Folks
As an artist (all media) my reaction to the below
is quizzical. Neuroscience, information science,
esthetics, etc. are logical products in the realm
of 'knowing that', which I call Nature, or
Reality, while the unfolding of an artistic work
takes place in the realm of 'knowing how', which
I call The World, or Actuality. The one is a
view from the outside, the other a view from the
inside, reflecting the 'externalist /
internalist' duality. I think it could be urged
that the current 'social intent' of external
logical understanding is to serve technology (as
in computation). In this it makes things
replicable. An artist makes things unique, as is
any actual occasion, even though it may be
working within a strong tradition (e.g., medieval
Islamic tilework), or with the intent of making
copies (etchings, photographs). Art might be
said to be the intent to focus the unique moment
in the service of beauty, or expression, or
shock, or (considering the modern arts) anything
whatever.
STAN
Dear Sonu, Dear FIS Colleagues,
I should first say that I claim no academic
authority for my comments. As some of you know,
I am self-taught. With this caveat, please let
me proceed.
In 1979, the Franco-Romanian thinker
Stéphane Lupasco published a book entitled The
Psychic Universe in which he applied his logical
system to cognitive processes. Chapter 1 is
called Neuropsychic Dialectics. The logical
alternance of actualization and potentialization
of contradictory elements becomes, here, the
resting potential (dynamic electrostatic
equilibrium) of the nerve cell, its
depolarization and repolarization.
Neurobiological processes thus also reflect the
underlying fundamental duality inherent in
energy. In subsequent Chapters he looks at the
dialectics of afferent and efferent systems and
their interactions as the eventual basis first
for consciousness, and from there for ceativity
and art.
In 1947, Lupasco applied his logical system
to an explanation of ethics and art in his Logic
and Contradiction. I have summarized his view on
art as follows:
In his detailed application of the logic of the
included middle to art, Lupasco writes that the
logic of esthetics must evolve, be directed
inversely to the logic of ethics, inversely to
any rational or irrational process, that is,
inversely to processes that lead toward the
absolute identity or diversity of
non-contradiction. The logic of esthetics must
proceed from the non-contradictory toward the
contradictory; it aims at contradiction. The
artist generates a becoming from the opposition
of the consciousnesses of identity and diversity
- an included middle we call a work of art.
Works of art are generally considered fictions,
and thus false, because contradictory. As one
can understand from Lupasco's logic, art does
not seek the true nor the real, either
rational or irrational, but the truly false,
redefined as the contradiction of both
affirmation and negation and of the pure
identity and diversity which govern them.
Thus art is neither real nor unreal. Reality is
the aspect of antagonistic logical order
potentialized and objectified, and unreality is
the same actualized and subjectified. This is
why, in the esthetic experience, the subject and
object tend to overlap, or to disappear as such.
A work of art will be most esthetic when most
semi-subjective and semi-objective at the same
time, least real and unreal or better most
semi-real and semi-unreal at once. It is
interesting to compare these ideas with the
well-known statement by Picasso that art is a
lie, but in the service of truth.
My tentative reply is therefore the following:
in the human brain, the same dualities are
reflected in two ways: in the underlying neural
processing (s) at various levels starting from
initial stimuli to their complex counterparts in
the creative/anti-creative conflicts and
tensions in the artist, resulting in the work of
art as an emergent process, also instantiating
the dualities.
So as you see, I have gone here from
neuroscience to art: the logic of dynamic
opposition is the bridge. The above ideas have
not been published in my book Logic in Reality,
which describes the basic theory and its
application to physics and biology, but not to
cognitive science. I thus look forward to
comments from everyone, + and -. Who knows where
they might wind up?!
Best regards to all.
Joseph
- Original Message -
From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sonu Bhaskar
To: mailto:fis@listas.unizar.esfis@listas.unizar.es
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 1:22 PM
Subject: [Fis] Neuroscience of Art:Insights Leads
Dear FIS Colleagues,
Regarding the sprouting interest among our FIS
colleagues germane to the ''Neuroscience of
Art'', let me make a humble attempt to
understand the replies of our
