Point of View and Possibility

I found the discussion around Hay’s work exciting.  She has worked with dancers as talented as Baryshnikov, and after the talks, the group began to discuss the existence of truth.  She has spent her life trying to reprogram reflexive actions, harnessing the cells of her body and redirecting them to function otherwise.  Having seen 3 families struggle with severely disabling strokes, discontinuing their formerly vibrant relatively continuous lives, I wondered whether it would be possible to reprogram their cells.  Perhaps, even less adaptively, I inquired about the relationship between truth and disease. For disease not to exist except when forced into a singular state through confrontation as some quantum mechanical argument might suggest (Schroedinger’s cat), is perhaps not the most useful paradigm, certainly not the statistically dominant one adopted by most humans.  I choose to respond to pain as if it were real.  Entropy probably does win with time.

We talked about the function of art – the dialog between the observer’s point of view and the artist’s point of view that forces the observer to subsume the instance of individual point of view in order to acknowledge the existence of the more abstract concept of “point of view”.  The function of art, one person offered, was for the observer to reorganize the visual experience.  We also considered more functional art – the pottery and figures used to help others into the new world in some cultures.  Laying hardwood floors would also be an art.  Every piece having a precisely determinable purpose and fit in order for it to look beautiful.  Art then is fundamentally concerned with order.  Although Nietzsche (footnote 1) might argue that order does not exist, in life, order is associated with function, and the ability (not necessarily realized) to do work.   This then, from physics,  requires a power differential – a hierarchy imposed perhaps spatially, or in the case of music, temporally.  One position has value relative to another within the ensemble.

footnote 1 from Nietzsche’s The Gay Science, s.109, Walter Kaufmann transl..
“The total character of the world, however, is in all eternity chaos–in the sense not of a lack of necessity but a lack of order, arrangement, form, beauty, wisdom, and whatever names there are for our aesthetic anthropomorphisms…Let us beware of attributing to it heartlessness and unreason or their opposites: it is neither perfect nor beautiful, nor noble, nor does it wish to become any of these things; it does not by any means strive to imitate man… Let us beware of saying that there are laws in nature. There are only necessities: there is nobody who commands, nobody who obeys, nobody who trespasses… But when will we ever be done with our caution and care? When will all these shadows of God cease to darken our minds? When will we complete our de-deification of nature? When may we begin to “naturalize” humanity in terms of a pure, newly discovered, newly redeemed nature?”
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s