Akul
The Force is Strong With This One
Several months ago I pondered upon an idea which was kind of own synthesis inspired by several sources and quotes, see below which could currently remember. However, I wonder if exist a source where the idea is originally mentioned and discussed. I need help about finding such source(s), and quote(s), because of a friend who asked me about them, and also would be grateful for your opinion in relation to it. I will make a thread here because it is related to psychology. The idea is: „Nature inspires alive culture – culture inspires dead culture“.
In other words, a „healthy“ human culture with all its forms from social behavior to art, are created with direct relation and inspiration by nature in which humans (sub)consciously seek to find their place in ecology of their territory, up to whole planet Earth or cosmos, a reflection of their meaning of existence and proper way of being. It is „alive“ because the factor of inspiration, nature, is something vivid, omnipresent and everlasting. It is „healthy“ because humans are aware of their natural animality, have a cult of their own body (e.g. human figure in aesthetics and sculpture), as well awareness of relations (kind of duality) within themselves i.e. that their whole being is a relation between various elements or centers, for example from bodily sexuality/instinct to heartful emotions/feelings, and brainy thoughts/reasoning. This causes in the art to follow something like a golden ratio, among other things, resulting in something which can be measured, or if it is less mathematical at least valued - „beauty“. It has, in Peterson terms, sense of logos or consciousness (conscious introspection) in an intermediate relationship between cultural order and natural chaos.
I see the idea in relation to the urbanization which is basically separation from nature. The infrastructure and social organization in such environment are built, maybe impetuously, as a fertile ground for the creation and from certain point survival of subconscious thoughts which with all the related frustrations lead to the realization of various sexual, emotional and intellectual perversions. This second idea is that „urban culture is basically projected subconscious playground“. It is an enclosed „safe space“ for the subconscious realization, an escape from a confrontation of properly living along chaotic nature.
Being „detached“ and „disenchanted“ from previous inspiration – broad nature and narrow human nature – perhaps with a vision of free expression („freedom“) of the human mind without any body and other boundaries (social determinism i.e. tabula rasa versus biological determinism), as well followed with the nihilistic „death of God“ (meaning and relationship), the antrhopologically centered culture inspired from previous cultural expression (often destroyed and twisted as remains of the carcass) and new expression (often without any exact form), it becomes „dead“, „sick“, and „ugly“. Why, if humans are from a part of nature? I would argue because the thoughts i.e. culture are a finished and dead product, a dead end, in reality, nonexistent and more like a potential, an object with a very limited meaning, shape, and movement of interaction, nevertheless its sense of survivability when become associated with the human identity („ideas have people“). As such, a constant copying of the old-new cultural products/behavior will occur so as there would be no lack of urban cultural inspiration, ironically limiting the desired progressive freedom; with fear of death, and as such of certain identity behavior, will be psychological pressure of promoting and recruiting people in certain „subcultural communities“ (e.g. from punk to queer/LGBT); there's no actual sense for real feelings (e.g. to „feel“ this and this X gender is fake feeling made of thoughts/fantasy desires) and body, which is part of human „essence“ (?; see Gurdjieff's quote below), is treated like it's dead and not connected with mind (e.g. plastic operations, sex change operations, hormone therapies), and so on, limiting their individuation for true human, cultural, and artistic behavior and expression.
Would end it with quotes about art by Gurdjieff from an essay „Gurdjieff's Theory of Art“ (1998/1999) by Dr. Anna Challenger:
„I do not call art all that you call art, which is simply mechanical reproduction, imitation of nature or of other people, or simply fantasy or an attempt to be original. Real art is something quite different.... In your art everything is subjective—the artist’s perception of this or that sensation, the forms in which he tries to express his sensation and the perception of these forms by other people.... In real art there is nothing accidental.... The artist knows and understands what he wants to convey, and his work cannot produce one impression on one man and one impression on another, presuming, or course, people on one level.“
„When we fail to make conscious efforts to evolve, we are mechanically carried downward in a process of devolution or degeneration—the only movement which takes place without deliberate interference. Making conscious efforts means forcing ourselves to act against the forces of inertia which result mechanically from the opposing forces of nature. When we succumb to inertia, the laws of nature carry us downward in consciousness and understanding. Only through conscious efforts can we resist this process of degeneration: “If you make conscious efforts, Nature must pay…It is a law,” says Gurdjieff, describing the relationship of humans and nature. All intentional efforts to force movement in an upward direction and against the laws of nature, result in the evolution of human consciousness.“
„The concept of conscious evolution leads us to Gurdjieff’s second key premise about art—that it must be functional. The function of art and of the artist is to intervene and to assist in the process of conscious evolution. To aid us in our upward movement towards higher understanding and to help us struggle against the opposing forces of nature is the sacred purpose and obligation of art.“
In short: „“Subjective art”, for example, in Gurdjieff’s terminology, refers to most of what is commonly interpreted as art. Most twentieth-century art in its various forms, according to his standards, would fall into this category. But subjective art is not authentic art for him; it is the result of mechanical, unconscious human activity, and most of humanity is unconscious according to Gurdjieff. For the same reason, he refers to subjective art as “soulless” in that it results from little or no consciousness on the part of the would-be artist. In his introduction to Meetings with Remarkable Men, he asserts that contemporary civilization is unique in history in its massive production of soulless, pseudo art. On the other hand, “objective art” is authentic art in that it results from deliberate, pre-meditated efforts on the part of a conscious artist. In the act of creation, the true artist avoids or eliminates any input which is subjective or arbitrary, and the impression of such art on those who experience it is always definite. To the degree that objective art is the result of consciousness, it inherently possesses “soul.” As one example of soulful art, Gurdjieff cites the paintings of Leonardo da Vinci; as another he refers to the Taj Mahal.“
I currently have a difficulty to coherently compare and put in context Gurdjieff's consideration with above thesis, perhaps can be ignored or not as is focused on art rather culture in a broad sense, but would like your opinion about it. In the post below see the quotes which inspired the idea.
In other words, a „healthy“ human culture with all its forms from social behavior to art, are created with direct relation and inspiration by nature in which humans (sub)consciously seek to find their place in ecology of their territory, up to whole planet Earth or cosmos, a reflection of their meaning of existence and proper way of being. It is „alive“ because the factor of inspiration, nature, is something vivid, omnipresent and everlasting. It is „healthy“ because humans are aware of their natural animality, have a cult of their own body (e.g. human figure in aesthetics and sculpture), as well awareness of relations (kind of duality) within themselves i.e. that their whole being is a relation between various elements or centers, for example from bodily sexuality/instinct to heartful emotions/feelings, and brainy thoughts/reasoning. This causes in the art to follow something like a golden ratio, among other things, resulting in something which can be measured, or if it is less mathematical at least valued - „beauty“. It has, in Peterson terms, sense of logos or consciousness (conscious introspection) in an intermediate relationship between cultural order and natural chaos.
I see the idea in relation to the urbanization which is basically separation from nature. The infrastructure and social organization in such environment are built, maybe impetuously, as a fertile ground for the creation and from certain point survival of subconscious thoughts which with all the related frustrations lead to the realization of various sexual, emotional and intellectual perversions. This second idea is that „urban culture is basically projected subconscious playground“. It is an enclosed „safe space“ for the subconscious realization, an escape from a confrontation of properly living along chaotic nature.
Being „detached“ and „disenchanted“ from previous inspiration – broad nature and narrow human nature – perhaps with a vision of free expression („freedom“) of the human mind without any body and other boundaries (social determinism i.e. tabula rasa versus biological determinism), as well followed with the nihilistic „death of God“ (meaning and relationship), the antrhopologically centered culture inspired from previous cultural expression (often destroyed and twisted as remains of the carcass) and new expression (often without any exact form), it becomes „dead“, „sick“, and „ugly“. Why, if humans are from a part of nature? I would argue because the thoughts i.e. culture are a finished and dead product, a dead end, in reality, nonexistent and more like a potential, an object with a very limited meaning, shape, and movement of interaction, nevertheless its sense of survivability when become associated with the human identity („ideas have people“). As such, a constant copying of the old-new cultural products/behavior will occur so as there would be no lack of urban cultural inspiration, ironically limiting the desired progressive freedom; with fear of death, and as such of certain identity behavior, will be psychological pressure of promoting and recruiting people in certain „subcultural communities“ (e.g. from punk to queer/LGBT); there's no actual sense for real feelings (e.g. to „feel“ this and this X gender is fake feeling made of thoughts/fantasy desires) and body, which is part of human „essence“ (?; see Gurdjieff's quote below), is treated like it's dead and not connected with mind (e.g. plastic operations, sex change operations, hormone therapies), and so on, limiting their individuation for true human, cultural, and artistic behavior and expression.
Would end it with quotes about art by Gurdjieff from an essay „Gurdjieff's Theory of Art“ (1998/1999) by Dr. Anna Challenger:
„I do not call art all that you call art, which is simply mechanical reproduction, imitation of nature or of other people, or simply fantasy or an attempt to be original. Real art is something quite different.... In your art everything is subjective—the artist’s perception of this or that sensation, the forms in which he tries to express his sensation and the perception of these forms by other people.... In real art there is nothing accidental.... The artist knows and understands what he wants to convey, and his work cannot produce one impression on one man and one impression on another, presuming, or course, people on one level.“
„When we fail to make conscious efforts to evolve, we are mechanically carried downward in a process of devolution or degeneration—the only movement which takes place without deliberate interference. Making conscious efforts means forcing ourselves to act against the forces of inertia which result mechanically from the opposing forces of nature. When we succumb to inertia, the laws of nature carry us downward in consciousness and understanding. Only through conscious efforts can we resist this process of degeneration: “If you make conscious efforts, Nature must pay…It is a law,” says Gurdjieff, describing the relationship of humans and nature. All intentional efforts to force movement in an upward direction and against the laws of nature, result in the evolution of human consciousness.“
„The concept of conscious evolution leads us to Gurdjieff’s second key premise about art—that it must be functional. The function of art and of the artist is to intervene and to assist in the process of conscious evolution. To aid us in our upward movement towards higher understanding and to help us struggle against the opposing forces of nature is the sacred purpose and obligation of art.“
In short: „“Subjective art”, for example, in Gurdjieff’s terminology, refers to most of what is commonly interpreted as art. Most twentieth-century art in its various forms, according to his standards, would fall into this category. But subjective art is not authentic art for him; it is the result of mechanical, unconscious human activity, and most of humanity is unconscious according to Gurdjieff. For the same reason, he refers to subjective art as “soulless” in that it results from little or no consciousness on the part of the would-be artist. In his introduction to Meetings with Remarkable Men, he asserts that contemporary civilization is unique in history in its massive production of soulless, pseudo art. On the other hand, “objective art” is authentic art in that it results from deliberate, pre-meditated efforts on the part of a conscious artist. In the act of creation, the true artist avoids or eliminates any input which is subjective or arbitrary, and the impression of such art on those who experience it is always definite. To the degree that objective art is the result of consciousness, it inherently possesses “soul.” As one example of soulful art, Gurdjieff cites the paintings of Leonardo da Vinci; as another he refers to the Taj Mahal.“
I currently have a difficulty to coherently compare and put in context Gurdjieff's consideration with above thesis, perhaps can be ignored or not as is focused on art rather culture in a broad sense, but would like your opinion about it. In the post below see the quotes which inspired the idea.