I was really just answering your question as to whether art should reflect reality in the context of making a distinction between life and reality. This is related to my reading preoccupation at the moment, which is Michel Henry. He makes a phenomenological distinction between life as lived and the external world (relaity) — Janus

So is this inherently dualistic? According to Henry, or (preferably) you? If so, I disagree. Berdyaev makes the distinction between objectivization and spirit, but it's unclear exactly whether this is analogous to dualism/monism.

Also, I appreciate your Berdyaev references, but I trust you don't take me as some Berdy devotee. :P My philosophy is pretty unorganized at the moment, but still influenced by ol' Berdy.

So is this inherently dualistic? According to Henry, or (preferably) you? — Noble Dust

No dualism is implied, because being is not thought as constituting multiple substance, or even a substance at all. If I remember correctly, Berdyaev rejects both monism and dualism; being for him is a symbolic manifestation of spirit. So, I think its more like some form of non-dualism for Berdyaev. Not sure about Henry, but since he is a phenomenologist, I would suspect he would reject metaphysics, and certainly anything resembling substance ontology.

Also, I appreciate your Berdyaev references, but I trust you don't take me as some Berdy devotee. :P My philosophy is pretty unorganized at the moment, but still influenced by ol' Berdy. — Noble Dust

What's wrong with being a Berd fanboy? :P Seriously, though, I liked Berdyaev's overall approach when I read him, but he is not a rigorous systematic thinker in the way Henry is. I'm finding Henry's ideas very interesting, and also that many of his thoughts are developments of the kinds of things I have thought. I had a similar experience with the Berd, in terms of the cascades of soaring insights he delivers.

If I remember correctly, Berdyaev rejects both monism and dualism; being for him is a symbolic manifestation of spirit. — Janus

Correct. (And my Berdy fanboy-ism is confirmed by the hairs that stood at the back of my head as I read that.)

So, I think its more like some form of non-dualism for Berdyaev. — Janus

Correct

Not sure about Henry, but since he is a phenomenologist, I would suspect he rejects metaphysics, and certainly anything resembling substance ontology. — Janus

Don't know him; would be interested given a more detailed account about him.

What's wrong with being a Berd fanboy? :P — Janus

Ha! No one feeds your ego on TPF, that's what...

I liked Berdyaev's overall approach when I read him, but he is not a rigorous systematic thinker in the way Henry is. — Janus

That's why I like him; I don't do well with systems, which makes me a poor philosopher in modern terms. I join Berdyaev in that position of opposition to modernity.

I'm finding Henry's ideas very interesting, and also that many of his thoughts are developments of the kinds of things I have thought. I had a similar experience with the Berd, in terms of the cascades of soaring insights he delivers. — Janus

The Berd definitely delivers and then some on the soaring Berdian heights. I'm always a sucker for those views, so I'll at least do a google search of Henry.

Don't know him; would be interested given a more detailed account about him. — Noble Dust

I think he's definitely worth investigating.

Ha! No one feeds your ego on TPF, that's what... — Noble Dust

Probably a good thing....?

That's why I like him; I don't do well with systems, which makes me a poor philosopher in modern terms. I join Berdyaev in that position of opposition to modernity. — Noble Dust

Interestingly, Henry is also opposed to modernity. It seems that his various works, as they present his philosophical development, form a coherent whole; and that's what I meant by "rigorous" and "systematic".

The Berd definitely delivers and then some on the soaring Berdian heights. I'm always a sucker for those views, so I'll at least do a google search of Henry. — Noble Dust

8-)

Hmmm. I would say that if you find TP interesting, it must be because of some glimmer of your experience that resonates with the show. Unless you enjoy it purely on escapist terms. — Noble Dust

Some of the ideas are at least momentarily stimulating on an intellectual level, but it is mostly the dramatic and novel intrigue of being in interesting and exciting situations that makes me enjoy the show. Ultimately I relate to agent Cooper.

That might be fine for philosophy, but what about art? I think that's the missing piece in your critique here; art doesn't use your reason; art isn't "robust" and minimal (it can be). Art is primarily seductive, in a sense. It's more immediate than reason; the experience of "what the fuck is going on, why are there two Coopers??" is not only emotional and dramatic, but it does have a philosophical underpinning that grounds the immediateness of the experience. Why are there two Coopers? What does that mean philosophically? Two identities? Someone being other than they claim to be? Someone having an outer (real world) and an inner (philosophy forum) life? But the immediate experience is visceral, not reasonable. Why begin at a (further off) abstract position, when the immediate position for inquiry is, by nature of experience, the now? — Noble Dust

Art doesn't have to be this way, but in the sense of "does it reflect or teach us about reality?", robustness is my own main subjective standard. Art can evoke broad ideas, like the two Coopers evoking the concept of human duality, but if all art does is evoke a concept then it's sufficient to qualify as art. To then go beyond and interpret what useful and robust meaning and understanding we can gain from the exploration of those concepts (colloquially referred to as the process of "reflection") is more akin to philosophy than it is to being merely aesthetically pleased or entertained by something.

Art which goes beyond to decipher and explore the concepts they raise aren't necessarily better, they're just more.

What does rationality obtain, then? Robustness? What does that actually mean if it's not certain? If reality, ala TP is not beholden to rational observation, then you would need to let go of that fundamental grounding and search for something else; something not irrational, but something intuitive. Something that begins with, and trusts in, experience. — Noble Dust

Imagine that reality is actually totally unlike our perception of it, but also that we have no existing experiential or experimental access to that true but hidden nature of things... If we spend our entire lives trapped in and limited by our own ability to perceive (to experience), then we can never be aware of any of the details of the real reality, nor if the reality we perceive is not itself the real reality.

When two people share the same experience but interpret it differently, how else can we resolve the discrepancy without applying reason (which is itself learned from basic observations) to the experiences and observations that actually require interpretation?

Ideological and intellectual robustness seems to be the very objective of attaining certainty. I think that we yearn for certainty because of the comfort and safe feeling we get from knowing. Predicting the future is essential to our survival, and the accuracy and scope of our predictive power is the very engine of human success. A robust prediction is one that we're comfortable with because it's more reliable. For the sake of avoiding imbuing points of failure into our understandings, we ought to use the most robust observations and ideas that are available to us.

My entire epistemic and ontological world view begins with trusting experience, but it is very particular about which experiences to trust. For example: pain and pleasure/good and bad are rather subjective experiences, so as a robust example (a helpful starting point for the would-be normative or existential nihilist): imagine dropping a 50 pound dumbbell directly onto your foot from a decent height. Breaking the bones in your foot like that is painful and bad; it's something you don't want to happen and you can be as certain of this as you can be certain of anything.

You actually are precluding the possibility of those new hidden realities by beginning with evidence (presumably of the reasoned/material kind) as the litmus test for their possibility. In other words, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy; "I'm open to the unknown, as long as it is measurable". — Noble Dust

Don't you see the epistemic risk in choosing to believe in the immeasurable? (essentially this is the main beef with all metaphysical claims). But to be specific I'm not precluding the possibility of their existence, nor am I precluding the possibility of me one day accepting them. What I am precluding is precisely the possibility of me accepting the validity of these possibilities without experience, observation, or evidence of their existence.

I'm open to measurements of the presently immeasurable once we've figured out how to actually measure them!

How many religious texts and commentaries have you read? — Noble Dust

Maybe too many. I did read the entire bible at age 14 or 15. Are you suggesting that none of them are interesting or that some of them are well substantiated :D (I assume the former).

The Bible reads like a long winded joke, true, but there's a whole world of fanatical obscurity out there that can be quite titillating. Winged fire breathing serpents and goddesses embodying fertility and attraction make for great story telling. Pretty much anything which waxes consciousness related hypotheses immediately finds sympathetic ears because the consciousness itself is still so mysterious and our curiosity unending. Nobody can prove that god, souls, alternate realities, complicated and arbitrary concepts like scientology's "thetan", do not actually exist (at least all permutations of such claims). What stops us then from just believing in whatever our intuitive whims tell us to believe? It does take effort and self-control to abstain from buying into any number of these possibilities which can be genuinely reassuring and intuitively comfortable. It's like a bland diet bereft of sweets, ultimately healthier but more emotionally challenging to endure.

Through imagination! The mother of worlds... — Noble Dust

I think a lot of what we think is our own imagination is really just stolen from a mix of experiences and observations. I do agree though, our imagination is what we use to make sense of just about everything. We create internal conceptual models of how the things we observe actually work. Reason and imagination seems to be the main tools we have to actually work with and decipher our experiences.

Considering I'm almost 50 years younger than him, I have no idea. :) — Noble Dust

I only blame Lynch as short hand; whatever individuals, groups and processes are used to create TP. I do hope that they can find a sensical way back to sanity.

[SPOILER ALERT] How do you feel about the fact that Cooper has been shat out into a brand new alternate dimension? Personally I think it's a somewhat cheap way to create a clean slate, but ultimately I think it's necessary to eventually leave behind the unexplained and intentional confusion of the first three seasons. There was no way Lynch could really tie off the various plots and themes into neat and conclusive bows. I am eager to appraise the approach that the full facultied Cooper takes to getting a grip on his new world and whether or not the creators will let him succeed in doing so.

No; would I like it if I'm a TP fanatic? :P — Noble Dust

Instead of being dark and serious with the unknown, it's fun and playful. I can't be sure but I think you would like it!

There are connections like that which make sense, yes, but that's not "the entire thing". Even something so simple as "has anyone seen Billy?", or why there were so many one-off characters having conversations at the Roadhouse, are more of what I'm referring to. — Noble Dust

You're right, looking back, the entire Audrey plot was more ambigious than I realized. I was under the impression there were enough clues (with Richard and Dopple Coop and Doc Hayward's skype call) to establish she was a in a nut house. One of the scenes in the Roadhouse involves characters talking about Billy, and one establishing they visit a nut house and lifted a jacket. Meaning that Audrey may have heard the Billy story and concocted her own narrative during hypnosis.
So in light of the thread, I may have unconsciously attempted to put that together after the fact and then forgot it wasn't clear.

Anyway, the frog bug I thought was the Judy villain entering Sarah. The horse in the white of the eyes (Sarah's horse) and dark within (Sarah after removing her face). That and the 'call' DoppleCoop received sounded like her. And finally when he got the right co-ordinates for Judy, he appeared to be heading towards Sarah's home before the fireman interfered and moved him to where he will be destroyed by Freddie and his glove. :P

So I think there is a workable literal plot to it.

lways interpreted the first two seasons as trying to make sense of sexual abuse in general, and the "cycle of abuse"; I interpret Leland's lines in his death scene to mean that Bob was also a real person who abused him in his childhood. — Noble Dust

Yep this is a common one. I'm also a fan of Paronoia Agent so that has an influence on my interpretation that Bob (originally Leland's personal trauma) may have been an example of mass hysteria that became real.
Interestingly tulpas are something similar to this which cropped up in the new Season.

What works are good to get introduced to Henry's thought?

I am just starting to get into Henry myself, and have read the first essay in Material Phenomenology and am reading I am The Truth: toward a Philosophy of Christianity. I am finding these full of interest and well connected insight. Having some idea of your interests I'm guessing you might enjoy Henry's writings. :)

I have also read synopses of his other works, and it is on account of that that I said his work seems to be a systematic evolution of a unified concern. That may have been prematurely stated, but nothing I have come across so far does anything but support it.

Thanks.

What confuses me with discussions focused on art and reality is the parable of the mirror. Is the image really inside the mirror? In some way of course it is. It’s what we see. But then comes the ancient question: is the seeer somehow separated from what he/she sees? As an artist, I get bored with this question because the process is what counts. In the performing arts, this question because redundant because we see bodies in space. The body carries the reality. In the plastic arts, the reality is the object whatever it is, and the artist quickly gets bored in the object, moving swiftly onto the next process of creativity.

Art = not reality

Reality = art

The logic to this is that since art already claimed the sequence of not, reality can't