>[!info] About >The first lecture of [[PA The Primacy of Beauty]] by [[John Vervaeke]] at [[Peterson Academy]]. ## The Fall of Beauty According to [[Byung-Chul Han]]'s book Saving Beauty, there are four causes to the fall of beauty: 1. Hermeneutics of suspicion 2. Aesthetics of the smooth 3. Darwinian reductionism 4. (Kantian) Aesthetics sense ### Hermeneutics of suspicion Hermeneutics of suspicion, found in the like of Nietzsche and Freud, render appearances as illusory. Vervaeke points out that illusion and reality are comparative terms, and the ability to judge something as an illusion is dependent upon there being something that is non-illusory, namely that which is real. Hence, appearances can be deceptive, but they cannot be just that. A hermeneutics of suspicion precludes an opposing hermeneutic, namely a hermeneutics of beauty, that renders appearances to not be deceptive, but be the very means by which reality is disclosed to us. While the hermeneutics of suspicion brings with it moments of revealing untruths by going behind appearances, the hermeneutics of beauty is bound up with moments of realisation and insight, or what Vervaeke calls occurrences of truth. Beauty, or precisely moments of beauty, are precisely those moments of insight when reality is disclosed to us. However, Han diagnoses that suspicion has disabled us from experiencing beauty, and has made us forgotten what beauty is. ### Aesthetics of the smooth What has then replaced beauty is aesthetics. More specifically relevant is the aesthetics of the smooth. The smooth is characterised by ease of consumption, and the lack of challenge, and a tendency towards commodification and objectification. Along with that is the [[Mystery vs Puzzle|lack of mystery]]. We project onto empty, smooth, shallow canvases, and that is desirable because no secret threats can be hidden. Along with the shrewd promise of safety comes meaninglessness. The alternative is to say that reality is (and should) not be smooth, but is actually a plenitude. #### Dichotomies - being vs having - erotic vs pornographic - contemplation vs consumption - mystery vs puzzle - projection vs revelation #### Two existential modes: having vs being [[Erich Fromm]] conceptualises two existential modes. Existential modes are agent-arena relationships—they spell out how we relate to others. 'Having' relationships are I-It relationships, as they see the other as one that ought to be grasped, and consumed. 'Being' relationships are I-Thou relationships, as the I is in a dialectical relationship with the other (also see [[Pornographic vs Erotic]]). There is a clear right and wrong mode in this framework. One who lives life in the mode of 'having' is said to be naive, and in a state of modal confusion. The aesthetics of the smooth promotes 'having' relationships instead of 'being' in relationships. One has to 'be' in order to appreciate beauty. Another way to put it might be that beauty is not something one can 'have.' ### Darwinian reductionism The classic Darwinian take on beauty is that it is a byproduct of sexual selection. This essentially reduces beauty to sexual attraction: beauty is that I want to have sex with. Ignoring the fact that non-humans can be said to be beautiful as well for now, Vervaeke wants to argue that cognitive science research on 'fluency' suggests judgements of beauty (and truth) are replicable cross-domain, thus irreducible to any single domain such as sex—the Darwinian view, which provides good reason to object to the Darwinian reductionist view of beauty as sexual attraction. ### (Kantian) Aesthetics Sense We shifted from talking about beauty to talking about features and characteristics of art. This is the shift that Heidegger was attempting to draw attention to, and proposing to reverse in Beind and Time. Collingwood in Principles of Art (1958) talks about seeing art in terms of expression and not categories. Art is supposed to push us into a mode of being and not a mode of having, contemplating and not consuming. Since modern art do not have access to beauty, they reality of shocking uniqueness over traditional beauty. The shocking uniqueness of beauty was a realization in the unique, hence worthy of contemplation, aspect of all things under the sky—whether it is a horrendous image of war, or a small coin that my friend dropped. The shocking uniqueness encountered outside of beauty is nothing but 'difference,' uniqueness built solely upon a difference in appearance, not special because of its essence. Since modern art has detached itself from beauty, and relies on shock value, art can be ugly. Instead, it prioritizes originality, confrontational self-expression, and obsession with art history — collectively known as the triad of shock. The expression to sum this up is art has to be "as original as possible" and deny all formulaic-ness. The ability to categorize a work seemingly disqualifies it from being a work of art, for art is that which cannot be put into categories, according to contemporary art. All this points at an emphasis on subjectivity, landing at "art for art's sake," and "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder." Since the world is a smooth, blank canvas, we could paint on it in any way possible. In doing so, art removed itself from both beauty and the good. ## Question of subjectivity Why is beauty not subjective? In order to answer this, there are two problems that we are explore in tandem, which are two metaproblems: anticipation, and memory. ### Fluency 'Fluency' is ease of processing. Fluency research have shown that judgements on beauty and truth are domain-general, and process-specific instead of object-specific — meaning beauty and truth are not confined to specific domains or specific objects. They are a fundamental feature of our cognition, perhaps a priori. !!! Question: what exactly is the relationship between fluency and beauty (and truth)? ### Intelligence Humans are domain-general problem solvers. The reason we are domain-general problem solvers is because we have general intelligence (big G). How intelligent a human is can be shown by how far the person can predict into the future (ref. Michael Levis). This is built upon the predictive processing model, which suggests that our brains are constantly trying to anticipate the world. ### Top down vs Bottom up The mind antipates by imagination, and the body perceives perceives — collectively this is the dual process of top-down and bottom-up. ### Imaginary vs Imaginal Corbin has the philosophical distinction of the imaginary vs the imaginal. The imaginary is like a picture that we are looking at in my mind. The imaginal is to looking through an image, by "playing it out," like how children play out their imaginations. The space in our mind is imaginal in nature because we look into a space in our mind that makes us aware of our cognition. The imaginal occupies the space right in the between top down and bottom up. ### Domain-General Problem Solving Newell and Simon were working on creating a general problem solver. Problem solving involves getting something from an initial state to a different end state. To solve a problem is to resolve mismatch in those two states. A general problem solver possess the ability to "see" relevance in all the different paths that are possible to go from initial state to end state, and in doing so ignore all irrelevant paths. ### Transjective [[Transjective]], a term coined by [[John Vervaeke]], is the fittingness between the subject and its environment. It is neither subjectivity nor objectivity. Examples include: relevance, evolutionary adaptability, insights and in this lecture he argues that beauty is of this nature as well. ### Insights Insights involve frame-breaking, and frame-making. The gaining of insights, or the act (not exactly, because it does not "flow" from the agent, but is dawned upon him) of realizing something is when appearances are non-deceptive and reveals truth instead. Insight is a spike in fluency. ### Flow Flow is a cascade of insights, or a fluency of insights. Flow stops egocentric thought, because flow entails a total dedication to the task on hand. Flow states reveal a seemingly paradoxical relationship between the ego and agency. In a flow state, despite having less of the ego, we have better agency, not worse. Flow is imaginal. It reveals our relationship with the world — it's transjective function. People who experience flow more often consistently report living more meaningful lives. ### Throughline John Russon talks about the unifying throughline of multi-aspectual objects (which are all objects) that we imaginally trace to identify the coherence in reality. This affirms the plentitude and inexhaustibility of reality. ## Summary: Response to The Fall of Beauty >[!note] Reasons for the Fall of Beauty >From the previous lecture, we learned that the fall of beauty is caused by the (1) hermeneutics of suspicion, (2) aesthetics of the smooth, (3) darwinian reductionism, (4) replacement by aesthetics. 1. The hermeneutics of suspicion is dependent on a hermeneutics of beauty. 2. Reality is not shallow, flat and empty. A reality is challenging and meaningful, and understood through ideas of relevance, fluency, insight and flow, is the world we want to situate ourselves in. 3. Fluency shows beauty cannot be reduced to a single domain. 4. Beauty is not subjective. Beauty as flowing, imaginal, niche constuction. --- # Reflections Beauty has fallen, visual art has been [[Disenchantment|disenchanted]]. [[Douglas Hedley]] names this dichotomy [[Cult vs Art|cult and art]]. Cult objects are kissed, venerated, imbued with magic, carrying transcendence, whereas modern "art" is stripped of that. --- # Bibliography 1. Saving Beauty --- Back to: [[PA The Primacy of Beauty]] Next: [[The Return of Beauty]]