h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

you are, of course, welcome, ~jwf~

I had been about to ask whether being called a stream of bat's piss was a compliment or not


Thank-you ~jwf~ for your kind words, you're a sweety.

And you outdid me in multiple posting. That's impressive!

The Effervixen has asked:

"Why do people feel compelled to make Art? And I'm not just talking about the famous big names, but anybody?

The answer as always is 42 but several bonus points are awarded for the potentially 'confessional' nature of her witnessing. Praise Be!

She added:
"I'd suggest it's because of the subjective experiential and a wish to share that with others in a common language."

Forty two!

She continued:
"And its a language that is able to deal with the contradiction and conflict, that some of us feel."

And so say we all!

~jwf~

I say 'because it's fun.'

Effers also inquired into the nature of grief in the modern whirled:

>> I think much of western culture, now that we have a more rational understanding of these things, doesn't really know how to deal with the emotional effects of death and loss. <<

And I am obliged to make her aware of the works of my uncle Robert.
Please note that some of the titles on the linked page are actually by another Robert Fulton who was the first to circumnavigate the globe on a motorcycle in 1932 - he took some nice pictures of downtown Bagdad and the warriors of Waziristan - and built the first flying car.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19307-2004May11.html

My uncle is the death guy, so the titles should be self-evident.

http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/82499.Robert_Fulton


peace
~jwf~

"Art is not a mirror with which to reflect the world, but a hammer with which to shape it."

Vladimir Mayakovsky

Why are people compelled to make art?

Well, life is nasty, brutish and short. Any rational person realising this would get it over with even sooner. Fortunately, we are compensated with the genes for pleasure - that's why we appreciate pretty landscapes, shapely nudes, etc. etc. And we feel compelled to supplement the natural occurrences of these.

Imagine some teenagers standing outside a cave near (what would later be) Lascaux and thinking 'Look over there - some tasty bison.' ...'Now there's an idea...'

Art keeps us going.

No, I reckon they thought. 'Hey lets make some artistic pics of animals on this rock in total darkness, far underground, and then some really clever bloke, 40,000 years in the future, immersed in the whole Western Art tradition thang, and who maybe likes taking close-up flower photies...that look a bit like females' naughtie bits, who likes pretty landscapes and shapely nudes, will come along and know exactly why we are doing this'.



Effersvixen...I like it jwf

Well...they had to do *something* to make rich people feel good after dinner!

But, yes...that was the Western version. Just to show that I do understand that there are other traditions and perspectives...take Ritual Art. What is ritual but a simulacrum of the social interactions which bind us together and give us pleasure*?

All of this is EvPsych bollocks, of course. My only point is...it's all reducible. But no less marvellous for that.








* I'm using the word 'pleasure' loosely here to mean 'consistent with our impulses'.

Or pattern making. We're pattern-finding animals ('Oh, look...this kind of bush on this colour soil...there'll be some tasty roots underground.') and thus pattern-making. Both at the physical and conceptual level.

>My only point is...it's all reducible. But no less marvellous for that. <

Yes from a certain cultural perspective, or

wondrous window dressing...as anhaga spoke of earlier.

But it does seem to me that this desire to always analyse things, to find the most absolute rational truth of everything, can be counter productive to what's best for some of us to get through things, until we shake off our mortal coils. It just doesn't suit many of us to only need some kind of rational explanation, for everything; though some people are quite happy with that. Eg from what Clive posts on TGD, that's clearly enough for him.

People maybe fundamentally the same in terms of biology. But I just think that because of the highly developed consciousness of humans, due to our particular brain hardware, that has allowed a variety of 'cultural realities' to evolve. So I don't think we can escape cultural reality anymore than we can biology. Isn't that why Dawkins came up with his whole 'meme' thing?

In terms of 'culture' clearly many of us are very different from one another.

Effers:
>>But it does seem to me that this desire to always analyse things,

Well it was you who typed a sentence beginning with the word 'Why'. What is that but an invitation to analysis.

Me, I'm capable from separating the appreciation of art from its biological analysis. And it goes without saying that there are other worthwhile, higher-level perspectives - such as culture.

You're setting up a straw man of 'Nobody but me gets this stuff'.

Ah. The smiley's spelled .

This is from the other day, where I asked anhaga to be more precise:

>>
okay, here's precise:

there are no understandings beyond the rational. There are experiences that are other than rational, but experience is not 'understanding'. Understanding is communicable. Experience is not necessarily so.
<<

I have conversations with people fairly regularly that are dependent on what is beyond the rational. We also have at our disposal the intuitive and the instinctive. When I have experiences that aren't easily expressible via rational thought I still find ways to communicate about them with others. The others have to have had similar experiences, but still it is possible and happens frequently.

That communication is imprecise, often relies on metaphor and many more words than rationality would have, and can involve the whole body. Much communication is non-verbal, we all know that. Mothers and babies communicate all the time without rational discourse. So do humans and animals.



>>
The reason the conversation about this stuff is insubstantial is because one side is asking for an actual communication of information and the other (you in this particular case, kea) are saying (a bit perversely) 'but personal experience communicates information to the individual that can not be communicated by any means other than personal experience'.

Well, that just shuts down conversation.
<<

How strange. See I feel like I've been asking for an actual communication of information (how do you experience the dead? How do you experience chi?) but have been met mostly with resounding silence.

I've certainly not said personal experience is communicated by personal experience. I don't even know what that means


<<
I'm not particularly interested in talking about my personal 'spiritual' experiences because, frankly, they are effectively empty of meaning in any useful sense.
<<

And that's fine. I just know that is not true for a lot of people. Many people find meaning without resort to Rationality. How curious.


Thanks for clarifying anhaga. It makes sense now that what I am saying doesn't make sense. If you haven't had the experience of communicating in other ways then what I am talking about will be invisible I guess.

Effers, I like the story about woodworking. I've had that experience with different things too. While I do think it can come about from practice and things falling into place I don't think that is dependent on rationality in the moment. In fact I think it's the dropping of the rational mind that allows it to happen. That's what I've experienced with tai chi - you do the form until you don't have to think about it any more and then you simply are the form. It's ecstatic.

My first tai chi teacher said that once you get into that place with the chi its better than anything else including sex. I didn't know what she meant, until I experienced it for myself and then I did.


>>
When golfers get MRIed, what is seen is that the part of the brain used to ruin a good walk gets smaller and smaller with practice. The same behaviour holds across all kinds of skills I think. Practice makes perfect, but it also means you're actually using fewer neurons to actually perform whatever it is you're doing.

Everyone is aware of getting 'in the zone'. If that's chi, well it's there, but I can't help but think brain activity is a better bet to explain the feeling than some kinda 'world force'.
<< Pedro

I bet it's more than just the brain though, there will be changes in the whole body. And I think you are confusing measuring what is going on (a rational exercise) with the actual experience. You are measuring one thing that is going on while someone has the experience. That's different than being able to see all the factors associated with that experience and which are causative.


The point about whether chi is a better explanation for an experience than an MRI can give is missing the point. It's the concept of chi that allows one to experience it. This is most likely why Ed doesn't experience chi but muscle stretches instead. The necessity of denying chi would make it hard to find it.

>>
Why do people feel compelled to make Art? And I'm not just talking about the famous big names, but anybody? I'd suggest it's because of the subjective experiential and a wish to share that with others in a common language. And its a language that is able to deal with the contradiction and conflict, that some of us feel.
<<

Yes! Strange then that the art world, the Art World is so full of rational bollocks. Analysis is a useful thing but they really get carried away don't they?

Ed, what do you mean by ritual art?

>> ...a straw man... <<

I've been grinding my teeth over that expression
for several months now in several threads. It has
been used by virtually everyone posting to TGD.

I finally looked it up.
>>
straw man
A made-up version of an opponent's argument that can
easily be defeated. To accuse people of attacking a
straw man is to suggest that they are avoiding worthier
opponents and more valid criticisms of their own position.
<<

OK fair enough, it has nothing to do with the character
in the Wizard of Oz who whines 'If I only had a brain'.

Fact is the now accepted meaning dates from 1585 at the
earliest. For 25 years prior to that (during the Restoration
and the period of the Popish Plots) it was specifically a
person who was willing to sell his services bearing false
witness. Such persons would indicate their availability by
wearing a short piece of straw in their shoe. It was a sign
that their testimony was for sale. Many persons were found
guilty and subsequently hung, drawn and quartered on the basis
of such false witness.

That was the primary meaning I had always understood. But like
all little bits of knowledge it has proved a dangerous thing. For
me it brings up an image of a 17th century shoe stuck with a straw
followed by unpleasant imaginings of brutal death sentences carried
out to great delight of a drunken mob for no better reason than
imagined religious differences.


~jwf~

>Well it was you who typed a sentence beginning with the word 'Why'. What is that but an invitation to analysis.< Edward

Why do you think my post was directed personally at you? Yes my response in 552 was inspired as a response, to some of your posts I've read here and on other threads; but I was more musing at the general desire to rationally analyse subjective experience.

That's what I like about this truly excellent thread...a certain looseness and playfulness...at least that's how I'm taking it. There's plenty here I disagree with, with people like kea...but I'm just going a bit with the flow. It gets a bit boring to my mind, like you so often get on threads like TGD thread where people just jump on something and argue the toss straight away.

At the risk of repeating myself...can't you sometimes hang loose mother goose for a while. It's more creative and a bit like jamming, which can throw up all kinds of stuff. Yes I can be a bit provocative sometimes, like I often am...I put my hand up, but it's often meant in fun...hand on heart. You either get that or you don't.

>I bet it's more than just the brain though, there will be changes in the whole body.< kea

Yes but its the brain that senses that isn't it? And I know I've spoken the cerebral cortex, here and on another thread, lately...but there's also older parts of the brain that integrate with the so called higher brain. I agree about body changes...but there has to be something that senses that, and sorts everything out and communicates that to something we might *loosely* call an 'ego', which I'd suggest are what nerve cells do.