what if ethics were as apodictic (apriori, universally and necessarily true) as logic? — Astrophel

I would view logic as apodictic in accordance with its own terms. Perhaps a priori, insofar as I would define a priori: a "truth" settled upon and input foundationally and universally, more or less. But not pre-existent nor always present; like a posteriori and phenomena, mediated (constructed and projected). I would not view logic as universally and necessarily true outside of its own construction. I would not impose our logic upon Nature, for e.g. If/when we [superficially] observe logic in nature, we are superimposing it.

As for ethics, same exact paragraph as above, mutatis mutandis.

I am not diminishing the high function of both logic and ethics for us. I am not following a hypothesis that they are neither ultimately real nor necessary in order to stop applying them. On the contrary, I cherish both, even though I am not expert in either. I am just settling on a position which following various paths collected where "I" happened to be.

To reiterate that current settlement, our mundane experiences are mediated, we, as human animals, have become so attached to them, we are no longer attuned to our real and natural aware-ing, the one we share with the rest of nature in variations. Religion reminds us/allows a glimpse into our present being, and reprieve from the speed and chatter of becoming; and, more so, from attachment to the Subject of that becoming. The latter has virtually displaced our true natures with its movements.

From Upanisads to Analects to Sutras, Gospels, Torah and Prophets, Koran, and I would speculate much more, beyond the mythological, legalistic, and ritualistic, there is the consistent thread: surrender your ego (Mind's constructions/projections) to the Universal (God/Nature). That consistent thread, I say, is the essence.

You know that perception is an historical construct, even though it occurs without pause. This is evident in that one's own personal history provides that language learning from infancy, yet when we engage with this language, there is exactly this immediacy in the way a knowledge claim is affirmed in and by language. — Astrophel

Well. That's what I'm saying. And Heidegger must be who I got it from. The so called experience (seems immediate but) is mediated by the language passed on (as it evolves) through history, input into each "unit" of Mind starting in infancy.

And, following Heidegger, this language itself, apart from one's personal history, has a history that goes back through the ages and evolves in historical movements (sound like Hegel? Of course). — Astrophel

What the hell! Yes. I thought Hegel had built that idea, yes. Mind is History. It moves through, not just language qua language, but a multiferous system of signifiers, operating in accordance with its own evolved laws mechanics dynamics. Logic for instance, a "grammar". As is ethics

make that move into the world (this is what Michel Henry argued with passion) and there we are in this "fleshy encounter" of a very direct apprehension that is NOT qualified by the interpretative values of language. Feel the grass, the pinch of the flesh, — Astrophel

Ok, yes. I see your point. Sorry, I got carried off by those parallels. Yes, when I say religion takes us away from "I" and returns us to real being (the body), you are correct. Being feels nature presently; senses before perception floods in with its "fiction".

an unmitigated, unconditioned apprehension of the pure phenomenon that stands before one in vivid presence, — Astrophel

:clap: :up:

figurative sense ('the object of the enquiry'.) If you designate it as a real object then you're reifying. — Wayfarer

I agree; not real; specifically not real.

What I'm drawing attention to is that even the undeniably objective always occurs to a subject. — Wayfarer

It might be that my reference to the Body as real, reads like an empiricist or conventional physicalist. I think they are correct but their reasoning is no less constructed than that of an Idealist, or whatever my own is, which is not empricist.

My reference to Body as real has built-in to it the recognition that the real cannot be spoken of. The instant I communicate, it is Mind and therefore that "qualified real" but not ultimately real.

When I reverse the order in your quote, it is not to say that Mind is just organic functions in some dogmatic scientific sense. I'm saying this process which mediates so called objective reality (I don't use "objective") is the very same process arriving at the determination that "it" is independently real, for some, the ghost in the machine.

I'm saying the [awesome] being is tge machine. The ghost is there, has an effect, but structurally*, is fleeting code.

*if I'm not mistaken, either earlier, or in that other thread, you "admitted" to not requiring any comment regarding the structure of Mind. And I think, once we recognize that its structure is signifiers in memory constructing and Projecting "stories", we can better understand those philosophical conundrums, the hard problem, among them.

"By investing the objective domain with a mind-independent status, as if it exists independently of any mind, we absolutize it. We designate it as truly existent, irrespective of and outside any knowledge of it. This gives rise to a kind of cognitive disorientation which underlies many current philosophical conundrums"--- Wayfarer, from your thread.

Funny thing is, see below, my liberty taken with your quote, which I have precisely thought in almost the exact terms:

By investing Mind with a status, as if it is a being, the being, ultimately existing in the universe, independently of any Body, we absolutize it. We designate it as real, irrespective of and without acknowledging that any knowledge of it is knowledge of itself. This gives rise to a kind of cognitive disorientation which underlies many current philosophical conundrums, one being that the Body is the dubious "entity" while the mind is certain, and therefore, it's constructions being tge determinate of certainty.

You're wanting to claim that 'the apple' (read: any object) has a 'real existence' (ultimate reality) which exists (is real) irrespective of and outside of our mediated experience of it. — Wayfarer

Just to clarify, in case you think it makes a difference. You're right that that's what I'm wanting, but the wording makes it sound dualistic. There is 'the apple'. It has its one and only existence. That existence is veiled by our mediated perception. Or, we do not perceive that one and only existence, but a re-presentation of it. Because we now see 'the apple' ineluctably as "An Apple."

...I guess that's what you're saying. Maybe it's the "outside of" which gave it this dualistic feel.

propositions provide for Moore a proof of the external world, — Sam26

I think it's ironic that Moore might have considered himself a champion of the external world, yet he presumes, as if it's given, that that which is performing the assessment needs no proof. It is only from the internal world's constructions, and in accordance with the laws of its own constructions, that the external world must be subjected to such tests. It is the external world which is certain, and Mind which is dubious.

And, it is doubly ironic that Moore uses his hands, his body as proof of the external world, when that is precisely and certainly what so called he is. Whether he is those fleeting projections in mind affecting everything is dubious.

how do you get outside that mediated experience to see things as they truly are? — Wayfarer

Thank you, you are consistently helpful.

I think you accurately assessed what I am, in deed trying to do.

If I recognize that I cannot get out of the mediated and see as they really are, on the one hand; and on the other, that "my" body already does--it is "I" who cannot--I don't think that would be satisfactory.

I see the "problem" but cannot be convinced that the truth must fit into a "scheme" which allows for the human mind to "know" it; or that the truth cannot have contradictions within a human made logic.

Perhaps what I truly need to face up to, is the fact that such a truth, if it exists and does not live up to human "reasoning" cannot be mutually pursued in a forum which necessarily prides itself in the mastery of human reason.

Yet, it seems not only notwithstanding the walls I keep hitting, but because of them, I am enriching myself and informing my hypotheses by such pursuit.

I don't think a new reality is generated out of an existent other reality. — Harry Hindu

My apologies for putting words in your mouth.

An illusion is a misinterpretation of sensory data, not that the data itself isn't real. — Harry Hindu

In explaining the causes you don't dispel the illusion. Instead, you make it a real consequence of real causes. — Harry Hindu

These are very helpful. Thank you. I need to look into/think these through.

The one thing that I am sure of is the existence of my mind. — Harry Hindu

but this makes me wonder about the words. I am not certain about this. Yes my mind exists. If a thing which exists, is by definition real. Then I see where the "problem" is, because I would not settle at that.

It seems to me that you do not mean by "reality" what most of us mean by it. — Dfpolis

You're probably right. I understand the definition you provided. However, it causes me some conflicts if you're saying that reality is reality, and that definition can apply "throughout" all "forms".

What about this? Mediated reality and Ultimate Reality.

Mediated reality is encountered by us and has effects, but (I say here) is mediated by minds re-presentation of Ultimate Reality. So when I look at an apple. There is the real apple which I would have seen had my sensation not been mediated by mind's re-presentation of "apple" (fruit, shape, red, eat, doctor away, rotten at the core, not pear, not orange, not wax etc).

If someone, more skilled than I, were able to pursue that properly, they would unveil the absence all along, of a so-called hard problem. The physical state is acting physically. The mental so called state is a mediated reality such that, it is ultimately not real like the physical state, but a system of fleeting and empty projections. Nothing "other" has arisen in the brain's place. Rather, the organism is no longer "attuned" to its feelings and drives, as such, but rather these re-presentations evolved to monopolize the triggering of all feelings and drives.

It seems like at one time happy was a certain pleasant feeling the human animal would get if satiated, bonding, no threats, etc (I hypothesize); and that, now (since Mind "emerged") happy is an infinite possibility of sentences beginning with the Subject, "I": I am happy because I. But the fact is, the animal is still feeling tgat certain pleasant feeling, only "I" think the feeling is in the sentences, I am happy because I.

This is what I mean by the "experience" is not Real but mediated/constructed and projected, displacing what is "really" real.

and to argue that it is our natural "fear of death" the instinct for survival which forms the primal essence, I'd agree that would precede attachment to Subject. But I don't think such a fear exists in our natural being, independent of language or human mind. We also would not be constructing religion in that being, free of mind.

why do you priviledge, or prioritize, (your) religious ideality over (primordial) religious facticity? — 180 Proof

You're thinking of essence anthropological, fear of death; myth and ritual arising therefrom. And I completely agree with that.

I'm thinking of essence, as in what is its most essential function. You will say, to alleviate the fear of death. But I say, the fear of death has a deeper "root" which is the attachment to the Subject. And religion essentially addresses that. No attachment, no fear.

Anthropologically, the thing was constructed to address death and manifested as myth and ritual; eventually as ecclesiastical institutions.

Psychologically(?) Philosophically(?) the thing was constructed to address the attachment to projections including death.

I'd say that's the essence of religion. You say not. I don't see how the fear of death precedes (temporally, psychologically, in any hierarchy) the attachment causing the fear.

Unless you reject the notion of attachment to the Subject. (?)

but it has to be brought to an even more penetrating analysis in order to show the world that religion is the THE profound center of our existence, not this or that religion, but religion in its essence. — Constance

Yes, please. I am an enthusiastic gardener, but I lack the training and the tools. And yes, not this or that--though I don't begrudge their efforts; we get sucked in easily

How does one talk about tis outside of the outrageous volumes of Heidegger, Husserl, Kant, Levinas, Henry, and so on? — Constance

The way I see it, we already talk about it within those volumes; we cannot but.

I believe no idea stands on its own, but emerges as a locus in the history of that idea. Then it gets tucked into the next. Any hypothesis "I" may purport to have, is already Heidegger, Husserl, Kant, Levinas, Henry, and so on's ideas, and the ideas of countless others.

It makes sense to refer to them specifically where it is fitting, but we are already building off of them, and fettering our discretion to explore new directions is acting in bad faith as human thinkers.

that this truth is an existential absolute, not a logical one, — Constance

Yes. I completely agree.

one cannot even imagine the existential Good of, say, bliss, love, ecstasy, being Bad, or not being Good — Constance

but here, I'm wondering if I misunderstood. I would say, that this truth, not being a logical one, does not imagine, period.

the Good's existence as Good is as sound as a logical construction. — Constance

Again, am I misunderstanding?

I would give neither logical nor Ethical, for that matter, any consideration in regard to this truth. Good is an imposing construct. Logic belongs to it. As does Ethics. But to The Ultimate Truth that we are the being which breathes, not the becoming which thinks, the only "concern" is being. Religion is that sublime mechanism built into the imposing projections, a peek hole into being.

But this and that religion, like us in every endeavor, soon lost sight of that essence. And so we bicker instead of peek.

Divinity lies in the universal caring about the world, for caring itself is transcendental, mystical, as Wittgenstein would say. — Constance

Ok, I didn't misunderstand. Yes, "divinity" is caring; not about the projected becoming of mind and history; but in the being of "God and Its Creation" to put it "religiously." To put it philosophically, it is caring (about) being; or, being caring-being, rather than distracted-being, or becoming.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying or how your explanation describes exactly how neurons "generate "images"". — Harry Hindu

I don't blame you. Moreover, you are right, that I haven't exactly described anything.

how something that is "physical" can generate something "non-physical" — Harry Hindu

At the clear-to-me risk, that in my insistence (as a courtesy) on brevity, I will repeat my failure, I may as well say something about this. It can happen because the physical, the only reality, is not really generating anything. That you think it is a new reality generated out of an existent utterly other reality, you are in the common human illusion. Or, you are, at least, mistaken.

I think traditional phenomenology, which addresses, as you raised, the problem of understanding objects as they "must be" vs as they "appear" to us; that is moving into new directions. One, is that the traditional did not throw its net out far enough. If it had, it would have left to Science how we sense red, or the aroma of coffee. The real question phenomenology is after is why we "experience" it as red. And this is the result of images, once constructed and saved in memory to trigger a feeling which in turn triggered a drive and action (like many sentient animal), now have developed into its own sophisticated system of constructing images (using neurons) to trigger ultimately feeling and action.

It is only because that once strictly organic system of conditioning responses for survival has evolved in humans into Mind, that "red" and "aroma" have meaning, a mechanism in the system wherein those once strictly organic feelings, are attached to Narratives--experiences.

And how does something physical generate these experiences? You rightly asked. It doesn't generate anything real at all. These are "codes" hijacking feelings to create this illusion of meaning and that meaning matters. It doesn't. Matter matters.

In case it seemed otherwise, I wasn't intending my last reply to read as adversarial in any way.
On the contrary, I thought we shared a mutual frustration with the subject.

And, in any event, yes, you are correct. Definitions are an integral part of using words.

You're killing me Vera Mont.

That definition has just broadened art to include, not only American Idol, but this. Recall, in the OP, I set it up, specifically "in the spirit of aesthetics, and to enhance the experience of the so-called hypothesis."

I think it's best to stick to "art cannot be defined." Not in Language, at least.

Maybe art is one of those things that has to be experienced, and then you "know" whether or not you'd call it art (based upon a vaguely described concept constructed in language).

Maybe it's not that art is a thing which makes you feel, but rather, art is a thing you cannot know; you must feel.

I trust you will hate that last definition most, but, no offense intended, that's what I'm settling with.

for what it's worth, I think any inclination to act, the "veiled" in the heroism of taking responsibility to save the greater number, is rooted in the Ego's attachment to its own narrative to a God complex level. Who the hellbam I to make a decision like that? As I said, it's already a tragedy. Who am I to decide? Unless...I am heroic to God level proportions and can make such decisions without bringing my self into the tragic, profoundly immoral equation.

It already is both a tragedy and immoral. Before I'm even asked to intervene. Why should I pile immorality upon immorality and tragedy upon tragedy? I'd call the cops. Failing that, I'd watch and be regretfully traumatized.

have thoughts that say prayer is egotistical, and a feeling that maybe it is not, that maybe I’m missing something. — Art48

While I am not purporting to provide an authoritative answer; and while, I myself only prayer instinctively in moments of danger, as in, "oh God, don't let me fall" I too have wondered.

From a so called "Christian" perspective, I would say the opposite. It is egotistical not to humble yourself and admit that you are a useless rag* in need of God's intervention. It is "pride" which makes you think you are too selfless to perform petitionary prayer.

*remember, I do not think so; this is from a Christian pov

how "physical" neurons are produces/causes/is-identical-with "non-physical" consciousness — Harry Hindu

I propose, the neurons generate "images" which trigger feelings, activity, more images.

Human "consciousness" was once, like other animals, "attuned" to the feelings and activities, and not the images which evolved to trigger conditioned responses. Under this regime of Human Mind, however, attention is focused on the images; the latter which has evolved into a system governed by its own laws. mechanics, and dynamics. Far from the images strictly serving a "shortcut" to conditioned responses fit for survival, they now "inform" all experiences, and the triggered feelings or activities, are perceived as incidental, biproducts, in support of the images.

But the images are not only non-physical. From a metaphysical/epistemological perspective, they are fleeting and empty processes, Signifiers. Variations among "Subjects" are not only di minimis, but are literally, immaterial.

Well, good luck defining art, Mr. Webster.

my mind is the most real thing I know. — flannel jesus

From where I've been looking, that was the mistake Descartes made. Your mind does the knowing, your mind presents you with the "I" to attach the knowing to, and your mind is making that proclamation, not just that it is real, but apparently is most real in an apparent hierarchy of reality. Just like Descartes; mind choosing itself over matter (and, like everyone, since at least Plato, whose Minds privileged Mind, Idea, Spirit, over "flesh". And after all of that, not only has your mind made a pre-biased assessment of itself, but I don't even think your mind is real. Your body is. Mind is its projections which have evolved such that aware-ing our real natures has been completely overshadowed.

As for the so-called hard problem, the problem itself is a projection; a mechanism which we have interpreted as preventing the flow of Mind's projections from body to body. Yet look at us, and how shared our experiences really are by Mind's methods of communication. Telepathy is not necessary. It's not that we are intersubjective; its that the Subject does not separate Mind. The bodies are "permeable". Mind is one process moving through humanity as History. Subjectivity is exactly tied to the Subject, which because it stands in for the Body, and because we perceive, because of History thus far bodies as separate, we assume the Subject too is an isolated mind. And the quality of experience, or qualia, may differ micro-locally from body to body; but these variations are how Mind moves, and do not isolate us. We share the same Narratives going forward in our becoming, because we construct that Narrative together.

I surrender. Art cannot be defined. Though, I still sense there is some shared intuition on the subject, it seems once expressed, objections are inevitable. Hmm.

It is not really natural at all, I would say. — Constance

It is a removal from what is natural as well as from whatever distorting contribution the "tranquilization in unauthentic being of endlessly being busy makes — Constance

You are--besides that you arrive there ineluctably by a process of fully open, free, and independent reasoning (a Herculean task; all ideas are built like "Bricologe" from all accessible others)--taking this position that this hypothetical "religiously pointed to" liberation transcends both the world mediated by human mind, and the natural (what I am suggesting as ultimately real) world for one of three reasons,
1. That is the position dictated by a "school" to which you subscribe;
2. Although you might reject metaphysical dualism, you are yet "framed" by what I've found to be the dominating narrative in western thought, which is that the "spirit" is the locus of reason and morality etc, while the "flesh" the locus of gluttony and desire; or,
3. You mean to say, "religious" liberation--presumably tied in with the divine, must transcend both mind and body.

Hopefully, 1 and 2 speak for themselves as to why that's not up to me to address.

If it's 3, I would clarify the hypothesis informing my thinking.

It is "possible" that there is an Ultimate Reality beyond the natural universe.
In "my" hypothesis that would mean three "levels" in a "hierarchy" of reality:
Mind("projected" from nature, not real)
Nature ("projected" from "god" real, but not as such)
Ultimate Reality (like, Nirguna Brahman in Advaita Vedanta)

But informed by phenomenology and science to the extent that these extremely useful and progressive tools can help, I can "safely" settle at 1 and 2. But 3, though possible, even arguable, is an unnecessary leap and it is confusing the "essence" of religion, even the root of what's causing some in this thread to lash out against religion.

There is the natural universe. It is here and this body which mind makes me experience as "I" is in it. Why question its reality?

The "why" comes not from truth but from tge "confusion" constructed by mind. It is far too complex to describe here, but simply, because Mind displaces the Body with the Subject, it functions to further create the "illusion" that it must be the seat of reality, thus, the Body, nature, the outside world, only its projections.

When really, the so called outside world, including human bodies, is the universe, and it's mind's projections which are not real but which displaces how tge outside world and our Bodies "look" to mind.

Liberation might involve a "third level" as in Godhead etc. And I do intuit that, but natural being itself is unspeakable enough. Because speakable belongs only to mind. And while we might, we need not take the extra leap as Kierkegaard did, to free ourselves from the "fake" constructions of mind (where, by the way, all suffering occurs because "I" causes attachment).

We--and here is where I'm saying the essence of religion is--need only turn our natural organic body's aware-ing away from the chatter, focus on its organic sensations, drives, movements and feelings, and "see" even if ever so briefly, that the desires of Mind are not Real. Human history is not real. Nature and its being is real.

There may yet be some "ecstacy" in uncovering that nature and its being, too, are not Real but that we are all God. But as I said, trying to speak of natural being is already a paradox since you can only access being by being and not knowing, which is constructed. Speaking from mind about God would be a double paradox. Fiction speaking fiction not only of its hypothetical host, but of its hypothetical host's hypothetical host.

depends on how well one can turn the tables on this lifetime of education and enculturation. Go all the way, like the Gautama — Constance

I hypothesize that despite their great insights, both the Vedanta logins, and Buddhists remain yet "stuck" in mind. It is inescapable. Turning tables is still the table.

But Zazen "unwittingly" offers something: the idea that if you at least focus on the Body, you may get reprieve from the chattering long enough to have accessed reality; just enough to at least bring that knowledge--albeit, still knowledge--back to the chatter. In that, Zazen captures the essence of religion which has been otherwise lost, and which makes the OP a question of ultimate concern not just here, but to each individual and to humanity.

And yet more and more our ignorance based resentment to religion pushes it away.

Fink makes the radical move. The reduction is a reference to Husserl's Ideas — Constance

Like Zazen, H's reduction is a brilliant tool for temporary reprieve. But while I believe Zen did pursue its path with liberation from the constructions in mind, hence employing a bodily tool, H was driven more by thinking he could use language to liberate language from language.

Having said that, don't get me wrong, I fully agree that Husserl is a link in Western philosophy, to understanding these things. Notwithstanding some contradictions, very much Hegel, too.

In the direct perceptual encounter with an object, whether it be a thing, a feeling, a memory, something imagined, it doesn't matter, anything at all, I do not actually witness what is before my eyes, so to speak. The witnessing is bound up with recollection, so I see a lamp and there is IN this an implicit attending of all I know about lamps, their contexts of what, where, how, when about lamps. — Constance

Immediately preceding the above, you were describing your pursuit in tge analytical school. Is the above reflective of that? Or was that a follow-up of your own thoughts ex-analytical (so to speak), intended to lead into Derridas?

I'm asking simply to be informed (I.e., not to address some critical point).

Is atheism illogical? — Scarecow

I think given your first premise, focusing on the afterlife, atheism is illogical.

But if one were to approach the question from the perspective, not of the pros and cons of atheism, but of the fact itself, is this a universe with or without a God, it might yield a different response; or the same response, for different reasons.

I'm not qualified to provide specific examples, but I'm pretty sure in my readings I have come across a notable amount of "instances" in Philosophical "calculations" where God must be assumed for the "equation" to resolve a metaphysical or even Ethical question. Correct me if I'm wrong.

At its simplest, art is something presented for aesthetic appreciation. — Tom Storm

You know what? I'm settling at that. It has the widest doors, and I'm all for open borders.

the edge of art is an infinite curve we can sample in unending pieces — ucarr

Even if I already knew that, I'd still ask. Philosophy is an infinite curve we can sample in unending pieces.

I think the key here isn't "we can sample" but that we are compelled to, each of us, even the unanswerable questions. We are compelled to ask.

Maybe putting something to rest, for an individual, can only be consummated by going through with it.

usually — 180 Proof

I guess you're leaving room for philosophical dogmatism, those who adhere to a strict logic, a functional, yet constructed framework, as a precondition to entertaining the validity of any and all propositions; or, those who discourse and reflect within the framework of a set of hypotheses (Aristotle's, Kant's, etc.) not only confining themselves to within a strict convention of interpretation of same dictated by the authorities, but to the exclusion of entertaining any and all alternatives.

And political dogmatism, those who insist on a position, whether economic or social, not from reasoned analysis, but because it aligns with an ideology and its strict walls, growing thicker and thicker as they close in. (Abortion is a good e.g. both sides).


And scientific dogmatism, those who insist that only what appears to 5 of the human senses can be data for constructing knowledge; ignoring that knowledge is constructed, and the data gathered was not immediate to the senses, but already mediated by mind and re-presented as if direct from the senses.

And there's dogmatism in the arts, and across academics. You could argue that unlike religion, these adherences are reasoned. But maybe there are reasoned thinkers in each of those communities, but they're not the dogma I just referred to.

I'm not even sure dogma is prevalent mostly in religion, though it might cause the most trouble there. That, I would agree.

Here's what I now think, having moved with these posts.

Art is any Fictional representation presented to human senses, the sole function of which is to trigger a notable feeling without having recourse to any other explanation/trigger.

Stronger feelings are triggered from things we would consider "authentic" "creative" "original" etc. And as for art which is highly commercial, we resent it, even try to suppress feelings, because we are confused, believing it's function is to make money and not to trigger feelings.

But it is only incidentally that some art can be lucrative. All that matters is that it is a Fictional representation that is presented to trigger feelings in its spectators.

We can be as snobby as we want in assessing whether or not American Idol triggers strong, or authentic feelings; good or bad ones; whether its art is creative, original, or ingenious. But we cannot exclude it from the art club. It is a Fictional representation (it doesn't matter we think they are real amateurs in a talent show) presented as such, to make audiences feel something (it doesn't matter it makes us feel more inclined to buy products) and, we feel many things.

Addendum: and that's why Duchamp's urinal, too is art. It existed once as a toilet. But presented as it was by Duchamp, it was a Fictional representation, its function to make us feel, and we did/do feel.

sunsets, landscapes, people's faces... No, let's not have a discussion as to whether or not those should be considered art. — T Clark

I would suggest that those images naturally trigger "pleasant" feelings. And while you referenced them to illustrate that pleasant feeling do not necessarily make something art, I think what you have referenced has a direct relationship with art.

The feelings which sunsets or faces, throw in morning song birds, elicit in us organically, can be "triggered" by a Fictional represention to any or any combination of the senses. Same effect, different triggers. You can have such a scenario by coincidence (a heart attack a car accident causd a death). This is not a coincidence. Rather, the triggering of those precise feelings through a fictional representation is the "function" of art. It's why art (continues to) exists.

Thus Ahab rages against what is "behind" the whale, existence itself that produces whales, and black holes, and fence posts, and everything! This is a big move. There is a name for this everything, which is Being. Being itself. It has no features for it is not A being, so all that can be talked about and predicated about using the copula "is" as in it IS a rainy day and the flower IS red, and so on, is the incidental expression of the Being of the whale, the tiger and the tax audit that puts you in jail. — Constance

Very nice


...aside from that, I guess you're viewing the tax audit as, though projected "out of" Being, nonetheless Being. And, why not? You say. Correct?

Assuming I understand you correctly, without giving details, it surprises me. Although, it shouldn't. It appears to be a shared view.

For me, unthinkable though it would seem, the tax audit is a "fiction" as is perceiving the day as rainy, and the flower as red (though in Being it may be raining and the flower is sensed as that color--I will trust that you're following). These are happening and are not some illusion or dream; but unlike being which is necessarily happening, these things, the audit, a flower, red, rainy day, are projections which only happen to hunan mind(s). These are part of the broad interpretation of "imposition thinking" you referenced in the OP in relation to Nietzsche, and I ran with.

My point is that your eloquent placement of Being in Moby-Dick for me, properly captures that it is all Being, Nature, the whale, Ahab, the Ocean, and the wood constructing his ship, as is the movement of these manifestations of Being.

But as for the manifestations of one manifestation of Being, tge human being, and its projections, these are constructed out of fleeting and empty representations stored in the organisms memory. They have created amazing and horrible things with real effect upon Being, but they, in themselves are empty images that come and go in shapes and forms, moved by desire, building meaning in Narrative forms.

These, taxes and the flower, perceived as "flower", are imposition thinking and have "removed" us from the reality we naturally share with tge earth and other creatures.

And because philosophy too is imposition thinking, religion, in essence, is a means to return, if ever so intermittently and briefly, to tge reality of Being. That is, the essence of religion is to awaken from the fiction in pursuit of the truth.

I meant define it with precision. Having said that, I agree with

creative people produce objects and performances that move or inspire or enrage or enthrall other people. — Vera Mont

And likely it should simply be that.

Any more is too much. Let the rest of the debate be about "good" and "bad" art, classifications, categories, messages and impacts.

We pay attention to art...
— ENOAH

We pay attention to porn and horse racing. — Tom Storm

You're right. And rather than responding to each of your points because you're right on all of them, I liked this one the most.

Really, why do we ask or care about what is art? Probably because we habitually engage in these kinds of--ultimately--pointless exercises. I believe autonomously. But I won't get into that.

The thing is, asking and following up--not just re art--may be ultimately pointless. But also great things emerge out of these seemingly pointless pursuits. The simplest way to illustrate what I mean is that these exercise provide the (for my laziness to find the apt word) "theoretical" ground work for Culture’s "concrete" manifestations.

I'm not saying, necessarily we, on this forum, obviously. But all of humanity, in autonomous pursuit of meaning, manifesting as our "things". For better or worse.

I'd be interested to understand from you why the term art matters so much to some people. Seems to me that some seem to want to reserve the word as a magic charm which can only be waved over certain approved phenomena. — Tom Storm

I too prefer some freedom when it comes to words. Particularly when the objects addressed are necessarily vague and broad.

I think for some--perhaps, the same who wish to tighten the definition s of words--art belongs only to the visual arts like sculptors, painters, etc. and some variations thereof.

I'm not so sure the intention of the "creator" should play so potent a role either.

I have an "idea" of what classifies as art; and, it is broad and vague, yet seems impossible to properly articulate with words. Watch me try:

art is any creation (no, not any, it has to be a certain kind, and it is not really the creation, but how the creation is "looked at", for e.g. a urinal does not qualify, yet, if looked at in a certain way,...oh, see? Intent may play a role......etc) which,
when presented to one or more of the senses, triggers profound (doesn't have to be "profound" just beyond "normal", but, then, what is normal?.. ..etc) inner feeling or drive to act (and not because it has any mechanism for doing so beyond the "message" or "signifier" that it is).

It seems to me, impossible to define art. So impossible, that one could make a case for art being anything which is presented to the senses and triggers feelings beyond the mundane response to mundane things, as mundane things.

And in that case, a banal talent show can be art.

Why do we care?
We take steps to preserve art; urinals, we send to the dump;
We pay more for art;
We fund art; we don't fund game shows;
We study art and consciously allow it to influence history;
We pay attention to art...
Etc.

De Kooning applied paint to canvas--quickly, it appears — BC

De Koining's is medium-bodied with a bouquet reminiscent of lemongrass and hints of parsnips and rhubarb.

I know of no plausible alternate source for feelings. — Vera Mont

Ok.

What you have there is an assortment of performances within the framework of a commercial production. — Vera Mont

I liked your categories which immediately preceded the above. But are you saying in the final analysis Idol doesn't fit into any category even of "the arts" but is rather, an assortment etc. ?

Faith in God must occur in the struggle to understand, not in the complacency of dogma , nor in the recklessness of rage. — Constance

Yes! If you don't mind me saying.

If there is God.

And, if not, why not faith in truth? That there is a truth which we already are, and in being (that truth), freedom from the distracted thinking, and even the givenness of the world.

Thank you

It's not the show that would experience emotions but the artist, perhaps the producers or writers, — T Clark

Of course. I was lazily noting that since it is a "production", the producers and writers may just be performing tasks no differently than an accountant or nurse does in a days work. Hence, the "show"
makes Idol not qualify as art, emotions wise.

Interesting. And is Collingwood the convention in Aesthetics? Or is he fringe? Or just one among a few?

Didn't mean nothing by it. — Outlander

Maybe you misunderstood me. I was quoting the doc with respect to Duchamp's urinal. I get why people might be annoyed, yet isn't his message, that snobbery is overtaking art appreciation (I would assert, at the organic level); isn't that message art? It is to me.

And if a urinal can be art...