accidental perfection

[my_daroga]

Last night in bed, I spent several minutes staring at one panel of the graphic novel Blankets by Craig Thompson. For the purposes of my story, it doesn't really matter which panel it was--but if you're interested, it was the one which depicts the main character/narrator masturbating to a letter his would-be girlfriend from church camp sent. It is

Comments

[trypheanoia]

I have. But that thing is nature. I spent a year or so feeling that way about every leaf, every flower, and every insect I encountered.

I've had that feeling about people -- that the body and soul in front of me was so rich and so full that I could not conceive of it as being simply the product of evolution, environment and upbringing.

It was a sense that, for all I liked or did not like about a bee-sting, or the incredibly loud homosexual man on the T, that they could simply have not been any other way, that any changes to "perfect" them would be a dissimprovement with respect to their artistic content.

I know that must seem odd. To view a person as having artistic content. Like they were a poem. I guess it's a "believing in a creator of the universe" thing. Or maybe the fact that I see things this way is why I believe.

And I feel that way about Patrick Stewart's acting on occasion.

The ancient Greeks believed that any truly good work of art was "inspired." That is, it was the perfect reflection of some creation of the gods, their will moving through a person into the world of mortal art.

[my_daroga]

What I'm about to say will be all contradictory and potentially hypocritical.

But despite *not* believing in a Creator, I can completely accept the wholeness of nature, of people, of things which I believe to have come about through a confluence of chance and environmental design. So what you say makes sense to me; I have a curiosity about the things in this world, and a desire to watch them. Not necessarily to interact, of course.

Part of this is probably the compartmentalization I've created re: the "higher" emotions and biology. That is, even though I believe that, say, "love" is a construct driven by biological urges, that doesn't make it any less real. Love (or whatever) has a visible effect, and is real and good and worth it even if I believe it's got its base in what some might consider a "baser" need.

For me, saying that it's impossible to see people as having "artistic content" without a belief in a creator is like saying I can't have morality because I was raised without religion. For me, there is no contradiction between the richness/fullness of life and an agnostic, scientific vision of the universe.

[inlaterdays]

If love is a construct driven by biological urges (procreation?) then what is same-sex love?

I get that perfect feeling from the pattern of light through leaves, a certain kind of air movement on my skin, certain smells, phrases of music or text, or sometimes just a random free-floating random euphoria that is probably a result of my wonky brain chemistry but which beats free-floating anxiety by a mile.

[my_daroga]

If love is a construct driven by biological urges (procreation?) then what is same-sex love?

I don't believe it's entirely procreative at all! I think that security, companionship, etc are all biologically/chemically driven as well. Just as same-sex attraction has a biological foundation. Having a partner, a family, isn't just about the continuance of the species--at least, not anymore. I think the desire for those things has a chemical component. For me, that doesn't cheapen it or make it sad. Because the effects of those things are real, making the thing itself real.

And I know what you're talking about--I have distinct memories of walking through spring in my sophomore year at college, from which I mark this period of my selfhood.

[trypheanoia]

There is good evidence to suggest that sexuality, bonds of friendship, sexual orientation, and even familial bonds have a strong basis in chemical messages. Pheramones are very real. They indicate to us, on a subconscious level, who is a good genetic match, who is the correct gender to mate with, who is family, who is friend, and who is enemy.

Of course, our experiences over time build on these initial impulses. We can learn to like, or even love people.

I'm trying to remember the study I read on this... I may never find it. Damnit, I need to keep better records of my recreational reading!

[my_daroga]

Interesting. I often think I should start taking notes on pretty much everything I read, because I'm never able to recall/retain enough of it to be interesting.

I'll have to look into this, though.

[trypheanoia]

How curious.

To me, artistic content is all about self expression. Art is that which expresses eloquently. It is difficult for me to imagine something being an expression, if there is no one doing that expressing. If there is no artist, then there can be no art.

Also, I find beauty, itself, to be a mystery. It is natural that we should find food, mate, and shelter "beautiful" or pleasing. Why should we feel the same way about a deadly blossom, or a rock formation?

[my_daroga]

If there is no artist, then there can be no art.

I think this is a fundamental belief that one either has or doesn't--because there isn't really a way to argue that art does or does not require an artist. I mean, unless you want to argue semantics, in which case I can just say, "well, let's not call it 'art' then." In other words, I don't think there's a logical basis for either of our beliefs; I'm able to believe in non-intentional "art," and you're able to believe in someone creating it.

Your other question is very interesting, though. I often wonder why I have a favorite color. What difference does this make? Then I wonder if it's association--somewhere, I know now how or why, I developed good associations with the color green.

There are so many things that *can* be explained by backwards biological/chemical functions, that for me it's the first stop. There are all sorts of things that were useful once, but no longer. Why are people attracted to "bad boys"? Why do we seek out danger by jumping out of airplanes? The mind is a crazy place. You can induce "afterlife" hallucinations that are identical to those reported by near-death people. You can explain alien abduction and demonic visitation with the same problem, sleep paralysis, which is a condition I frequently experience.

All I mean to say is that I think there is plenty of room within that chemical explanation of some of these mysteries that I'm sure we haven't teased them all out yet.

[trypheanoia]

If the existence or non-existence of creator could be proven, conversations about the meaning of life wouldn't be all that interesting, would they?

And now for a tangent/ rant:

I think one of the reasons that I want so badly to mix magick and science is that I am fundamentally disgusted with the notion of "faith." All of this philosophy is wonderful for forming a hypothesis which everyone is too chicken shit to test.

I want to know, damnit. Because if there isn't a God, I'm up and eating a ham sammich like right now.

[my_daroga]

This is what makes you so interesting, Nea. Because of the mixiness. I can't handle faith, in the sense that I refuse to believe something I can't, in some way, feel or smell or touch. And here you are, all magickal and wanting to *test* things, which is awesome.

I came to my no-ham-eating stance without God, I'm afraid. ATHEISM DOESN'T ABSOLVE YOU.

[trypheanoia]

Yeah, I was a vegetarian for environmental reasons long before the Jew thing.

Maybe I would, however, worship pagan gods. A relationship with the Creator is only useful if there is a veritable being to have a relationship with. Telling storries and having rituals to culturally enshrine virtues is always a good idea -- and if all are equally bullshit, you may as well choose based on aesthetics.

I'm glad that I'm interesting. I think I'd rather be damned, or dead, than boring.

[cdaae]

I'm extremely curious about this mixing magick and science. What is it that you'd like to do? Scientifically test magickal hypotheses? Any in particular?

It seems to me that at the moment scientific testing of things depends for its measurements purely on results, and ignores various things as not worth testing because it's already deemed them "unscientific". It is assumed that intention is meaningless, so it's ignored as a factor. And of course those who do consider "spiritual" or "psychic" things as having possible relevance, like Rupert Sheldrake, still get written off as whackos, no matter how thought provoking their results and research.

[my_daroga]

I am over my head here--clearly there is some reading I need to do.

[trypheanoia]

Magick is really where psychology and probability intersect.

I do not do psychic research. I believe that if you understand certain spiritual laws, you can make predictions based on them. But this is no more "psychic" than predicting that an object will hit the ground when you drop it.

Let me give you an example of what I *am* doing.

Over the next three to six months, I will be doing weekly rituals designed to raise energy. The energy will be placed into an empowered thought form, given the simple command to throw off the numerical outcome of die rolls. We know that this is possible, because of previous magickal trials indicating that dice, even java dice that have no physical substance to them, as such, are easily thrown off by a simple exertion of will.

After the ritual, we will roll the dice around a thousand times, and crunch some numbers to determine to what degree the dice were "off" of what ought to be the statistical average. We will also have our particpants fill out anonymous forms to describe their ritual experience on a scale of 1-10.

The hypothesis is that there is a correlation between people reporting a "good" energy raising, and a higher degree of statistical abberation.

Luckily, my partner is a statistician. I am letting him figure out the mathiness. My job is just to apply my understanding of spiritual laws to make a good energy raising, and a good construct.

[cdaae]

I'm able to believe in non-intentional "art," and you're able to believe in someone creating it.

I think perhaps part of what makes something art is the interaction between the object and the observer. Whether or not art needs to have an artist, for something to be perceived as art there has to be a perceiver. Nature may or may not be "art" "created" by a creator/artist, but perhaps in perceiving it as art we become the artist, in a way. We make it art through our experiencing it or perceiving it in that way.

Um, I have no idea if that makes any kind of sense to anyone other than myself. Also I probably have more spiritual beliefs than you, and I do think that all of life is an expression of our spiritual selves (and that combination, of the spirit of everything, is what we call God).

Mostly I just wanted to say this thread was really, really interesting. I'm too fuzzy to work out what I think or want to say about it, other than the above, which seemed to come out of my finger tips without my brain being very much involved.

[my_daroga]

...perhaps in perceiving it as art we become the artist, in a way.

No, thank you so much; this does make sense, and is part of what I'd like to say. Because I don't believe in "art" as a universal constant, either; I don't think it can be pinned down as one thing or another, precisely *because* it is so much based on personal interaction.

Also I probably have more spiritual beliefs than you...

That would not, in any way, be surprising. Considering where I'm currently coming from.

Feel free to jump back in if/when you feel like talking--or chase me down elsewhere.