Ch. 3: Husband/Wife & Wave/Particle Dualities
-
-
Let every member of the group make a drawing of the room in which they meet, as it looks from the place where they are sitting.
(This does not constitute an art contest, so don't worry if you can't draw as well as somebody else in the group.) Compare the drawings, not as "art," but as reality-tunnels. Does any one drawing seem more "true" than all the others? -
Let every member of the group make an Architect's Drawing (i.e., a floor plan) of the room. Why do these drawings, when finished, look more alike than the drawings from individual perspectives? Discuss.
Which would you consider more "real" — the abstract Architect's floor plan — which shows something nobody ever sees in experience but which all can agree serves a useful function — or the various drawings from individual perspectives, which show the plural "realities" that people actually see, but which have no practical function? -
Oscar Wilde said, "All art is quite useless." Discuss.
-
-
H Hannah pinned this topic
-
I found this week's reading to be very interesting, here are a few quotes that stood out to me:
"...perception does not consist of passive reception of signals but of an active interpretation of signals."
"Physicists agree that we cannot find 'absolute truth' in the quantum realm but must remain satisfied with probabilities or 'statistical truths.'"
"...the ordinary perceptions of ordinary people contain just as much 'weirdness' and mystery as all these Occult Sciences put together."
"The psychologist, you see, knows that each nervous system creates its own model of the world, and the physics students of today know that each instrument also creates its own model of the world."
"...the faster we process information, the more rich and complex our models or glosses — our reality-tunnels — will become."
-
System unpinned this topic
-
I found this week's reading to be very interesting, here are a few quotes that stood out to me:
"...perception does not consist of passive reception of signals but of an active interpretation of signals."
"Physicists agree that we cannot find 'absolute truth' in the quantum realm but must remain satisfied with probabilities or 'statistical truths.'"
"...the ordinary perceptions of ordinary people contain just as much 'weirdness' and mystery as all these Occult Sciences put together."
"The psychologist, you see, knows that each nervous system creates its own model of the world, and the physics students of today know that each instrument also creates its own model of the world."
"...the faster we process information, the more rich and complex our models or glosses — our reality-tunnels — will become."
-
I'm going to respond to prompt three, because this prompt has stuck out to me every time I have read this chapter. It's a pretty bold generalization on the part of Oscar Wilde, a genius of Art (whom Crowley had an affinity with), and one I doubt RAW truly believes in (although, RAW says he didn't believe anything, so maybe that is a non-issue). I, like many others, also feel a need to defend Art (against all numbers of phantasms that threaten to steal the joy of Art).
- Oscar Wilde said, "All art is quite useless." Discuss.
Even at face value, I find this statement to be inherently wrong. However, for the sake of discussion, I will delve deeper.
This statement claims that anything we label "art" "is" useless. First off, we must ask what "art" "is"? Oh boy! I do not need to go deep into centuries of art criticism and philosophical debate about what Art "is". There have been many before me that have done it better than I am capable of in my current levels of perception and communication. A quick Google search will invariably demonstrate that there is a universe of discussion around this very idea that one could get lost in. So, if we assume that the reader knows what Art "is", then the reader probably has some kind of weird, loose mental category of behaviors, images, emotions, and statements describing how paintings and novels are Art, but also to varying degrees certain blue and/or white collar roles could also be thought of as "artful" because they demand a certain level of "art" in the execution of their roles. There is probably some level of bias and prejudice about some actions and their degree of artfulness as opposed to others' actions that are deemed artless. This loose mental category "is" probably more like a spectrum from "Entirely Art" to "Artless".
Across the board, however, I'd like to go further and say that the process of "Art", and arguably the thing that "is" Art, seems like the ability to encode information to make it easier to retrieve and apply. Whether a painter is painting an image, or a construction worker has artfully figured out how to make his job more refined, easier, and effective, there is an overall process occurring where both are trying to encode information (albeit in different ways). The painter says, "I have this thing that I need to express!" and begins encoding that "thing" into the canvas so that others can also experience that "thing". Whether the painter does it well or not determines how well other people can access that "thing" when observing it. When a construction worker is on the job, they could be super sloppy, or they could act with care and intention to create a sturdier foundation to build on, and a longer lasting structure (with happier customers no less!). In this case, the construction worker has encoded their "thing" (which is more obviously experience in this example) onto the canvas that is memory, and by refining that encoding, they create precisely the things I described above. I don't think it is hard to see how other actions can also be considered "artful" even if its not fabricated objects that we vaguely call "Art".
With this definition, Wilde's statement already appears to stand on shaky ground. However, for the sake of discussing in good faith, I'll focus in on the "fabricated objects we vaguely call 'Art'" part, since I assume that is what he is facetiously referring to. When I read this statement, I assume Wilde is saying paintings, novels, sculptures, music, etc., are useless. On the level of survival, most of these might not be very useful. I still find it difficult to assert that they are useless, because while a painting might not be the best object of defense, I would certainly rather try to throw a painting at a saber tooth tiger that is coming after me (assuming I had one) than hold onto the painting and keep running. Nonetheless, certainly, a painting is ideally placed on a wall where it is not getting actively "used." But what does it mean for a painting (or a novel, or a sculpture, etc.) to be "used"?
To perceive the Art is to "use" the Art. This implies a lot about what Art "does". The True Will of a painting is to be placed upon a wall (or up against some other surface) for the sake of viewing pleasure. This painting then generates thoughts, opinions, perhaps even behaviors, by sharing the experience encoded in the painting with the viewer (assuming the viewer is able to adequately receive some kind of information from the painting whether in regards to meaning, emotion, or otherwise). In other words, when we interact with Art, it interacts with us, giving us the silhouette of our own models we use to describe and understand reality. Great Art reveals these models to us and stretches these models further (either enriching or destroying those very models necessary to perceive and make sense of the Art). Really great Art has started movements of human endeavor (which is something that I appreciate more and more as I realize how difficult it can be to get humans to harmonize around one goal).
Even more so, I assume that his argument says, Art doesn't do things in the way that cars, or cellphones, or elevators, or even animals, do. In purely Utilitarian fashion, Art "is" useless because we buy it and then leave it somewhere and maybe we look at it again every once in a while. I will admit, even my own discussion of Art as fabricated objects above is arguing that Art does something invisible on the viewer (ignoring that sometimes Art makes people have really strong physical reactions in addition to psycho-spiritual reactions). Even still, however, in a perspective of function, Art still provides us with fantastic means of encoding information into our memory, emotional digestion, mental shortcuts, new connections, etc.
It seems as if Wilde's claim "is" only true from the realm of materialism. If we completely ignore all of the stuff I described above (as so many who claim to be capable of strict materialism as a means of "objectivity" are simply just unaware of these psycho-spiritual ideas), then maybe Art is useless and a waste of time. The artist spends all of this time and money on supplies and tools, then uses those very same supplies and tools to create a finished product that doesn't provide anything of physical substance to the viewer (because strictly material, joy doesn't exist and neither does anger or hatred, or sadness, all of those being petty emotions that reside in your "head"). This assumes we also ignore the lens of Capitalism in which the Artist might create Art to acquire money and achieve material stability. However, even in this understanding, I argue that Art stills fails at being useless, because these tools and supplies made for the creation of Art are still being used to fulfill their function. If Art causes the fulfillment of certain tools in the procedure of making Art, then it still serves some level of function and cannot be considered entirely Useless.
My point in demonstrating how messy it is to say "Art is quite useless," is to help illustrate and set up the major thesis of this book. When we use the verb "to be", there is a generalized static quality that is antithetical to consciousness. If anything, my analysis has demonstrated that Art "can be" useless, though often it experiences varying degrees of usefulness. We can reformulate Wilde's statement to be, "Art appears to be quite useless." This already opens up a level of wonder and discussion. "Appears to be" implies a level of uncertainty, which is already much closer to reality than "Art is quite useless." It also gives us a means of exploring when, where, why, how, and what Art appears to be quite useless. Taken in good faith, it'll inspire an individual to look up the history of Art Criticism and philosophy to make sense out of why so much time and ink has been wasted on something quite useless, which may in turn help that individual to update their model of Art, which may then cause the individual to do more with Art, which may then... Exciting, right? Hahaha
-
I'm going to respond to prompt three, because this prompt has stuck out to me every time I have read this chapter. It's a pretty bold generalization on the part of Oscar Wilde, a genius of Art (whom Crowley had an affinity with), and one I doubt RAW truly believes in (although, RAW says he didn't believe anything, so maybe that is a non-issue). I, like many others, also feel a need to defend Art (against all numbers of phantasms that threaten to steal the joy of Art).
- Oscar Wilde said, "All art is quite useless." Discuss.
Even at face value, I find this statement to be inherently wrong. However, for the sake of discussion, I will delve deeper.
This statement claims that anything we label "art" "is" useless. First off, we must ask what "art" "is"? Oh boy! I do not need to go deep into centuries of art criticism and philosophical debate about what Art "is". There have been many before me that have done it better than I am capable of in my current levels of perception and communication. A quick Google search will invariably demonstrate that there is a universe of discussion around this very idea that one could get lost in. So, if we assume that the reader knows what Art "is", then the reader probably has some kind of weird, loose mental category of behaviors, images, emotions, and statements describing how paintings and novels are Art, but also to varying degrees certain blue and/or white collar roles could also be thought of as "artful" because they demand a certain level of "art" in the execution of their roles. There is probably some level of bias and prejudice about some actions and their degree of artfulness as opposed to others' actions that are deemed artless. This loose mental category "is" probably more like a spectrum from "Entirely Art" to "Artless".
Across the board, however, I'd like to go further and say that the process of "Art", and arguably the thing that "is" Art, seems like the ability to encode information to make it easier to retrieve and apply. Whether a painter is painting an image, or a construction worker has artfully figured out how to make his job more refined, easier, and effective, there is an overall process occurring where both are trying to encode information (albeit in different ways). The painter says, "I have this thing that I need to express!" and begins encoding that "thing" into the canvas so that others can also experience that "thing". Whether the painter does it well or not determines how well other people can access that "thing" when observing it. When a construction worker is on the job, they could be super sloppy, or they could act with care and intention to create a sturdier foundation to build on, and a longer lasting structure (with happier customers no less!). In this case, the construction worker has encoded their "thing" (which is more obviously experience in this example) onto the canvas that is memory, and by refining that encoding, they create precisely the things I described above. I don't think it is hard to see how other actions can also be considered "artful" even if its not fabricated objects that we vaguely call "Art".
With this definition, Wilde's statement already appears to stand on shaky ground. However, for the sake of discussing in good faith, I'll focus in on the "fabricated objects we vaguely call 'Art'" part, since I assume that is what he is facetiously referring to. When I read this statement, I assume Wilde is saying paintings, novels, sculptures, music, etc., are useless. On the level of survival, most of these might not be very useful. I still find it difficult to assert that they are useless, because while a painting might not be the best object of defense, I would certainly rather try to throw a painting at a saber tooth tiger that is coming after me (assuming I had one) than hold onto the painting and keep running. Nonetheless, certainly, a painting is ideally placed on a wall where it is not getting actively "used." But what does it mean for a painting (or a novel, or a sculpture, etc.) to be "used"?
To perceive the Art is to "use" the Art. This implies a lot about what Art "does". The True Will of a painting is to be placed upon a wall (or up against some other surface) for the sake of viewing pleasure. This painting then generates thoughts, opinions, perhaps even behaviors, by sharing the experience encoded in the painting with the viewer (assuming the viewer is able to adequately receive some kind of information from the painting whether in regards to meaning, emotion, or otherwise). In other words, when we interact with Art, it interacts with us, giving us the silhouette of our own models we use to describe and understand reality. Great Art reveals these models to us and stretches these models further (either enriching or destroying those very models necessary to perceive and make sense of the Art). Really great Art has started movements of human endeavor (which is something that I appreciate more and more as I realize how difficult it can be to get humans to harmonize around one goal).
Even more so, I assume that his argument says, Art doesn't do things in the way that cars, or cellphones, or elevators, or even animals, do. In purely Utilitarian fashion, Art "is" useless because we buy it and then leave it somewhere and maybe we look at it again every once in a while. I will admit, even my own discussion of Art as fabricated objects above is arguing that Art does something invisible on the viewer (ignoring that sometimes Art makes people have really strong physical reactions in addition to psycho-spiritual reactions). Even still, however, in a perspective of function, Art still provides us with fantastic means of encoding information into our memory, emotional digestion, mental shortcuts, new connections, etc.
It seems as if Wilde's claim "is" only true from the realm of materialism. If we completely ignore all of the stuff I described above (as so many who claim to be capable of strict materialism as a means of "objectivity" are simply just unaware of these psycho-spiritual ideas), then maybe Art is useless and a waste of time. The artist spends all of this time and money on supplies and tools, then uses those very same supplies and tools to create a finished product that doesn't provide anything of physical substance to the viewer (because strictly material, joy doesn't exist and neither does anger or hatred, or sadness, all of those being petty emotions that reside in your "head"). This assumes we also ignore the lens of Capitalism in which the Artist might create Art to acquire money and achieve material stability. However, even in this understanding, I argue that Art stills fails at being useless, because these tools and supplies made for the creation of Art are still being used to fulfill their function. If Art causes the fulfillment of certain tools in the procedure of making Art, then it still serves some level of function and cannot be considered entirely Useless.
My point in demonstrating how messy it is to say "Art is quite useless," is to help illustrate and set up the major thesis of this book. When we use the verb "to be", there is a generalized static quality that is antithetical to consciousness. If anything, my analysis has demonstrated that Art "can be" useless, though often it experiences varying degrees of usefulness. We can reformulate Wilde's statement to be, "Art appears to be quite useless." This already opens up a level of wonder and discussion. "Appears to be" implies a level of uncertainty, which is already much closer to reality than "Art is quite useless." It also gives us a means of exploring when, where, why, how, and what Art appears to be quite useless. Taken in good faith, it'll inspire an individual to look up the history of Art Criticism and philosophy to make sense out of why so much time and ink has been wasted on something quite useless, which may in turn help that individual to update their model of Art, which may then cause the individual to do more with Art, which may then... Exciting, right? Hahaha
@jjones I like your use of art as a method rather than a result, for example the art of construction vs. whether or not the building is definitely "art." Thinking of art as a verb is easier for me to cut past the centuries-long debate about whether something is art or not.
You end powerfully on the thesis of the book, that the nature of self-consciousness is subjective, art's usefulness is dependent on the observer.
When I write "self-consciousness" I felt some resistance, because what is "self"? What we perceive of as self is not independent from others, it is the coalition of many forces, unconscious and conscious, which are inextricable from the context of environment and other. Hmmm.. that makes me feel things haha..
-
@jjones I like your use of art as a method rather than a result, for example the art of construction vs. whether or not the building is definitely "art." Thinking of art as a verb is easier for me to cut past the centuries-long debate about whether something is art or not.
You end powerfully on the thesis of the book, that the nature of self-consciousness is subjective, art's usefulness is dependent on the observer.
When I write "self-consciousness" I felt some resistance, because what is "self"? What we perceive of as self is not independent from others, it is the coalition of many forces, unconscious and conscious, which are inextricable from the context of environment and other. Hmmm.. that makes me feel things haha..
@Hannah It is precisely that tension of "self-consciousness" (what that "is" and "is not", especially as we try to bind that phenomenon in language) that would prompt RAW to formulate a similar statement, "self-consciousness appears to be subjective."
Hidden within that formulation appears precisely that idea that self-consciousness gets experienced as subjective, though it seems to operate the same dynamics as everyone else. The coalition of forces operate "objectively" in the sense that everyone's psyche seems to work in those ways (even though the subjective content that these forces operate on might be different in any given moment).
I am reminded of those advanced Buddhist exercises in which someone describes as many aspects of any given object as possible, and then tries to reconcile those aspects by holding them all in consciousness at once. With any success, the aspirant might perceive an object multivalently. With even more success, even this multivalence will be perceived as not what the object "is". The unconscious dynamic at play seems tied to the verse, "The word of Sin is Restriction."
Now, what if the object of contemplation is the "self", or the personality? It "is not" hard to think of the many experiences we all like to treat as literal paintings, and the pains we go through to assert that their psychic image "is" true. I find a lot of people (myself included) judge the success of their relationships and life based on how well they get someone to validate these psychic images as "true." Most of the time, this seems to be out of compulsion, rather than accurate reality testing. These psychic images are often shared in social settings to justify why someone might be restricted (or sinful if we take the verse from the Book of the Law at face value). If someone says, "My personality is goth," what does that really mean? They might say that they hang out in cemeteries dressed in black while reading the Clavicula Salomonis and listening to Siouxsie & the Banshees. They might also decide that churches and Christian iconography are anathema to them. But that "is" ultimately just an image, a painting, that the personality seems to compulsively and/or voluntarily recreate (whether for pleasure, safety, ego, or otherwise). The presentation of that self image serves its function by telling the other person "I WILL do these things, but I WILL NOT do those!" For what it's worth, most goths (as well as minorities and other subcultures) tend to have a better awareness of this than "normal" people, given they have had to confront precisely these social repercussions for the psychic images we choose to identify with in their day to day lives.
It is not hard, then, to understand why so many people who have highly idealized paintings as their self/psychic images are so filled with shame, guilt, and fear, since everything outside of that idealized image "is" wrong, and every time they do something that doesn't align with it is deemed shameful. So much of American culture seems to value being one identity (which seems to largely be a distortion of the image of Christ) and being extremely limited to that one identity. By telling people to only have but the highest psychic images possible (which, the highest being beyond the comprehension of our discursive thinking, implies that we inherently cannot even know what those images should be, if someone's definition of cognition doesn't include other forms of knowledge outside of discursive thinking), naturally the world of Assiah, which is waiting to be redeemed, will look like the dualistic Hell that scholars write about in their studies of a particular brand of Gnosticism. Even more crazy is that when you ask people (in this case those with the "conventionally" rigid psychic distortion of Christ) whether they are concerned with being a "good" person, invariably they will say yes, though in their hearts they blaspheme the very existence that grants them goodness since it doesn't measure up to their idealized image. This just results in constipation of the ability to act in the way of Goodness on the material plane, since the material plane is inherently imperfect, unjust, and to be rejected as the opposite of the Highest.
Given what we said earlier about how some psychic dynamics are just the way that psyche operates (regardless of content), we can assume that this dynamic doesn't disappear. As magicians, I am sure that we have all realized this to some degree and rather than letting it run our lives until we forsake existence, we have considered there must be an application of this dynamic that "is" useful (just like our analysis of Art demonstrated). But if society naturally preys on this particular dynamic (this assertion of identity as one thing that "is" and Nothing else), what might the conscious, sublimated form look like?
That's where the Law of the New Aeon comes in to save the day hehehe! There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt!
Crowley's assertion that one must discover their True Will and do only that seems to be the same psycho-spiritual dynamic in its sublimated form. It again refocuses this dynamic on the process as opposed to the finish product (as we discussed in our examples about Art). By doing our True Will, our personalities are allowed to fluctuate because we are no longer applying this dynamic directly to personality (the domain where it is at it's most disadvantaged application) but rather to the actual processes of personality until we get really good at being our selves (amongst other things). This opens up the realm of Art (and again proves how useful Art "is") as we can see how these dynamics are the constant that the ego is searching for, and by consciously applying those dynamics we open the up the realm of the multivalent self as these dynamics can be applied infinitely to infinite things. Crowley was such a genius for formulating how we can be limited to everything we are in a way that emphasizes how truly freeing that "is".
-
@Hannah It is precisely that tension of "self-consciousness" (what that "is" and "is not", especially as we try to bind that phenomenon in language) that would prompt RAW to formulate a similar statement, "self-consciousness appears to be subjective."
Hidden within that formulation appears precisely that idea that self-consciousness gets experienced as subjective, though it seems to operate the same dynamics as everyone else. The coalition of forces operate "objectively" in the sense that everyone's psyche seems to work in those ways (even though the subjective content that these forces operate on might be different in any given moment).
I am reminded of those advanced Buddhist exercises in which someone describes as many aspects of any given object as possible, and then tries to reconcile those aspects by holding them all in consciousness at once. With any success, the aspirant might perceive an object multivalently. With even more success, even this multivalence will be perceived as not what the object "is". The unconscious dynamic at play seems tied to the verse, "The word of Sin is Restriction."
Now, what if the object of contemplation is the "self", or the personality? It "is not" hard to think of the many experiences we all like to treat as literal paintings, and the pains we go through to assert that their psychic image "is" true. I find a lot of people (myself included) judge the success of their relationships and life based on how well they get someone to validate these psychic images as "true." Most of the time, this seems to be out of compulsion, rather than accurate reality testing. These psychic images are often shared in social settings to justify why someone might be restricted (or sinful if we take the verse from the Book of the Law at face value). If someone says, "My personality is goth," what does that really mean? They might say that they hang out in cemeteries dressed in black while reading the Clavicula Salomonis and listening to Siouxsie & the Banshees. They might also decide that churches and Christian iconography are anathema to them. But that "is" ultimately just an image, a painting, that the personality seems to compulsively and/or voluntarily recreate (whether for pleasure, safety, ego, or otherwise). The presentation of that self image serves its function by telling the other person "I WILL do these things, but I WILL NOT do those!" For what it's worth, most goths (as well as minorities and other subcultures) tend to have a better awareness of this than "normal" people, given they have had to confront precisely these social repercussions for the psychic images we choose to identify with in their day to day lives.
It is not hard, then, to understand why so many people who have highly idealized paintings as their self/psychic images are so filled with shame, guilt, and fear, since everything outside of that idealized image "is" wrong, and every time they do something that doesn't align with it is deemed shameful. So much of American culture seems to value being one identity (which seems to largely be a distortion of the image of Christ) and being extremely limited to that one identity. By telling people to only have but the highest psychic images possible (which, the highest being beyond the comprehension of our discursive thinking, implies that we inherently cannot even know what those images should be, if someone's definition of cognition doesn't include other forms of knowledge outside of discursive thinking), naturally the world of Assiah, which is waiting to be redeemed, will look like the dualistic Hell that scholars write about in their studies of a particular brand of Gnosticism. Even more crazy is that when you ask people (in this case those with the "conventionally" rigid psychic distortion of Christ) whether they are concerned with being a "good" person, invariably they will say yes, though in their hearts they blaspheme the very existence that grants them goodness since it doesn't measure up to their idealized image. This just results in constipation of the ability to act in the way of Goodness on the material plane, since the material plane is inherently imperfect, unjust, and to be rejected as the opposite of the Highest.
Given what we said earlier about how some psychic dynamics are just the way that psyche operates (regardless of content), we can assume that this dynamic doesn't disappear. As magicians, I am sure that we have all realized this to some degree and rather than letting it run our lives until we forsake existence, we have considered there must be an application of this dynamic that "is" useful (just like our analysis of Art demonstrated). But if society naturally preys on this particular dynamic (this assertion of identity as one thing that "is" and Nothing else), what might the conscious, sublimated form look like?
That's where the Law of the New Aeon comes in to save the day hehehe! There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt!
Crowley's assertion that one must discover their True Will and do only that seems to be the same psycho-spiritual dynamic in its sublimated form. It again refocuses this dynamic on the process as opposed to the finish product (as we discussed in our examples about Art). By doing our True Will, our personalities are allowed to fluctuate because we are no longer applying this dynamic directly to personality (the domain where it is at it's most disadvantaged application) but rather to the actual processes of personality until we get really good at being our selves (amongst other things). This opens up the realm of Art (and again proves how useful Art "is") as we can see how these dynamics are the constant that the ego is searching for, and by consciously applying those dynamics we open the up the realm of the multivalent self as these dynamics can be applied infinitely to infinite things. Crowley was such a genius for formulating how we can be limited to everything we are in a way that emphasizes how truly freeing that "is".
