A lot of the images in surrealist art are statements about absurdity and with a certain amount of humour. Many works of surrealism, including some by Dali and Magritte have a lot of sexual content, even a celebration of polymorphic perversity.

It is partly a reflection of psychoanalysis, which includes ideas of others. Some of this looks at the dynamics of splitting into 'good' and 'bad' objects in the processes of projection. Also, Lacan looks at the symbolism of the phallus in gender and culture.

Lacan stands at the doorway between psychoanalysis and postmodernism and ideas of the deconstruction of gender and sexuality. In many ways, such an outlook is meant to be provocative and may have been followed on by artists like Gilbert and George.

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?

Appreciate this. :pray: I've been planning to get back into Sartre.

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

:party:

What I have found to be useful for more automatic drawing by myself is music. This can allow for a degree of altered consciousness for accessing the imagination, almost as lucid dreaming. The ideal would be to incorporate dream images but it can be difficult to remember the details but I would like to experiment with this more. The process of this, like dream journaling may lead to greater coherency of one's own inner symbolic narratives. — Jack Cummins

I've heard musicians talk about how dreams inspire composition. But I think it's the opposite of leading to greater coherency. There is something very appealing about incoherency, and the incoherency in dreams provides fodder. Notice how you say that some artists get very abstract "to the point of incoherency". The point of incoherency is a boundary which can be pushed, and the further you push the boundary the more you rely on the underlying coherency of the medium itself (which I spoke of in the last post). So the aspects of the work, provided by the artist's creative mind, might be totally incoherent, but some form of coherency, enough to keep the work interesting, is provided simply by the medium. So for example, some very experimental rock and roll, which is totally distortion and weird effects. The artist provides little in the way of coherent music, relying instead on the sounds produced by the various special effects equipment.

I don't agree that a pure medium can provide coherency where none comes from the artist's connection with their subject matter. Incoherency in that respect to me must always be only apparent incoherency if it's to remain art. Otherwise,there's no way to distinguish random sounds from art. And there's no boundary between just noise and music. Art to me is what results from a special connection between artist and world that the listener, reader, viewer etc can access through a given medium. But the connection is the origin of the art not the medium.

I don't agree that a pure medium can provide coherency where none comes from the artist's connection with their subject matter. — Baden

Some don't apprehend the coherency, others do. This is why ideas are fundamentally subjective, some see meaning where others do not, and this serves in the creation of ideas.

Incoherency in that respect to me must always be only apparent incoherency if it's to remain art. Otherwise, there's no way to distinguish random sounds from art. — Baden

Yes, I think that is exactly the point. The incoherency must be considered as 'it's incoherent to me, but maybe someone else can grasp the coherency'. Now, we can allow a blurring of the boundary between the aspects of coherency added (intentionally) by the artist, and those provided already by the medium. The artist may intentionally add things which may appear to some as incoherency within the medium. In Aristotelian words, accidentals are proper to the material aspect, but even the accidents have some form, so they are fundamentally intelligible. Then the basic intelligibility of the medium, which to many would appear unintelligible, can be mixed with the intelligibility of the form added by the artist. The skilled surrealist will completely hide the boundary between form provided by the intention of the artist, and form provided as inherent in the matter of the medium.

This can be called "understanding the medium" and in this way the artist knows the matter of the medium better than the scientist knows that matter, through observation and apprehension of how the accidental coherencies can mix with the intentional coherencies within a newly created object. The scientific observations are limited to judgements of consistent/not consistent with the theory. But the artist is not confined to those restrictions and can consider the raw perceptual response of human beings,

We can understood this allegorically as a sort of harmony which is not included in the applied theory of harmony. Take the example of music. The beat is given by a combination of the tempo and the time signature. This provides a formula for frequency, call it beats per minute. The musical notes also provide a formula for frequency, call it Hertz, or cycles per second. In theory, we could apply theories of harmony, and experiment to see how these frequencies sync up in harmony. But I don't think there is any such theory, only the experimentation by artists as to which beats harmonize better with which keys. Further, in a similar way the artist can cross boundaries between distinct media, to experiment with completely unknown coherencies. The wavelengths of colour for example, are actually frequencies, which may display harmonic properties with specific tones.

Those are just examples of how the artist is free to experiment with hidden coherencies undisclosed by theory. Of course the expression here is a sort of theory, so it defeats the purpose, because what I am talking about is coherencies which are truly unknown, hidden from all theory. However, it is given as an example of how it is possible that experimentation in abstract art, can expose through the observation of human response, coherencies which are completely hidden and unknown. Theory must be derived from somewhere.

Art to me is what results from a special connection between artist and world that the listener, reader, viewer etc can access through a given medium. But the connection is the origin of the art not the medium — Baden

Yes, that connection is the origin of the art, but we must consider the priority of the medium. The connection between the artist and the world is a very special type of relation in which the artist has a unique understanding of the medium, or media. The uniqueness of that understanding is displayed by the uniqueness of the art. However, I do believe we can apply some generalizations. To begin with, that unique understanding is a type of understanding of the response of the audience (listener, reader, viewer, etc.) to the medium. So the first principle is that the audience is not responding to the work of the artist, rather they are responding to the effects of the medium. The artist then designs an effective way to deliver the medium. So what you describe as "a special connection between artist and world", is better described as the artist's understanding of the connection between the audience and the world. What a good artist knows, is how to present (give) the world to the audience. That is why true art is best known as an act of unconditional love.

@Jack Cummins

And, besides, what existential-pragmatic-ethical difference does it make, Jack, if metaphysically (according to some ancient tradition) "all is maya" — 180 Proof

Metaphysics make a difference for daily living and ethics. For example, the idealism of Plato can lead to moral authoritarianism. Similarly, the application of Kant's a priori allows for an underlying moral absolutism. As far as the Eastern concept of 'maya' it a softer metaphysics than in Western metaphysics. It does not lead to complete relativism or nihilism. It is far more subtle in its scope, allowing for awareness of the nature of existence being impermanent and fluid.

That is not to deny the importance of the meanings and concerns of those partaking in the dramas of life. Eastern metaphysics, including the idea of 'maya', does not mean that morality is superfluous and redundant. It may be a basis for standing back from our daily dramas rather than seeing them in an extremely fixed and rigid manner.

Much I agree with but

what you describe as "a special connection between artist and world", is better described as the artist's understanding of the connection between the audience and the world. What a good artist knows, is how to present (give) the world to the audience. That is why true art is best known as an act of unconditional love. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here there's the possibility of a descent into a kind of degenerative recursiveness, the artist viewing their relationship with their subject matter through the eyes of their audience viewing the artist's relationship with their subject matter etc, a kind of hall of mirrors effect that distances the artist from the source of their art. I have had this problem with certain media, e.g. photography. In a way I know too much (in the abstract) about how a particular form of photographic art is successfully presented to an audience and that tends to cripple my photographic attempts at art. I don't tend to have such problems with writing.

In my mind, the solution is that for this type of "knowing" to work it should be purely intuitive and incidental rather than purposeful and deliberative. Not only then is the stain of self-consciousness avoided but that of manipulation. I can take a type of photo that works in the abstract and hate it because it feels overpurposed and inauthentic. I can also take a type of photo that is more original and hate it because it doesn't work in the abstract. But I think I prefer the latter sin, which reveals a deficiency rather than masks it.

Plato and Kant basically say that "all is maya" too by arguing "appearances are not reals" and "phenomena and not things-in-themselves", respectively, so I think in this context the specific dichotomy you draw, Jack, between Western and Eastern metaphysics is exaggerated. Also, the doctrine of "maya" is self-refuting insofar as it is "maya" as well like (existential? ontological? moral?) nihilism.

As I was writing my post, I was actually thinking how Kant did see epistemology as limited, with the transcendent being beyond it. However, it is complex because he also emphasised the contrast between the a priori and the a posteri of empirical experience. In general, idealism may be about a realm beyond the physical. It can be seen as a top downwards perspective of reality.

It is probably true that I probably exaggerate the difference between Western and Eastern metaphysics. It has probably been about ongoing questions by many thinkers. Apart from the difference between Eastern and Western thinking there is also some kind of historical shifts.

In particular, ancient writers often felt that they conversed with the gods. This would be disputed greatly by most serious thinkers in the twentieth first century. The realm of numinous experiences are viewed as mythic or art based fantasy. For example, ideas of heaven and hell, as well as the shamanic model of an upper and lower world are seen as metaphorical rather than as literal dimensions.

This is of significance because ideas of heaven and hell may be useful for metaphoric descriptions of experience in the here and now. This is different from the idea of heaven and hell to describe rewards and punishment in an afterlife.

Here there's the possibility of a descent into a kind of degenerative recursiveness, the artist viewing their relationship with their subject matter through the eyes of their audience viewing the artist's relationship with their subject matter etc, a kind of hall of mirrors effect that distances the artist from the source of their art. — Baden

I wouldn't call it a hall of mirrors, but more like a relation of reciprocation. Each back and forth comes with a change. That change ought to be increased knowledge.

In my mind, the solution is that for this type of "knowing" to work it should be purely intuitive and incidental rather than purposeful and deliberative. — Baden

In some ways I would agree with this. However, if we start with the assumption that "pure art" is solely a relationship between the artist and the medium, allowing that the only purpose which the artist proceeds with is to please oneself through experimentation with the medium, we are bound to encounter boredom. So I think that even within what might be called "pure art", there is the desire to please others. This is a base inclination which the artist may block, to avoid manipulation, but it still inheres as a source of inspiration. And, I think that this becomes a very critical and difficult balance for many artists, the balance between the desire to please oneself and the desire to please others. It has many facets. At the base level, the desire to please others may provide for manipulation, while the desire to please oneself may lead into a creative rut, but the reciprocation effect may mix this all up, with the influence of other interests, so that for example, the desire to please others may be replaced with a desire to make money, which is fundamentally a desire to please oneself, but in relation to interests other than the art. And this in turn could lead to the creative rut.

In general, idealism may be about a realm beyond the physical. — Jack Cummins

I think "in general, idealism" asserts that "the physical" is only an idea and not real (i.e. mind-independent). Maybe you mean platonism or cartesian dualism? :chin:

Likely, but it might also be that he's collecting epistemic idealism under hte same banner - in which case, equivocally, his statement sort of hits.

There may be varying pictures of idealism and the principle of matter as an idea. Some of this may have emerged from mainstream Christianity.

However, the esoteric roots of idealism, which may have influenced Plato seem to rest on an assumption that mind may have fallen into matter. It is likely that wonder Plato comes from this tradition of ancient thinking and esotericism. His perspective of the cave of shadows as a representation of ' truth' does suggest to me the idea of a dimension 'beyond'.the physical.

The specific view of matter as an idea seems to correspond with the later perspective of Berkley, which came later in conjunction with mainstream Christianity.

The allegory of the cave concerns how we see images and then imagining a direct experience where those productions are not needed.

There was a period, spanning centuries, where the meaning of matter was discussed and seen in silhouette against this allegory. The role of the 'physical' had boyfriends before the Christian thinkers told their story.

The story of the allegory of Plato's Cave is important and I shall try to read further. There is the possibility that some of the story may have got lost or have been suppressed in the Augustian interpretation of Plato which developed in Christendom.

I am reading ' Existentialism and Mysticism' by Iris Murdoch. This includes plenty of discussion on art as 'truth' or 'lies'. Some of this comes down to metaphysics and some to metaphorical understanding. Plato's ideas are relevant, or not, in twentieth first century understanding?

Plato's idea of 'forms' may he important as metaphysical abstracts. Nevertheless, it may be important to go beyond abstraction. Murdoch argues how in the thinking of Plato, life after death may continue beyond the body. Is this a problem with Platonism and its embodiment in life? It may be point to questionable areas about ideas as 'forms', beyond the physical. So, I am left wondering about the spectrum of eternal ideas and how these come into play in the human imagination. Any further thoughts?

I am left wondering about the spectrum of eternal ideas and how these come into play in the human imagination — Jack Cummins

All ideas are expressed with words, and words come into play by the principle of compositionality. Meaningful expressions are built up from other meaningful expressions.

We can understand a large—perhaps infinitely large—collection of complex expressions the first time we encounter them, and if we understand some complex expressions we tend to understand others that can be obtained by recombining their constituents. — SEP

That should answer your question, unless you're an opponent of compositionality, e.g. assume that the meaning of an idea depends on the intentions of the speaker, or on the context, regardless of the meanings of the words that express the idea.

The idea of 'compositionality' does seem useful because human beings to grasp and capture ideas by a sense of meaning. It is likely that this involves intuition as a starting point for connection with ideas. It comes into play in learning of ideas in childhood. Ideas may come into play simply initially and become more complex when the intricacies of language are understood.

The only challenge to the idea which I see is Plato's notion of amanesia(recollection), which is about rediscovery of eternal ideas. However, Plato's understanding only makes sense in the context of the assumption of an 'eternal soul', which extends before and after this life. This would amount to a picture of disembodied spirits as a basis of idealism and innate aspects of connection with concepts of ideas.

It may point to questionable areas about ideas as 'forms', beyond the physical. — Jack Cummins

What is meant by the "physical" is something I challenge as a self-evident idea. That is why I quoted Plotinus earlier in your OP. Plotinus speaks as a matter-of-fact what Plato always referred to through myths, legends, and possible stories. In Timaeus and Phaedo, for example, he repeats that he does not know what happens beyond life's end. The metaphor that life is a kind of prison is a feature of Plotinus' cosmos where Plato points to a tragic failure applicable to unknown causes. The gap between life and death is wider for Plato than for Plotinus.

Is there something in the Murdoch text that speaks to that difference?

Iris Murdock looks at Plato mainly in regard to art, and how he sees art as often being about 'lies', as opposed to the difference between 'appearance and reality'. Murdock shows how Plato also sees art as being focused on pleasures as opposed to enlightenment.

As far as I can see the perspective of Plato and Neoplatonism are based on a belief in the 'reality' of the 'soul'. Plato's picture of the unconscious is based on the idea of 'the World Soul'. Between Plato and Plotinus there is an underlying perspective of the 'Divine' as a source which individuals connect with via the soul. It is what Jung refers to as a the relationship between 'God and the Unconscious'. It is about an invisible source behind the visible as manifest in mind/body human experiences.

Murdo[ch] shows how Plato also sees art as being focused on pleasures as opposed to enlightenment. — Jack Cummins

If you haven't already, read Iris Murdoch's short book The Sovereignty of Good wherein she discusses 'beauty (art) as a way of seeing – attention to – reality' and therefore (an unorthodox) Platonic approach to moral judgment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sovereignty_of_Good

previously discussed in 2022
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/705105

Also Murdoch's Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals collection further elaborates on her reading of Plato and Platonism.

If we are going to include Jung into the conversation, the differences between philosophical attempts to talk about 'being' and the terrain of 'psychology' needs to be considered.

I will try to read more of Murdoch. So far. she seems to be engaged with very 20nth century problems. As a student of classical Greek literature, this is no advance in understanding the way views of the soul changed over time.

I am glad to be engaged with someone who has studied Greek literature. My own reading of Plato and other ancient Greek thinkers is not as informed as I would like it to be. I am finding Iris Murdoch's discussion of Plato's writings as,particularly useful regarding Plato's ideas on literature and philosophy. I think that I probably need to read more of Plato's writings other than 'The Republic'. I have read some writing by Homer and this is probably important alongside Plato for understanding the ancient Greek worldview..

With regard to Jung, I have read his writings since I was at school. I am aware that he does not sit within philosophy clearly. There again, he does not fit in with twentieth first century psychology at all. One of the reasons why I see his writing as important though is because he has read so many philosophical authors and this reading is integrated in his writing and, for this reason, he offers a significant contribution to philosophy in his many volumes of writings..

There is a strong connection between Plato and Jung because Jung develops his idea of archetypes from Plato. However, a big difference is regarding ideas of perfection. Plato sees this as an ideal to attain whereas Jung is influenced by Gnosticism, which sees good and evil in a very different way. In particular, Jung, writing in the twentieth century, offers a critique of the development of ideas of good and evil in Christendom and ways which have lead to problems for humanity, especially human destructiveness.

I came off more dismissive than I intended. I am still looking for a free version of Murdoch's essays on these topics so I shouldn't criticize what I have not read yet.

There are different ways to frame the differences between psychology and the inquiries underway in Plato. It is difficult to draw general boundaries where one ends and the other begins. For example, the context of reported experience is different for Jung and William James, yet both developed psychological models of what is expressed as 'transcendental' conditions in past literature. Their means of translation are different from approaching the intent of a work through its own terms and the place that had in the conversation of contemporaries. But saying that alone won't help differentiate Jung from James in a meaningful way.

To my thinking, Jung's work as a clinical therapist makes him different from other thinkers who built psychological perspectives into their writing. The language of drives, instincts, and reactions to unconscious processes, that was introduced by On the Psyche, are not cancelled by The Red Book. A big topic I will not boldly barge into.

Regarding the role of 'perfectibility' in Plato, the role of the 'unchanging forms' is often set over against our limited understanding of them. Words without number have been poured into the bowl of the dead Plato over this question. Many beakers full have been poured right here at TPF Whatever one might think about that conversation, there are plenty of examples in Plato pronouncing the less bad being acceptable until the better is known better. The question of whether the philosopher's return to the cave is a futile endeavor or not still throws a shadow over the scene.

I have recently read Hesiod's Theogony and Works and Days again after four decades. I have since smacked my forehead with the realization of how deeply this material is interwoven into the world of Plato, before and after his time. As with Homer, Plato happily quotes Hesiod in some places and rejects him in others. In some places, Hesiod is present by proxy without citation and explained away rather than embraced or spurned. Hesiod is like a set erected behind the background of many acts in a play.

This causes me to wonder if the immortals of Hesiod and Homer are not better examples of the way Jung presents archetypes than Plato's 'virtues in themselves." The immortals personify psychological dynamics present in the mortals. The narrative of Hesiod shows how immortals were closer to mortals in the past and have grown increasingly further apart. There is a hope expressed in a better future but no guarantee of one.

I want to address the engagement of 'Neoplatonists' with 'Gnostics' but am deep into a listening (reading) mode right now that is causing me to question many of my previous opinions. I will try to say more if I learn more.

I will try to read more of Murdoch. So far. she seems to be engaged with very 20nth century problems. As a student of classical Greek literature, this is no advance in understanding the way views of the soul changed over time. — Paine

Murdoch wrote that in a sense it is true that philosophy makes no progress. From:

Iris Murdoch, Philosopher: A Collection of Essays - Reviewed.

This collection is a milestone in the history of Murdoch scholarship. It seeks to establish "that Murdoch is of importance and interest to the same people as read the moral philosophy of Kant and Plato or Philippa Foot and John McDowell". [...]

I am delighted by the increasingly sophisticated secondary literature on Murdoch's philosophy represented by Broackes' collection, but while reading it I found myself nostalgic for the intimacy of Murdoch's unmediated address.

I am referring here to the experience of reading, for the first time and without preconception, the opening sentences of The Sovereignty of the Good:

It is sometimes said, either irritably or with a certain satisfaction, that philosophy makes no progress. It is certainly true, and I think this is an abiding and not regrettable characteristic of the discipline, that philosophy has in a sense to keep trying to return to the beginning: a thing which is not all that easy to do. — Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

If you haven't already, read Iris Murdoch's short book The Sovereignty of Good wherein she discusses 'beauty (art) as a way of seeing – attention to – reality' and therefore (an unorthodox) Platonic approach to moral judgment. — 180 Proof

I think that would be worthwhile :up:

I am still looking for a free version of Murdoch's essays on these topics so I shouldn't criticize what I have not read yet. — Paine

Yes, good idea. Free reading material is difficult to find. However...

You might find this helpful. If you can't bear the accent, a transcript is available:
@180 Proof - haven't watched it all, so not sure how correct it is?
The Sovereignty of Good (Iris Murdoch): Overview

I am reading the volume of essays by Murdoch, 'Existentialists and Mystics: Writings on Philosophy and Literature', which I was fortunate to find in my local library. There is a lot to read and ponder in it, as it includes a lot of discussion, including a whole section on reading Plato.

One of the important aspects which I am finding in her work is her comparison between the arts and philosophy. This is pertinent in understanding Murdoch because she wrote novels and philosophy, so had experience in both fields. In particular, she sees both literature and philosophy as being involved in the pursuit of 'truth'. She sees the distinct role of philosophy in the following way:
'Philosophy is not exactly entertaining but it can be comforting, since it too is an eliciting of form from muddle. Philosophers often construct huge schemes involving a lot of complicated imagery. Many kinds of philosophical argument depend more on or less on explicitly upon imagery. A philosopher is likely to be suspicious of aesthetic motives in himself and critical of the instinctive side of his imagination. Whereas any artist must be at least half in love with his unconscious mind, which after all provides his motive force and does a lot of his work. Of course philosophers have unconscious minds too, and philosophy can relieve our fears; it is often revealing to ask of a philosopher, "What is he afraid of?" The philosopher must resist the comfort-seeking artist in himself. He must always be undoing his own work in the interests of truth as to go on gripping his problem. This tends to be incompatible with literary art. Philosophy is repetitive, it comes back over the same ground and is continually breaking the forms which it has made.'

I really like Murdoch's emphasis on repetition in philosophy as it captures the way in which one keeps coming back to the same problems over and over again. This is the philosophical method and is how ideas develop.

Also, her argument about philosophy being more than entertainment. If anything, it may be that philosophy needs to be a bit more entertaining than theory. After all, many of the influential philosophers and works wrote creative non fiction or wrote novels as well as philosophy. For example, 'The Republic' and 'Thus Spake Zarathustra', although not light entertainment, probably succeeded as classics because they were great pieces of literary art.