:hearts:

Hi and thanks for response. Just when I thought I'd managed to escape!

Regarding:

...the category heading 'Philosophy of Art'. This seems to require the inclusion of a philosophical argument. — Amity

Jamal clarified this:

Aesthetics is cool. It comes under philosophy of art, and we have a category for that. There's no requirement for elaborate argumentation; there just has to be some philosophical meat. More than just a mention of an idea. — Jamal

So, how much philosophical meat is baked in the pie. The OP, apparently, needs to be justified as philosophy - its relevance for a particular category made clear.

I think philosophy of mind would be a perfectly legitimate category for a wide ranging discussion of how and why poetry affects us as it does, and what that can tell us about the nature of our minds. What is special about the ways that we can use poetry to communicate with each other? — wonderer1

Yeah, well. I think poetry, or poetic expression, could probably fit into any category dealing with the human body, mind and soul. Interactions at any level. It's not boxed in, is it?

***

Aesthetics - the aesthetic mind - holds its fascinations. There's been plenty written about it:

5 Aspects of the Aesthetic Mind: Exploring its Meaning and Significance - Renee Speaking
https://reneespeaking.com/aesthetic-mind-meaning/

The Aesthetic Mind - Hardback - Elisabeth Schellekens, Peter Goldie - Oxford University Press

The Aesthetic Mind breaks new ground in bringing together empirical sciences and philosophy to enhance our understanding of aesthetics and the experience of art.

An eminent international team of experts presents new research in philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and social anthropology: they explore the roles of emotion, imagination, empathy, and beauty in this realm of human experience, ranging over visual and literary art, music, and dance.

Among the questions discussed are: Why do we engage with things aesthetically and why do we create art? Does art or aesthetic experience have a function or functions? Which characteristics distinguish aesthetic mental states? Which skills or abilities do we put to use when we engage aesthetically with an object and how does that compare with non-aesthetic experiences? What does our ability to create art and engage aesthetically with things tell us about what it is to be a human being?

***

At first I didn't get, and was a bit put off by, Rorty's use of "compression" in referring to poetry...

...But perhaps compressed within those few lines is something with an ability to show us a part of ourselves or the world that we hadn't previously recognized. — wonderer1

Yes, it could well be that. Or written by a creative someone moved by an experience but who can't be arsed writing a complete descriptive essay. A magical encapsulation. Catch a falling star and put it in your pocket. An emptying of a rhythmic, chiming mind.

That being said,
this is just something that popped into my head,
and not feeling sufficiently well read,
I doubt I'll write that OP before I am dead — wonderer1

An OP I will never write
Too much trouble
Too much strife :monkey:

Take pleasure in it while you have the chance, for a storm is brewing on yonder horizon. — Jamal

Twas ever thus. Life and an appreciation of it goes on. No matter the weather. Cheers :sparkle:

OK. I give up. You're the boss. Now out to enjoy the sun :cool:

Javi, I understand well what your aims were. There was no need to repeat. However, your thread was a starting point. For me, it led to other questions re the separation of Art and Philosophy - Creative v Argumentative. I think that there is a problem with how threads related to poetry are not given their place. But it seems I'm hitting my head against a brick wall. No matter...some things never change...

I really appreciate how you value my thread, Amity. But you—and I—need to understand that the forum has standards and all. — javi2541997

That goes without saying.

I found this on 'Aesthetics': https://www.britannica.com/topic/aesthetics
Stoicism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

As far as I understand, aesthetic appreciation is open to all humans, no matter their ideology. It's a synthesis of sense and intellect. We look, see, feel and judge works of art or nature, no matter whether they are ugly or beautiful.

An interesting OP. Much more can be said :smile:

My aim is not even debate with others but trying to read more poems that can make me feel that 'unbearable nostalgia' that Kundera referred to in his novel.
Poetry may have a bit of philosophical content per se, but I mainly focused on nostalgic poems. These have a lot of art but not philosophical content. If I feel nostalgia reading a poem it is just a personal emotion of mine that escapes from rational thinking... — javi2541997

I've re-read this, especially the part I underlined. It seems that the problem might lie in the category heading 'Philosophy of Art'. This seems to require the inclusion of a philosophical argument. I can understand the reluctance and difficulty of placing your thread there. And as much as 'The Lounge' is an interesting hang-out for blethers, your thread - and similar - deserves more than that, in my opinion.

I can't remember but I think I mentioned the category of 'Aesthetics' earlier. This too has its problems and paradoxes but I think it is broader and can include the 'emotions' and experience of ' nostalgia' you find in the contemplation of poems.

***

It's difficult to know where it would best fit. The PoA category has a variety of threads. Some I noted with titles like 'Beautiful Structures' or 'Beautiful Things' are not of the argumentative type.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2678/beautiful-things/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3112/beautiful-structures/p1

So, if not there, where else would you suggest? — Amity

@Jamal et al - I'd be interested to hear your views on using 'Aesthetics' as a category or sub-category? It seems broader in scope with non-argumentative approaches as to what we find beautiful and valuable in human experience. Also, our aesthetic experience, response or attitude to works of art, including objects and nature.

I haven't delved into the intricacies of Aesthetics but I found this substantive and helpful article.
A few excerpts from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/aesthetics

Recent work in aesthetics, to some extent inspired by the seminal writings of Sartre and Wittgenstein, has devoted considerable attention to the study of creative imagination. The hope has been to provide the extra ingredient in aesthetic experience that bridges the gap between the sensory and the intellectual and at the same time shows the relation between aesthetic experience and the experience of everyday life—an enterprise that is in turn of the first importance for any study that seeks to describe the moral significance of beauty. [...]

...it is not only art that stirs our emotions in the act of aesthetic attention: the same is or may be true of natural beauty, whether that of a face or of a landscape. These things hold our attention partly because they address themselves to our feelings and call forth a response which we value both for itself and for the consolation that we may attain through it. Thus we find an important philosophical tradition according to which the distinctive character of aesthetic experience is to be found in distinctively “aesthetic” emotions. — Britannica - Aesthetics

Really? Fascinating as this is, we're now taking it well beyond Feedback.
I think you know that, bad boy. :brow:

As to the scope of this thread, from the OP:

I fully consider poetry as a topic of philosophy.
— Amity

As with many threads the scope expands. I am addressing your attack on and what I take to be your misunderstanding of this little piece by Rorty. — Fooloso4

Yes indeed. To clarify, the quote is from javi in reply to me. Sorry, I didn't format our conversation as clearly as I should have. Now edited. It was the first part of the OP.

Your clear, civil and intelligent explanations have helped consolidate my understanding. They provide a stark contrast to the personal attack made against Rorty in one of his final reflections.

Time to let it go, now, I think. Thanks to all :sparkle:

Thank you. You raised interesting questions and I've enjoyed the discussion here :sparkle:

Anyway, the germ of some possible philosophical content in the OP is probably this bit:

that's precisely what I feel when I read poems: Unbearable nostalgia
— javi2541997

If Javi had made a brief argument as to how and why this is an important part of the appreciation of literature, that would have been enough to make it belong unambiguously on the main page, in my opinion. — Jamal

I'm returning to this with an apology to @javi2541997 if I've made this too personal and critical. I've enjoyed very much participating in his thoughtful and engaging thread. Thank you :sparkle:

I still think that it has 'philosophical content'. I disagree about the requirement for an 'argument'.

Framing it in terms of how it fits into an appreciation of literature shifts focus away from the concept and sense of 'unbearable nostalgia'; how it can be shown via poetry and reflection.
This can help us understand the human experience. This is achieved as it stands, with no argument.
'Philosophical content' lies in the poems with experience and thoughts intertwining. The impact and compact nature of verse can speak for itself. For some.

***

Richard Rorty - dying from pancreatic cancer - picked out a few poems from memory:

Lines of Swinburne's "Garden of  Proserpine":

We thank with brief thanksgiving
Whatever gods may be
That no life lives for ever;
That dead men rise up never;
That even the weariest river
Winds somewhere safe to sea.

and Landor's "On His Seventy-Fifth Birthday":

Nature I loved, and next to Nature, Art;
I warmed both hands before the fire of life,
It sinks, and I am ready to depart.

I found comfort in those slow meanders and those stuttering embers. I suspect that no comparable effect could have been produced by prose. Not just imagery, but also rhyme and rhythm were needed to do the job. In lines such as these, all three conspire to produce a degree of compression, and thus of  impact, that only verse can achieve.
— Poetry Foundation - The Fire of Life

Interesting to consider how the dying might turn to poetry to find comfort. Rorty's comment about giving it more attention might remind some of Socrates' turn to verse before his death.

Here's one I like: "The Full Heart" by Robert Nichols (1893-1944) — Vera Mont

Lovely and sounds like an 'old friend', not one you had to go seek out. Do you try to memorise poems?
'Alone on the shore in the pause of the night time - I stand and I hear...'

It's a time to appreciate what I've had* and come to term with all that's left undone.
*Not a poem; a song. The iconic Louis and Ella. — Vera Mont

Yes, there comes a time...in the bitter-sweet journey from birth to death. We all share. We are not so very 'alone' in thinking these thoughts. Although it certainly seems so at times. Poetry or songs can help.

I don't know if this is the song you mean but I'll play it anyway. Lean back and listen or sing along... :cool:

f I recall correctly, I started it because there had been one on the old forum, and if anyone else had done it that would've also been fine. — Jamal

Understood. Back at the start...but now things have changed. Anyway, I'm moving on. It's been good to talk and gain other points of view. Thanks :sparkle:

It certainly would be if explicated and developed, because it's a good thought. — Jamal

I agree. It was a promising start. Unfulfilled.

It's because it's non-theoretical that it probably doesn't belong in a philosophy category. — Jamal

'Theoretical' was a bad choice of words on my part - I meant 'argumentative'.
Philosophy includes 'intellectual conversation' - as per Rorty above - no? It's not always about theories and debate. But hey, I agree, the thread is nothing more than a sharing of poems.

Yes, that thread is something of an anomaly, though I'm happy with where it is. — Jamal

Yeah. I wonder why :chin: :razz:
If started by anyone else other than the site owner, then it 'probably' would have been moved!
The privilege of power, huh?! :smile:

It probably doesn't fit in Philosophy of Art, but I might not have moved it to the Lounge if it had been placed there originally, because I just like to see threads about art, literature, etc. — Jamal

Yes. I understand. It's difficult to know where it would best fit. The PoA category has a variety of threads. Some I noted with titles like 'Beautiful Structures' or 'Beautiful Things' are not of the argumentative type.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2678/beautiful-things/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3112/beautiful-structures/p1
So, if not there, where else would you suggest?

If Javi had made a brief argument as to how and why this is an important part of the appreciation of literature, that would have been enough to make it belong unambiguously on the main page, in my opinion. — Jamal

Yes, but I think he wasn't in that theoretical frame of mind. He primarily just wanted to share poems, thoughts or recommendations - just as he does in the Main Page 'Currently Reading' thread.

From his OP:

After reading a poem, Kundera, as a narrator of the story, says: The purpose of the poetry is not to dazzle with an astonishing thought, but to make one moment of existence unforgettable and worthy of unbearable nostalgia.

Isn't that 'philosophical' enough? It could have led to more...but hey, that was up to @javi2541997 and I need to accept that...I suppose :sparkle:

I have no problem with it being in a corner I visit regularly, rather than being buries in Philosophy of Art, which can get ponderous and pretentious at times. — Vera Mont

Understood :smile: I agree that the very heading PoA can be off-putting! However, if this discussion was placed there then it would appear on the Main Page and not be 'buried'. It would be more obvious and accessible. PoA includes all kinds of interesting threads, not only the heavier questions as to what constitutes Art or Beauty. Moving on...

From the useful Feedback discussion, a post by @Tom Storm led me to the philosopher, Richard Rorty. In the last stage of pancreatic cancer, he talks of his regrets - wishing he'd spent more time with verse. He shared his comforting friends, pieces of poetry, from memory:

"Hasn't anything you've read been of any use?" my son persisted. "Yes," I found myself blurting out, "poetry." "Which poems?" he asked. I quoted two old chestnuts that I had recently dredged up from memory and been oddly cheered by, the most quoted lines of Swinburne's "Garden of  Proserpine":


We thank with brief thanksgiving
Whatever gods may be
That no life lives for ever;
That dead men rise up never;
That even the weariest river
Winds somewhere safe to sea.


and Landor's "On His Seventy-Fifth Birthday":

Nature I loved, and next to Nature, Art;
I warmed both hands before the fire of life,
It sinks, and I am ready to depart.


I found comfort in those slow meanders and those stuttering embers. I suspect that no comparable effect could have been produced by prose. Not just imagery, but also rhyme and rhythm were needed to do the job. In lines such as these, all three conspire to produce a degree of compression, and thus of  impact, that only verse can achieve. — Poetry Foundation - Rorty's 'The Fire of Life'

Richard Rorty said that 'the purpose of philosophy is not to discover timeless truths, but rather to provide better ways of living and understanding.' This opens things up. Philsophy seems to be one of those subjects where the framing is wide or narrow depending upon one's biases. — Tom Storm

I haven't read much, if anything, by Richard Rorty. However, I find myself in agreement with the quote. Looking further at the role and aim of philosophy:

Because Rorty did not believe in certainty or absolute truth, he did not advocate the philosophical pursuit of such things.

Instead, he believed that the role of philosophy is to conduct an intellectual “conversation” between contrasting but equally valid forms of intellectual inquiry—including science, literature, politics, religion, and many others—with the aim of achieving mutual understanding and resolving conflicts. — Britannica - Richard Rorty

[my bolds]

Yes. It does depend on what you think philosophy is about. I prefer the broader, more expansive outlook, so as to appreciate and enjoy a fuller life. TPF does provide that opportunity and I think its inclusion of more literature, e.g. the 'Short Story and Poetry' events, says much for it. Not sure whether that is continuing... @Baden?
Nevertheless, its Guidelines still seem to privilege a certain form and style of philosophical writing i.e. argumentative. Perhaps I'm wrong...

Here is a short and famous piece he wrote on poetry and philosophy.

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/articles/68949/the-fire-of-life — Tom Storm

This is beautiful and so sad given that it took imminent death to realise that he wished he'd spent more of his life with verse. To live more fully. He said that his thoughts hadn't turned to religion or philosophy (even his own) but what had been of use and comfort was 'Poetry'. When 'memories are amply stocked with verses' it's like having close friends nearby.

I appreciate this and now keen to know more about his philosophy. I think it must have provided sustenance to him and others as a way of looking at life. Perhaps it is written poetically?

Thank you, Tom, for a meaningful post :sparkle:

Thank you both for your interesting thoughts and opinions.

That isn't the point. We can learn 'interesting things' anywhere in TPF.
But I'm done. Spent enough time here. Thanks.

OK. To provide even more specific context - 'Hanging out' as related to your OP's final paragraph.

Since I am very sentient to these poems, I ask you if you know anything similar to them, and I will very much appreciate it if you want to join me this windy Friday in Madrid to read nostalgic poems and drink sake.

This imagined setting made it more informal. In that respect more 'Lounge' material.

'Hang out' as per the category description of 'Lounge' Not my words!

Javi, you are more than capable of using google, online dictionaries to read the different meanings.

I often get stuck in thinking how to put discussions of ideas into categories. Part of the problem may be that there are complex interplays between the various aspects of philosophy, such as art, science and metaphysics. There are divisions but they are far from absolute. — Jack Cummins

Yes, thanks. I was thinking of deleting this thread because of a strong sense of déjà vu. I've been here before and it's made little difference. Nobody is all that bothered. I agree it's difficult but not impossible. You seem to manage just fine! :smile:

Under 'Categories':
1. The Lounge - Hang out, blether, talk about kittens
2. General Philosophy - It's philosophy but it doesn't fit any of the specialisms
3. Philosophy of Art - Visual art, literature, music, etc. What makes something a work of art? Is there more to artistic taste than personal preference? What makes music meaningful?

As regards to the lounge, my own understanding is that it allows for discussion which is slightly off key from philosophy itself. All in all, let's hope that it allows for the broadest discussion of philosophy. — Jack Cummins

The Lounge: News, politics, cultural - sharing what we are currently listening to (music) and watching (TV/films) but not what we are reading. The latter is placed under 'Learning Centre > Books and Papers. This means it is privileged to be a Main Page thread.
Other more specific threads like @javi2541997's - may well be characterised as 'hanging out' but blethering about pussy cats? Come on!

Even though there are categories, I am glad that these don't show up on the front page. — Jack Cummins

Yes, it's not in-your-face obvious but you can hover over the title and a box will appear showing the category. Your 'How 'Surreal' are Ideas?' > General Philosophy; 'Tragedy or Pleasure'> Philosophy of Art.

The philosophy of the arts may be seen as of lesser importance than that of the sciences. I see this as extremely problematic and hope that the way in which all of the categories show up on the front page allows for as little bias as possible in multidisciplinary thinking on this site. — Jack Cummins

I think the main difference, for me, is between a narrow or re/stricted definition of 'philosophy' with a preference for logical/rational argumentation (a prescribed way of writing an OP) and those with a looser way of exploring thoughts and where they might lead (creative).
And that's fine, right up until a judgement call (by posters/mods) to dismiss the importance of the latter, move to the Lounge, before the ideas can even percolate. Why the rush? What difference does it make when they can be placed/ kept in 'General Discussion' at the very least.

I think I've said more than enough. Making a mountain out of a molehill. I never learn :roll:

The words from city and country spoken as if to us in particular. — Paine

How lovely to have shared that feeling and thoughts arising. I hadn't even heard of him - so grateful your words about 'the rhythm of 'American' English' led me to the sounds. Lately, I'm finding audio can make all the difference :cool:

Perhaps that harks back to original story-telling - the oral tradition of the ancients and mothers :wink: Nostalgia?

Of course, the Lounge seems open to all and everything!
In my 'corner', I admit to having a bit of a bee in my bonnet about poetry being seen as separate from philosophy. And of less worth. I'll leave it now.

Edit to add:

I still believe that it doesn't have philosophical content, — javi2541997

It does. Arguably, even more than the Main Page 'Currently Reading' thread!

I am not the one who wrote the rules of this forum. :sweat:

I fully consider poetry as a topic of philosophy. But, according to the rules, I think I would have to write the thread in a different manner — javi2541997

I had a look at the 'Site Guidelines' and see what you mean. Perhaps, this is better discussed in 'Feedback'?

If I had tried to place the thread on the main page, I guess the moderators would have placed it in The Lounge, anyway. — javi2541997

I think you could have placed it under 'Philosophy of Art' without any objections. But who knows? Even that is debatable. I'll move this to 'Feedback' so as not to derail your thread!

I guess it doesn't have as much philosophical content as the ones on the main page. So, I decided to place it in The Lounge. — javi2541997

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'philosophical content' :roll:
I used the search box to find other threads related to poems and poetry. Under 'Philosophy of Art': @Moliere's https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13562/poem-meaning/p1

Remember your words there?:

Poems are an artistic representation of ourselves through words. I enjoyed reading the poem of the picture of your OP. I interpret it as the beautiful essence of a normal day. Where everything happens as is used to be. Fortunately, there is nothing what can disturb our serene day.

Verses make different emotions on people. I am against all of those who are rigid towards interpreting a poem. There isn’t anyone clever than other in terms of experiencing poetry. I want share another poem with you:

[He] said:
“the sea used to come here”
And and [he] put more wood on the fire. Ozaki Hōsai.

This haiku poem gives me nostalgia because the author is missing something that is no longer with him: the sea.

Sharing poems for their 'unbearable nostalgia' - I would argue that this does have 'philosophical content' and involve reflection and expressing thoughts about self, life and the world (philosophy). Even to consider what makes them 'unbearable'. It lies in the meaning we bring or give to them, no?

Family is always a key aspect in poetry. — javi2541997

And this can be extended from the nuclear family to that of the world. Perhaps consider the 'unbearable nostalgia' from the perspective of ecology. There is not only a distancing in family relationships but also that of people from nature. Merwin sees the consequences of this alienation as disastrous.

I haven't watched all of this yet but putting it here, for later...

National Poet Laureate W.S. Merwin reads his poems and talks of caring for the Earth

Whether planting trees or tending endangered species, concern for the environment permeates all Merwin's writings -- prose, poetry or translation. Merwin sits casually in his blue jeans, and talks of the environment and villanelles. He reads five poems from The Rain in the Trees ("Late Spring," "West Wall" and "The Solstice") and two from his latest volume, Travels, ("Witness" and "Place").

***
Analysis of 'Yesterday' here: https://poemanalysis.com/w-s-merwin/yesterday/

Since I am very sentient to these poems, I ask you if you know anything similar to them, and I will very much appreciate it if you want to join me this windy Friday in Madrid to read nostalgic poems and drink sake. — javi2541997

Sorry, I couldn't make it! I hope you weren't drowning in sake sorrows?
We've met before to discuss poetry and I seem to remember sharing Goethe's poem in German as well as English. In audio, the former sounding better. I'm now feeling a sense of nostalgia but not the unbearable kind!

After reading a poem, Kundera, as a narrator of the story, says: The purpose of the poetry is not to dazzle with an astonishing thought, but to make one moment of existence unforgettable and worthy of unbearable nostalgia. — javi2541997

Well, the purpose of poetry is, of course, debatable. Edit - I misread. K. is referring to 'the' poetry.
Just as in Kundera's novel, I think being part of a reading/listening group selecting poems can be wonderful and enlightening. Thank you :sparkle:

An aside:
[Just as sharing what books you are reading. That is a Main Page discussion not moved to the side Lounge, as this has been! Would a poetry thread not be better placed and appreciated under another main category? Philosophy of Art? Aesthetics?]

The rhythm of 'American' English is key to the evocation. — Paine

'Poetry always begins and ends with listening.' W.S. Merwin reads his poem:

I liked Pratchett. I don't read much fantasy, but I found his style and humor appealing. I was introduced to Pratchett by a college buddy who was a big fan. Later I was gifted a set of audiobooks and I would often fall asleep while listening to them in bed :) (not because they are boring, it's just that audiobooks have this effect on me) — SophistiCat

I wonder how I managed not to read Pratchett for so very long. Currently, listening to his 'Small Gods', a new recording, courtesy of the Libby app and Penguin: https://www.penguin.co.uk/discworld-in-audio

Narrated by Andrew Serkis - amazing changes of voice/dialect/tone. Om's Liverpudlian? accent made me think of John Lennon and wondered if that was deliberate. I'm enjoying the sense of fun, light and darkness. Also, the wisdom - if only I could keep the words in my head...

Like you, I listen at night. Sometimes falling asleep before my setting of 25 mins! That's fine. :smile:

Many of the books have reappearing characters and places, so it probably helps to read those in sequence, but it's not essential. — SophistiCat

Thanks. I usually would prefer to read in sequence but happy to know it's not needed, given my books already purchased. 'Small Gods' appears to be a stand-alone.

***
I didn't really notice Om's Scouse accent until last night when I laughed out loud at the Q&A dialogue between him and Brutha (his believer). Reading it from my book pp42-47 - it just isn't the same.

Brutha's increasing frustration, anger and horror at the small god Om's (as tortoise) lack of recall as to his powers. Om's accent becoming louder and more incredulous as to the suggestion that he as God was the author of the Book of Creation.
'Brutha put his hand over his mouth in horror.
'Thaff blafhngh!'
'What?'
'I said, that's blasphemy!'
'Blasphemy? How can I blaspheme? I'm a god!'
'I don't believe you!'

Well, you started it! With your fancy 'facticity' :smile:

Thanks for providing even more food for thought.

Facticity and Being in the world. Consciousness. Linked to issues of 'authenticity' and 'freedom':

He [Sartre] notes that human beings, like other entities in the world, have certain concrete characteristics that make up what he calls their “facticity” or what they are “in themselves” (en soi). Facticity makes up the element of “givenness” we must work with: I find myself with a past, a body and a social situation that constrains me in what I can do [...] While human beings share their “facticity” with other entities in the world, they are unique among the totality of entities insofar as they are capable of distancing themselves from what is “in itself” through reflection and self-awareness. — SEP - Authenticity

Perhaps, this 'distancing' is what happens in surreal art. And creative artists can express how they really are? How helpful is it to let go in a stream of consciousness? Doesn't it need to be grounded? Reality to be sifted, rather than being overwhelmed by a confusion of thoughts/ideas?

From literature:

What is consciousness? For literary studies the most influential framework has been William James’s “stream of consciousness.” “Consciousness,” he wrote, “from our natal day, is of a teeming multiplicity of objects and relations...

First, James’s account actually argues that it is an unsuitable style for art. Insisting that the profusion of unimportant data in the stream’s “undistinguishable, swarming continuum” would overwhelm any legitimate object of interest if left unchecked, he claims what “gives [ . . . ] works of art their superiority over works of nature, is wholly due to elimination.”

Here James seems in alignment with his brother Henry’s aesthetic, insisting on literature’s need to circumscribe the endlessly interwoven elements of mind so as to avoid generating “loose, baggy monsters.” And the tool of James’s eliminative process is the “habits of attention.”

For him the stream of consciousness and attention serve as opposed poles, the former serving to expand the mental life and the latter to constrict it. As James writes, “without selective interest, experience is an utter chaos.”
[...]
Hardline materialists, like Daniel Dennett, reject the idea of a stream entirely, pointing to experiments in change blindness to suggest consciousness is “gappy” and possesses only the “apparent continuity” of a stream, generated largely from post hoc rationalizations that reconcile “multiple drafts” of experience.

The basic problem is terminological. Since the mind is multilayered, and each layer functions in part by suppressing what occurs at other layers, what is contained by the term “consciousness” will often be less an empirical question than one of whether a given theorist wishes to include certain experiences within the concept. — LitHub - If Consciousness isn't a stream, how do we represent it?

The idea of surrealism comes from the belief that we deal with reality indirectly by pulling it apart into pieces. Maybe we can experience it more directly when the intellect is offline, as in dreams, or in poetry. — frank

Interesting to consider. And I wondered whether the 'intellect' was 'off-line' in surrealist writing.

From wiki, it seems there were 2 separate Surrealist manifestos. Imagine they literally fought over the rights to the term. I found this useful but that's only after a quick, superficial look:

Breton's 1924 Surrealist Manifesto defines the purposes of Surrealism. He included citations of the influences on Surrealism, examples of Surrealist works, and discussion of Surrealist automatism. He provided the following definitions:

Dictionary: Surrealism, n. Pure psychic automatism, by which one proposes to express, either verbally, in writing, or by any other manner, the real functioning of thought. Dictation of thought in the absence of all control exercised by reason, outside of all aesthetic and moral preoccupation.
[...]
Because Surrealist writers seldom, if ever, appear to organize their thoughts and the images they present, some people find much of their work difficult to parse. This notion however is a superficial comprehension, prompted no doubt by Breton's initial emphasis on automatic writing as the main route toward a higher reality. But—as in Breton's case—much of what is presented as purely automatic is actually edited and very "thought out". Breton himself later admitted that automatic writing's centrality had been overstated, and other elements were introduced, especially as the growing involvement of visual artists in the movement forced the issue, since automatic painting required a rather more strenuous set of approaches. Thus, such elements as collage were introduced, arising partly from an ideal of startling juxtapositions as revealed in Pierre Reverdy's poetry. — Wiki - Surrealism

[my emphasis]

So, it seems that the intellect is engaged and control is exerted in expressing/understanding any surreal experience. It is an interpretation of the images or ideas dis/uncovered in dreams or expressed in poetry. The expression of such 'indirect' realities might be 'surreal' in the sense of a bizarre combination of the 'real', concrete and the 'unreal' - unexpected, hallucinatory quality of dreams. How is this 'the real functioning of thought' (as underlined above) ?

The facticity of things at one level can obscure the fact of them at another. [...]

Art can bring these things together by deconstructing the concrete facticity in a way that frees the symbolic within. E.g. Dali's surrealist representations of clocks and watches as flowing and ubiquitous allow the symbolic to "leak through" the concrete, unifying both into a greater whole that's psychologically enriching. — Baden

[my bolds]

A lovely description. It sounds good. Who wouldn't want to be enriched, psychologically or otherwise?

I enjoyed the 'leaking through' - but, then, I saw it as 'dissolving' rather than combining...water seeping through concrete. Making it weak. How bizarre!
And then I wondered about the 'fact' of symbols. As well as being representations of ideas, can't they also be a 'fiction' in that they are dynamic and depending on cultural elements and imagination?

Not sure what you mean by 'facticity'...
Consider me confused :chin:

@Noble Dust - Responding to your recent clarification.

I think there are layers to belief, and if you continue to strip them back, things do indeed get murky until you uncover something pretty raw in the core of your being. It's such a deeply private and personal concept that I literally cannot even attempt to describe with language — Noble Dust

Re - 'layers of belief' and 'stripping them back' to a 'raw' basic, sense of self in a 'core' being:

For you, this 'concept' is so deeply personal that words seem to fail you. However, as a concept there's plenty to be considered. I think you mean it is what we might discover about ourselves if we dig beyond the superficial. What is important to us in the attitude we take towards life and living. And that sometimes takes time and effort to work out. And not always reliable, given our usually subjective and already biased perspective. On TPF, there's plenty of theory and pontification to be challenged. What's important to me are the implications. The practical consequences. Do we walk the talk?

Here's one psychological approach which outlines, explains 3 layers of belief. Although separate, they are interconnected. They form a cognitive belief system which might help navigate life and situations arising:

'The cognitive-behavioural therapist understands how these three layers of cognition operate as a system and is skilled at discovering hidden or unconscious automatic thoughts, and intermediate and core beliefs. Only by being aware of the most deeply held beliefs, a person can start challenging those that are unrealistic and unhelpful.'

https://psychologytherapy.co.uk/blog/core-beliefs-and-attitudes-rules-and-assumptions-in-cognitive-behavioural-therapy-cbt/

***
So, we can all think of practical, perhaps spiritual, implications of holding certain ways of looking at life, can't we? Each appraised as being more helpful or beneficial to wellbeing. This 'judgement' can become part of our 'core' self. Our deepest values unchanging...until perhaps something happens to shake our very foundations....

a more useful language for the companions is dancing. — wonderer1

OK. Well, I am waiting for our dance companion, Noble Dust, before I twirl one more circle.
Until then...
Chubby Checker - Let's Twist Again (lyrics)

Very well said. A refreshed you, back on form :sparkle:

A generous and lovely communication of a special experience connecting.

Beneath language, at the quantum level of experience, is something that exists in an undifferentiated form. This is belief. — Noble Dust

OK. This needs to be clarified. An explanation of what is meant by 'at the quantum level' might help. Unless it is simply a fanciful use of language...being creative...pulling readers in...

I don't know why the focus is solely on 'belief' as a building block of world experience, if that is what you mean? There is a lot of noise and confusion surrounding this. Including the 'self'. All at distracting complex language level. Apart from simple definitions but even they are contested. As is to be expected in philo.

There is more than 'belief' to consider. Why not put mind into neutral and listen to music. Or silence. Find peace there, away from the jungle of talking apes. Feel rather than think. For a moment. Just be. Isn't that the starting point?

Follow up to previous post: 'Is music a universal language?'. Why do some dislike songs, music with words? And can only bear to hear instrumentals, excluding the voice as instrument. Don't they like the human connections made - sometimes disturbing? Escape into a melody...emotion without verbals. A world of your own making or sensing.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201507/is-music-universal-language

Being quiet now. :sparkle:

In fact the video game Journey is an example of such a strange communication game, as it doesn't provide for language use between players — wonderer1

So, it's a different kind of 'reality' produced for what purpose? Not to show that language isn't required or that there is no attitude. Because the players must be involved and believe there is something of benefit within the game. They have a mental attitude, perhaps hope, as did the programmers. This intrigues me. A different way of connecting. A belief that it is possible - not a case of true or false as in a propositional belief. To be challenged by not an Either/Or - black and white attitude - but something new. It relates to a narrative of wonder and a 'journey' of self, along with others.

The game is intended to make the player feel "small" and to give them a sense of awe about their surroundings. The basic idea, as designed by Chen, was to create something that moved beyond the "typical defeat/kill/win mentality" of most video games [...]

The developers designed Journey like a Japanese garden, where they attempted to remove all the elements that did not fit, so the emotions they wanted to evoke would come through. This minimalism is intended to make the game feel intuitive to the player, so they can explore and feel a sense of wonder without direct instructions. The story arc is designed to explicitly follow Joseph Campbell's monomyth theory of narrative, or hero's journey, as well as to represent the stages of life, so as to enhance the emotional connection of the players as they journey together. [...]

The multiplayer component of Journey was designed to facilitate cooperation between players without forcing it, and without allowing competition. It is intended to allow the players to feel a connection to other people through exploring with them, rather than talking to them or fighting them. The plan was "to create a game where people felt they are connected with each other, to show the positive side of humanity in them".

The developers felt the focus on caring about the other player would be diluted by too many game elements, such as additional goals or tasks, as players would focus on those and "ignore" the other player. They also felt having text or voice communication or showing usernames would allow players' biases and preconceptions to come between them and the other player. — Wiki - Journey 2012 Video game

[my bolds]

I love the emphasis on exploration rather than fighting. To connect. With minimal bias.

Philosophers have different approaches to 'Belief'. There is no one size fits all, as you might expect!
I've picked out one, using game-playing as an example:

Philosopher Lynne Rudder Baker has outlined four main contemporary approaches to belief in her book Saving Belief, related to common-sense:
4. Our common-sense understanding of belief is entirely wrong; however, treating people, animals, and even computers as if they had beliefs is often a successful strategy.
Daniel Dennett and Lynne Rudder Baker, are both eliminativists in that they hold that beliefs are not a scientifically valid concept, but they do not go as far as rejecting the concept of belief as a predictive device.
Dennett gives the example of playing a computer at chess. While few people would agree that the computer held beliefs, treating the computer as if it did (e.g. that the computer believes that taking the opposition's queen will give it a considerable advantage) is likely to be a successful and predictive strategy.
In this understanding of belief, named by Dennett the intentional stance, belief-based explanations of mind and behaviour are at a different level of explanation and are not reducible to those based on fundamental neuroscience, although both may be explanatory at their own level. — Wiki Belief

[my bolds]

In a way, we all play games as we interact with others. Verbal language usually the main element. But non-verbal can say just as much, if not more, if particularly sensitive to a frown or smile. Interpretations can be right, wrong or a mix.

The Journey uses music. Isn't that a kind of universal language?

Unlike many games, where different songs have different themes for each character or area, Wintory chose to base all the pieces on one theme which stood for the player and their journey, with cello solos especially representing the player. Wintory describes the music as "like a big cello concerto where you are the soloist and all the rest of the instruments represent the world around you".
The cello begins the game as "immersed in a sea of electronic sound", before first emerging on its own and then merging into a full orchestra, mirroring the player's journey to the mountain. Whenever the player meets another person, harps and viola are dynamically incorporated into the music

Thanks for sharing :sparkle:

It’s a fascinating paper. — Joshs

Yes, substantial and well-written. I've only had a skim through but worthy of a closer read, for sure! Thanks for introducing it. :sparkle: