The aesthetic experience II
To quickly finish what was said here , as indicated in the same:
A critique
Though one spoke warmly about the aesthetic experience in the above thread, it was simply on account of its efficacy and suitability for most people ( if gifted with minimal aesthetic sensibility)
However, an aesthetic contemplation/experience has certain limitations.
To begin with, art experience is transient. Secondly, aesthetic contemplation may prove so seductive to man that, in his zest for the pleasure it brings, he may grow negligent of his obligations (and use/abuse it like any other drug). Lastly, the impersonal joy of art experience is induced artificially from outside.It is dependent for its continuance upon the presence of the external stimulus which has evoked it.
Looking deeper one finds, aesthetic contemplation then is simply a foretaste of something else. The unique kind of delight (mentioned in the linked thread) is simply a passing shadow of something else. What then is the source, is the question, right?
Looking at the issue thus one is faced with a natural question, what then is the nature of an aesthetic contemplation, if we will care to call it that, which is free from the dependencies on external stimuli, the risk of addiction, and the desire for its continuity in time? An aesthetic contemplation which is free from the residues of “experience” (ironically) and “knowledge”?
A critique
Though one spoke warmly about the aesthetic experience in the above thread, it was simply on account of its efficacy and suitability for most people ( if gifted with minimal aesthetic sensibility)
However, an aesthetic contemplation/experience has certain limitations.
To begin with, art experience is transient. Secondly, aesthetic contemplation may prove so seductive to man that, in his zest for the pleasure it brings, he may grow negligent of his obligations (and use/abuse it like any other drug). Lastly, the impersonal joy of art experience is induced artificially from outside.It is dependent for its continuance upon the presence of the external stimulus which has evoked it.
Looking deeper one finds, aesthetic contemplation then is simply a foretaste of something else. The unique kind of delight (mentioned in the linked thread) is simply a passing shadow of something else. What then is the source, is the question, right?
Looking at the issue thus one is faced with a natural question, what then is the nature of an aesthetic contemplation, if we will care to call it that, which is free from the dependencies on external stimuli, the risk of addiction, and the desire for its continuity in time? An aesthetic contemplation which is free from the residues of “experience” (ironically) and “knowledge”?
Comments (64)
For the record, i am also pinging you.
Quoting skyblack
In the initial thread, it seemed the discussion related to how one could have a meaningful aesthetic experience, but then there was, in my opinion, an evasion of what it meant to have an aesthetic experience and some amount of combativeness in terms of offering an explanation, and that then resulted in that thread being closed.
This post appears to be a more specific discussion of Schopenhauer's aesthetics, if I've read this correctly, although there isn't any mention of him. Other than recognizing it as such, Schopenhauer isn't someone I know enough about to really contribute.
What I can say about the general idea of the thread is that I don't share your despondency, and so the need to find an escape (through art or otherwise) has no appeal. I appreciate the need by some for self-medication and vice in order to numb themselves from reality. It's also obvious that dependency or addiction could be a consequence and that would lead to a greater unhappiness.
I think the typical response to the question of how much and how often one should take a metaphorical drink of alcohol without exposing themselves to the negative consequences would be to drink in moderation. Moderation means rationally controlling your urges, which for some is easy and others impossible.
But like I said, you premise the conversation that that there is this need to escape the reality we're in, and unless one buys into that basic premise, this discussion becomes a conversation about finding a cure for which there is no illness.
That would be pure art.
(Leaving off at this one sentence precisely because to say anything more would negate pure art.)
The question of moderation is then understanding what drinking all of the wine is like and what drinking none of the wine is like. Moderation can only truly be moderate if the extreme ends are understood to some relative degree.
How much should ‘some wine’ be for one to drink a moderate amount. Can we assess such without first drinking too much and too little.
Moderate drinking is defined fairly clearly in clinical services as 2 to 4 standard drinks in a single day. No more than 10 standard drinks a week. You don't even need to be a drinker to understand this. But standards such as these are intended as guidelines only, they are not divine judgement.
Sure, and I can't know what cyanide does unless I try it because there's no other way to obtain information.
Choking...chemically! :fear:
1. Verum (Truth/Satyam)
2. Bonum (Good/Shivam)
3. Pulchrum (Beauty/Sundaram)
We're all, men & women, in search of the ideal mate: a looker, good, and truthful (faithful?).
We all want to tie the knot as it were. Monogamy as a subtext.
Whaddaya know, Freud hit the bullseye (eros/libido)!
It's all about the two backed beast! There's sex and there's Tantric Sex!
You intentionally avoid the aesthetics of physical movement. To sit and stare at paintings or sculptures or listen to music while in a recliner, in the long run seems boring. But I suppose there are those who enter some kind of zone of contemplation, pleasing and seductive.
As you watch a skilled gymnast you become active in a sense, and the gymnast experiences a kinaesthetic pleasure from performing.
Dear AS, maybe it's better to stick to your lemonade! :lol:
Although. Ethics, aesthetics, ontology!
I generally find art more confronting and uncomfortable than real life, so I generally avoid it. The idea of aesthetic contemplation does not seem restful or preferable to just getting on with it.
The linked thread, especially the last para, will clear your objection.
Being a moderator, he knows...
:lol: Sound advice!
Just like the initial thread (linked in op) can't be thoroughly understood unless opened, likewise this thread (the critique) cannot be understood unless elaborated. The first thread is for those who are walking and exploring the aesthetic experience. This thread is for those that have reached the frontiers of aesthetic contemplation and now wondering about the beyond. This thread is completely related and in context with the first thread, simply a completion.
For achieved Wholeness, all is beauty: rather, one lives the essence of beauty-Delight: Beauty is no longer formal, an object for the ego, but pure experience; then all form is lyrical.
All experience is transient.
Then you do not like paintings.
Quoting Jackson
Right.
Why would anyone want that?
Which is why one had pointed it in op.
Both threads have explained the "why".
Then nothing further to discuss.
That is correct. Unless one feels there is a genuine interest to explore, accompanied with the right attitude that facilitates such inquiry.
So long as it does not recognize its limits Reason is romantic.
Actual beauty is rational only by complete freedom from egoism. That is, it is transrational, Magical
Why must it be that way for Reason?
The complete artist, for whom all forms and mode of expression have become arbitrary, is now completely present in his own right, he possesses his inaccessibility beyond them, his secrecy and immediacy are complete. He appears only formally, he has become what he always was, Invisible.
Not everyone is here to discuss. The forum makes a fine notebook. :smile:
You took the words out of my mouth. My consideration towards people in general prevented me from saying that to you. Come back when you learn how to "discuss". Or, read my previous note on it.
I will never read your posts again.
Speaking from experience, eh? Try using the notebook for something original, so far it has been 2nd hand and shoddy, neurotic.
someone else to ignore
Rest assured one's heart isn't broken.
Not sure why I should care what you think, but I'll try (to care what you think). :smile:
That was simply a suggestion, to help you out from your misery. You seem to be trying too hard but failing.
You seem to know a lot about me. :rofl:
Failing at?...
I am afraid it cannot be avoided. Your frequent threads and posts are all over the front page and elsewhere in the forum. Even my infrequent visits make it clear your presence is here 24/7. As to your 2nd hand shoddy posts, well, that's oblivious and in print, right? Now run along and do what you do, with your passive aggressive posts and the silly emoticons.
Your words bespeak a genuine and profound love of wisdom.
:fire: :hearts: :fire:
Absolutely. A wisdom that isn't confined to the beauty of the flower but also present in the purity of the scalpel. Something you won't understand at your stage.
Ah, I see. So you're at a more advanced stage?
I don't see anything impure about a scalpel.
As much as i would love to play this game with you but unlike you i have things to do. Bye Bye.
Good game. :smile:
No, amateurish. You have much to learn in your games. Bye for now.
There we agree.
Is it wise to have little to learn?
I do someday hope to be a professional forum poster. :smile:
After a long day of study and creative exertion, a little amateurish play can really hit the spot.
Distress is a failure of Disinterestedness. If Disinterestedness sets clear the conditions of Harmony it must itself finally appear as Beauty. Then one may see the old hunchback is transfigured.
It seems clear, the first condition for the 'experience' of Reality is complete Disinterestedness.
Freedom: if it refers to anything Real it must first mean Disinterestedness.
:snicker:
We may read vast numbers of books, may listen to magnificent music, look at works of art, but we never directly experience the sublime; our experience is always through a poem, through a picture, through a personality.
To sing we must have a song in our hearts; but having lost the song, we pursue the song of another, or the singer. Thus without an intermediary we feel/are lost. Out of our failures & incapacities are born those that deny even the existence of any such song.
Right around the same time i received 2 private messages from another moderator as well as the one in question. One is a "formal warning", and the other message is a threat to ban.
For any reader:I won't be participating in this forum anymore, nor will be responding to any posts that i have created or have participated in. Consider me already banned.Thank you.
Don't be so sure of that mon ami. A buddhist monk once told me advanced practitioners in buddhism can sate their hunger and quench their thirst just by looking at pictures of food and listening to the sound of flowing water. I kid you not.