawing from the imagination and it is so difficult drawing figures without seeing them. It involves relying on the memory of the mind's eye. I would love to draw dream experiences, but capturing the details on the basis of memory is hard. However, some have managed it so well. William Blake drew the devils and angels from his mind, although I believe that some art critics are not impressed by his figures. But, some of the most original artists have managed to draw and paint such unique and original visions, and I am thinking of Salvador Dali. Also, some have included a form of copying but captured it in such an unusual way which makes it so original, like Van Gogh.

Are you associated with an art school?

[JackDaydream]

@Nick_A

No, but I have done some training in art therapy, but due to personal circumstances did not complete the training. I have done a couple of courses in illustration. However, in the last few years I have not done very much visual art. I also enjoy creative writing as a hobby.

[Nick_A]

Jack

I think you may appreciate this description of ideal forms and how we can struggle to experience them rather than imagine them. Even worse, appreciating ideals is now politically incorrect as society struggles to glorify sameness and denies the ideal physique of Man. Does math play an essential part for the artist to depict the ideal physique of Man?

An example - Michelangelo’s sculpture of David:

• There is a Form that represents the ideal physique of Man.
• The Form exists somewhere “out there,” apart from us.
• Forms are available to anyone with a sufficiently developed
sense of reasoning. Michelangelo discovered David’s Form
through a process of deep reasoning, not through his
senses and perceptions.
• Michelangelo relied on his mental image (“mind’s eye”) of
this Form - he did not use an actual person as a model.
• Reason can grasp the Forms as the eyes can see objects.
• Michelangelo tries to represent, to reflect, this ideal Form
through David.

[PoeticUniverse]

Michelangelo’s sculpture of David

And it wasn't easy starting with a big block and carving away everything that wasn't David.

[Steve3007]

Interestingly, I read that the statue of David wasn't started by Michelangelo. The original block of marble was apparently hewn roughly into shape (and presumably its overall dimensions were therefore roughly fixed) by Agostino di Duccio, starting in the 1460's. Then, 10 years later, one Antonio Rossellino continued where Agostino had left off. Then it was left for 26 years before Michelangelo had his turn on it. Or so I've read. Quite a long term team effort then.

Kind of reminds me of a mosaic tiled garden table I've been working on for about a year now. I don't feel as bad about not having finished it.

[Steve3007]

I wanted to make a circular garden table with a hardwood edge and mosaic tiled middle. That would be the perfect Form of the Garden Table. But my woodworking skills weren't up to it so I bought a nice electric mitre-saw for cutting accurate angles (though obviously not perfect angles), bought some lovely lengths of Iroko wood that I'd seen on eBay, and made it an 18-sided regular polygon, which meant that the 18 blocks of wood around the circumference had to be cut at 10 degrees each end. (It was interesting how accurate that cut needed to be to avoid any visible gaps). So you could say that my 18-sided garden table is a pale, flickering shadow of the perfect Form of the Garden Table. I sympathize with the likes of Michelangelo, and tortured artists everywhere. Those perfect Forms are damned elusive, if only for practical engineering reasons.

[JackDaydream]

@Nick_A

I think that many in philosophy circles of our time are inclined to dismiss the ideas of the Forms and other ideas within Platonism and Neoplatonism, I believe that such ideas do capture some essential truths. It does seem that there is so much emphasis on empiricism and scientific evidence. Of course, these are important but sometimes it is possible to mistake the models, such as those conveyed within science, for reality itself.

Even though many reject Jung's ideas, I believe that his ideas, such as archetypes, make a link between nature, the human mind and the transcendent. It does seem to me that Michelango and other great creators were able to step into dimensions which many can only access through the appreciation of the arts. What I find interesting is the way in which some of the most inspired people seem to have accessed higher states of consciousness. This is explored by Bucke in his, 'Cosmic Consciousness.' His description of the lives and illumination of individuals include The Buddha, Jesus Christ, but a number of creative individuals, including Walt Whitman and Dante. This is probably linked to the highest levels of inspiration. Of course, it is possible for everyone to have some creativity, but it may involve some form of peak experience and self-actualization amidst the experience of mundane reality.

[Count Lucanor]

I probably did not pay enough attention to your emphasis on evolutionary biology. My own view is that there is a lot we do not know about the development of the evolution of consciousness. I believe that the ancient thinkers thought in a very different way to the way we do. I am influenced by Julian Jayne's , 'The Origins of the Bicameral Mind' and its emphasis on human beings not having the same division of outer and inner reality which we have. I am sure that problem solving was extremely important, but I do believe that the picture of early human beings as primitive may be misleading. I am thinking of such sophisticated culture as in ancient Egypt. and Greece.

I'm not sure if these statements are related to something I said, since the reference to ancient cultures seems out of place with the subject. What exactly is "the picture of early human beings as primitive" and how it is misleading? I'm also curious about what this means: " human beings not having the same division of outer and inner reality which we have".

I can see that the collective unconscious is difficult to see as a scientific theory, if we stick to the physical sciences alone. I believe that the social sciences are also useful, but it is here that it gets more complex, especially in the realm of psychology because the premises of the theories involve specific assumptions and interpretations. Jung's idea of the collective unconscious and the idea of archetypes can be seen as related to the idea of Forms of Plato and ideas such as Hermeticism, and other esoteric systems of thought on one hand, but on the other, Jung did suggest that the collective unconscious was not an aspect of nature.

Yes, it is more a philosophical, speculative theory, than a scientific view.

[JackDaydream]

@Count Lucanor

I am probably inclined to go into a flight of ideas based on reading of any reply, so if I spin off into all directions please forgive me. Also, I have only engaged in brief interaction with you, so it is hard to know your complete perspective entirely.


However, I can explain more fully what I meant by the less clear distinction between inner and outer reality referred to by Julian Jaynes. He believed that early human beings experienced thoughts as voices, and he maintained that people who are diagnosed as 'schizophrenic' are in a throwback mode resembling ancient thinking. Of course, it is hard to know with any accuracy if what he is saying is true or not.


I think that the way we connect ideas including the collective unconscious, or any philosophy theory with science is complicated. That is because science gives empirical findings, and certain methods can be used to verify or reject specific ideas. However, while science gives empirical findings the construction of theory is based on interpretation and is in many ways limited.So, ultimately, science only creates models only.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think, in humans at least, there's often a strong connection between creativity and humour. Humour often relies on the creation of unexpected yet logically self-consistent connections between concepts that haven't been connected in that way previously.

Ooo, nice observation! I hadn't thought of that.

[Count Lucanor]

@Count Lucanor

I am probably inclined to go into a flight of ideas based on reading of any reply, so if I spin off into all directions please forgive me. Also, I have only engaged in brief interaction with you, so it is hard to know your complete perspective entirely.


However, I can explain more fully what I meant by the less clear distinction between inner and outer reality referred to by Julian Jaynes. He believed that early human beings experienced thoughts as voices, and he maintained that people who are diagnosed as 'schizophrenic' are in a throwback mode resembling ancient thinking. Of course, it is hard to know with any accuracy if what he is saying is true or not.


I think that the way we connect ideas including the collective unconscious, or any philosophy theory with science is complicated. That is because science gives empirical findings, and certain methods can be used to verify or reject specific ideas. However, while science gives empirical findings the construction of theory is based on interpretation and is in many ways limited.So, ultimately, science only creates models only.

I see this approach as relying heavily on speculations which are not well supported by the facts of the different sciences we have at our disposal. I prefer an interdisciplinary approach that combines those specialized sciences with philosophical reflection. I guess that will give you an idea of where my observations come from: the intersection of biology and culture, seen from a strictly materialist point of view.

[JackDaydream]

@Count Lucanor

I definitely value the value of an interdisciplinary approach and one which is able to incorporate an up to date and fullest analysis of science. When you speak of 'a strictly materialist point of view' may be where we come from a slightly different perspective. It is not as if I adhere to one specific spiritual point of view but I do believe in the importance of the inner world, unlike some thinkers like B F Skinner, who thought in terms of behaviour as the main focus.


I am not sure if my own emphasis is a matter of a different way of explaining rather than a different way of seeing, more like taking a photograph from a different angle from the materialists. I believe that it may be more of a zooming in on mythos rather than logos. I would say it is more of an arts based approach, with a view to appreciation of the inner experience of aesthetics and its shared communication on a cultural level.

[Count Lucanor]

@Count Lucanor

I definitely value the value of an interdisciplinary approach and one which is able to incorporate an up to date and fullest analysis of science. When you speak of 'a strictly materialist point of view' may be where we come from a slightly different perspective. It is not as if I adhere to one specific spiritual point of view but I do believe in the importance of the inner world, unlike some thinkers like B F Skinner, who thought in terms of behaviour as the main focus.


I am not sure if my own emphasis is a matter of a different way of explaining rather than a different way of seeing, more like taking a photograph from a different angle from the materialists. I believe that it may be more of a zooming in on mythos rather than logos. I would say it is more of an arts based approach, with a view to appreciation of the inner experience of aesthetics and its shared communication on a cultural level.

"Spiritual" and "inner world" are not for me different domains of the material world, ontologically speaking. I embrace the scientific study of all aspects of culture: its dynamic autonomy and historical evolution, its relation with biology, the social organization of production of material goods and symbols, etc. Everything connects one way or the other inside that material domain.