Ruminations on Philosophic and Artistic Theory

Brain and Soul

Wayne Paul — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:20:01 +0000

Why do science and religion at seem to be at odds still in our modern world? Are there really conflicting, rather than complimentary, worldviews between the two systems? There is historical precedence to support this assumption, but this is more a misconception, rather than a comprehensive historical synopsis, that has been sustained throughout the centuries, primarily in the Western intellectual tradition. In fact, many ancient and modern (mostly tribal) societies and cultures were and are structured around a central figure whose powers combined knowledge of both the natural and spiritual worlds, including shamans, priests, witchdoctors, seers, and medicine men. To understand religion and science as two seperate entities was unthinkable to these peoples. Doesn't science generate theory, while religion generates faith? Isn't the former grounded in logic and observation, or the quantifiable, while the latter resides with emotion and spirit, or the unquantifiable? What more then is science but an evidentiary faith in statistical or mathematical theory? What more then is religion but a practising theory of organized faith? Can't both be blindly and recklessly followed, worshipped, and manipulated, perhaps not as fact, but at least as truth? Aren't they both based on principles of accepted belief? Is it the responsibility of religion to present the great questions while science seeks to answer them? The sphere of religion appears to constrict as the sphere of science expands, but does this not simply displace, rather than eradicate, the unexplainable? Throughout recorded history, science and religion have been sources of both comfort and conflict, understanding and disillusionment, progress and stagnation, growth and destruction. Both have been utilized and exploited as remedies or weapons, to inspire or generate fear, to liberate or to enslave. Both have produced many of the most prodigious, most enlightened thinkers the World has ever known. Both seem to be fundamental and necessary, also distinct but convergent, methods of dealing with the same dilemmas faced by all humankind. Why can't the rational and the spiritual coexist? If indeed they can, is the bridge between them called philosophy?

wealth and talent

Wayne Paul — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 03:47:50 +0000

Why do those coming from under-priveleged environments seem to stand out in the annals of history? It appears that the most profound and creative minds, from antiquity to the present, are born either poor or "middle class" and only acculumate wealth, fame, and remembrance after an arduous climb up the class ladder, a climb that involves risk-taking, ascetic self-exploration, and financial sacrifice. Yes, there a few exceptions to this, and many brilliant thinkers and artists have been fortunate enough to get a head start with prestigious or exclusive schooling. Most, however, come from the lower socio-economic levels of their respective societies, particularly in Western cultures where class differences are clearly visible. Are those who have struggled without wealth and advantage more able to realise their artistic and intellectual passions? Do their achievements reflect a pure motivation, a powerful will of actualized intent, or an inspired world perspective that is superior to those born into wealth? Does having a financial "safety net" impede the maturation of creative thought and expression? Are those who have rich parents unable to achieve in these fields because they've been isolated by luxurious upbringings and unearned privelege? Maybe certain elements of human nature preclude the excellence of ability and talent in young, rich prospective artists because of the heightened expectations that a rarified domestic situation affords. Is the need for social and financial acceptance, to correlate one's goals with a "rags to riches" story, a viable motivator for those seeking renown and fortune? Does the collective memory of popular history favor the successes of the disadvantaged? Perhaps there are other psychological, historical, or social factors at work here, but the reccurring formula for philosophic or artistic greatness seems to involve meager beginnings and a special gift that can't be purchased or inherited.

How to be Remembered

Wayne Paul — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:36:00 +0000

The most efficient way to be remembered, in our society, seems to be to expire at a "young" age or "before your time". This ensures the recurring question of "what might have been" and will magnify the importance of your accomplishments, however meager they may be. Even the facade of achievement and ambition will allow you to be forever seen as "tragic" so long as there seemed to be a high level of potential gone unfulfilled. Also, you will always appear vibrant and youthful in memory, giving your "shortened" life the added quality freshness, simplicity, and innocence.

A meaningful boredom

Wayne Paul — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:27:12 +0000

Do Philosophy and Art share any common characteristics or qualities? Does the former rely solely on rationality or analytical thought, while the latter relies on the subconscious or sensual? Is there a valid interpretation of Philosophy as an Art? Can the argument of Art as a Philosophy be proposed and defended? Do both possess that unique and vibrant energy of human self-awareness and expressive contemplation? Or, taking a more cynical approach, can both Art and Philosophy trace their roots back through pre-history to the point where the human brain first understood and improved upon the concept of meaningful boredom? I wonder. . . .

How to enjoy Art

Wayne Paul — Wed, 28 May 2008 20:32:41 +0000

What constitutes the ultimate understanding and enjoyment of Art? Is it successfully deciphering the artist's intent, the emotion or theme behind their creation, or is it realizing and nuturing the personal feeling that a work of art generates? Could the viewer, listener, or reader only truly gain perspective from the Art by knowing, at least vaguely, the intent of the artist? And what if the artist's intent is too transparent? Is this still good Art? We are taught to experience Art through deduction, inference, analytical thought, and technical explanation, through academic dissection and methodology, and only then will the sentiment behind a work will reveal itself and enlighten us. I would say that whatever a person takes away from a piece, or however they internalize and interpret it, whether they can "guess" what the artist was "going for" or not, is valid and powerful and beneficial and should not be disregarded. The human mind is so complex and variable that we can all appreciate Art in our own special way and be permitted to disagree about a work when it touches our lives in a manner beyond the specific intent of the artist. I think that "effective" Art has the inspiring ability to mean different things to different people.

Morality

Wayne Paul — Wed, 21 May 2008 20:48:40 +0000

I've never understood morality, its origins, its evolution, its greater function. Is morality the offspring of some natural, spiritual impulse shared by all peoples across all time, or is morality the precursor, the intellectual foundation of spiritualism and religion? Why does Law stem from morality, when the former is easy to change (at least in America), and the latter is not? Should morality be viewed from an individual or a societal perspective, or both? My argument is that the individual cannot help but be amoral, but as a member of a community or state he or she is forced to assume a posture of legal moralism. Hence, it seems that consequence, not some higher moral or ethical pull, is the compass which directs our actions in a reward and punishment system that is similar to religious doctrine.

No More Metric Poetry?

Wayne Paul — Tue, 13 May 2008 03:12:43 +0000

Does anyone compose metric poetry anymore? Prose is a great poetic form, but it seems to have completely overrun the creative minds of today's poets. What ever happened to the musical, the lyrical, the enchanting verse of the bard? I will argue that it is a more difficult, structered style that many poets find too challenging and restrictive. Or, maybe, it's just not hip enough anymore. Prose poetry gives many people the impression that they are skilled writers. Prose simply gives people a therapuetic outlet, like a diary, and illustrates the fact the they have no real poetic talent.

Something to Mull Over...

Wayne Paul — Fri, 09 May 2008 21:53:12 +0000

If anything is possible, if complete freedom exists in the universe, and nothing is impossible at the same time, what is the purpose of science? Science seeks to limit the possible, prove the impossible, and establish order to the universe. How then can limitless possibility, total freedom, exist within an ordered, scientific system? Hmmmm...