Art, evolution and design

A process of interaction so detailed and at such a high level will seem to invoke questions of ‘design’ or even intelligent design. At this point we are ready for that stealth theism: the ID group over a generation has critiqued Darwinism, rightly so. But then the presence of ‘design’ in nature suddenly became ‘intelligent’ in an argument by Dembski et al. His logic is of interest but still remains ‘sub-kantian’ so to speak. On one side we say, we cannot invoke either theism or ‘mind in nature’ using the term ‘intelligent’ unless we can point to something specific. And that we can’t do. Ambiguous crypto-theism does nothing but harm because it is instantly abused for theological partisanship.
To me the question of design in nature is transparent and has nothing to do with theism. It usually points to a teleological issue, but again that cannot be used to promote theism.
The fact is that if you predicate ‘intelligent’ to design you create an ambiguity that sows confusion that can never be clarified until you drop the term and start over. Many good reasons stand there: a planetary AI machine might direct evolution and thence art forms, and it might have bootstrapped in the wake of the onset of earth history. That’s outlandish, and open to objection, but it is less outlandish than vague references to theistic fictions that have no concrete evidence. An AI machine might have different but related exixtences in nature showing how unconscious design factors might exist. Simple doubt here makes confidence in the usual design theism plummet. And we should not a la the Turing argument say that AI machines are conscious in the usual sense. That misses the point. Nature wouldn’t waste conscious energy on hypermechanical machines that boost evolution. Still, as AI nutjobs claim, there is a threshold were ‘intelligent’ mechanical computation ‘seems’ conscious. What is consciousness? It is not the same as ‘intelligence’ in quotation marks. Very little in the above paragraph is proven, so who knows?
Natural selection was taken up to banish all design arguments and thus to buttress atheism. But such things are tactics, not science. The Dawkins fanatics do this but in vain. Design used to raise the hackles of secularists but now the question gets a shrug: design in nature is omnipresent and its existence has no theological implications. The ID folkd have shifted somewhat to say that ‘intelligent could refer to ‘mind’ in nature. A figure like Hegel does so. We have no absolute proof this is wrong, but without direct specification it gets another shrug. The computer revolution has changed all this and now we confront the fact that machines that look ‘intelligent’ might direct evolution, without even specifying how they could bootstrap out of the Big Bang, etc…
The point is that intelligent design could be mechanical in a new sense and thus require quotes, ‘intelligent’. The problems of science are one thing, those of theocracy another. If we speak of intelligent design we confront a political faction of religious maniacs trying to plot against the government.
The fact of the matter is that ‘intelligent’ (now in quotes) design is evident ‘as it seems’ in nature but if religious fanatics persist in plotting against the government we will change terminology, tough luck. Over time people change and the secular mood takes over and we just don’t take ‘intelligent’ design as proof of anything anymore. The example of art, music, and drama as evidence of historical design is especially useful because it passes out the range of what we ascribe to theistic action. God doesn’t tie your shoes in the morning and won’t do your poetry either (notwithstanding the poets superstition about muses) even though we can see that art generation is bound up in macroevolution. It had to be so, and once we think about it we realize or suspect that song emerged in evolution as a characteristic of species man, so we are saying nothing new.

Source: macroevolution programs art/music over millennia?…// Is the tragic genre dead? and classical music? Darwinists have totally confused the question of evolution – 1848+: The End(s) of History

macroevolution programs art/music over millennia?…// Is the tragic genre dead? and classical music? Darwinists have totally confused the question of evolution

This post was revised and expanded several times and became overcomplicated, but still its point is clear: world history and its macroevolutionary process show a kind of guided ‘evolution’ and this involves even low level detail: artforms, down to the meters of poetry, are influenced by this process.
That shows Darwinian ideas applied as random evolution (in deep time or civilization) are completely off the mark.

The question of the tragic genre is difficult: in fact no one has ever been able to define it, except maybe the charming attempt by Chaucer (Aristotle in the background): Tragedie is to seyn a ceTrt…

Source: Is the tragic genre dead? and classical music? – 1848+: The End(s) of History

Is the tragic genre dead? and classical music?

The question of the tragic genre is difficult: in fact no one has ever been able to define it, except maybe the charming attempt by Chaucer (Aristotle in the background):
Tragedie is to seyn a certeyn storie,
As olde bookes maken us memorie,
Of hym that stood in greet prosperitee,
And is yfallen out of heigh degree
Into myserie, and endeth wrecchedly
(Geoffrey Chaucer, The Monk’s Tale; late 14th century)

But wait, there are dozens of other definitions: https://purwarno-sastra-uisu.blogspot.com/2005/12/definition-of-tragedy.html!
The point is rather that unlike a sonnet which is definable leading to sonnet writing by definition, tragedy beyond its simplistic definitions has no definable method: a ‘tragedy really means a ‘great tragedy’ with every mechanical recipe failing.  There were actually considerable neo-classic canons here. Shakespeare managed the pass beyond them to solve the riddle of (Greek) tragedy (which he apparently never studied) which upon study is a case of many variants, most of which fail the definitions given. Racine is in a class by himself and needs a different study. The Greeks in Athens produced tragedies and comedies by the bushel but today no one can manage it. The issue of blank verse can’t be omitted although many claim that certain novels qualify, like Moby Dick. perhaps, but perhaps not. We confront the cases like Seneca: he wrote tragedies, yet we barely deal with them, despite falling within fixed definitions. That’s the point. Shakespeare create the genre beyond the genre and no definition save his genius can get from stereotype to a creative instance of the ‘tragedy’. Such novels are important in their own right in a new tradition, but the novel can never achieve the same result as a poetic drama. As Buddha says, all is transience, perhaps the verse drama will not revive. For many that is, so what, who cares. But too many Hollywood movies causes shrinkage in the brain, and you suddenly turn into a robot.

That’s why the genre is so rare: tragedians must reinvent the genre and produce a verse drama in actual fact, and it has to be a great work of art. This doesn’t really make sense. Many such as Ibsen have moved on. Those who insist blank verse tragedy is dead don’t understand blank verse or how to write it. But more likely drama will move on, to what, probably Hollywood movies.

It might be easier to make our case with the history of music which requires talent indeed, but it is more self-sustaining as a genre, ‘easier’, maybe because there is a talent for music, but not for writing blank verse, genius perhaps. There is of course a talent spectrum for poetry, but the case of tragedy seems different. We should note that classical music is de facto new invention of history, where tragedy emerges first in ancient times. (see below: Greek tragedy arises outside the transition, but that is a kind of welcome sign: free agents with Homer in the background created (or else Aeschylus) just outside the transition. (in the long run we want that as we take charge of our own history)).

We must brace ourselves for a shock: classical music emerges from the Renaissance spectrum around Monteverdi in chamber and operatic genres, develops rapidly then climaxes around 1800 with Mozart and Beethoven and then begins to peter out, but with Verdi and Puccini and the slightly different Wagner, and then nothing much. This timing if we are familiar with the eonic effect gives itself away at once and we get a shock: classical music is ‘system generated’ in a transition, and then wanes after the divide (1800). It doesn’t have to, but does. Then we see the explosion of ‘pop music’ producing zillions of cases in the twentieth century, very bound up in capitalism (but then so was the commercial theater of Shakespeare, but not the ‘religious festival’ genres of Greek drama.(Greek drama comes after the divide but still very close but really is an aspect of the epic tradition (Homer, if he existed) which peaks in the transition. It is possible another factor is in play here: classical music seems to exhaust a vein of gold, one might guess, and starts to break up clearly in the late Beethoven, then especially with the mysterious Wagner who is already in a different world, it seems: he deliberately moves against melodic forms, as if they were suddenly cliches, whatever. That puts him beyond the tradition we see so briefly. Wagner seems to show directly the shift from ‘system action’ to free action or free agency as the tries to oppose the gifts of music that seem too sugar to him as he grapples with creating a new kind of music, with what success is hard to figure out. A stunning reversal of process, yet as our model seems to predict.

We must be wary of being judgmental. Many fans of classical music are about and many can’t bear modern pop music. As students of the eonic effect we can be judgmental but only in terms of the dynamic under study. (But aesthetic judgments are of course universal) But the change in quality is obvious enough, and need not be a snobbish sentiment. (I happen to like all forms of music). We cannot say how this dynamic works in terms of individuals, their talents, and creativity. All we know is that the modern transition produces a fantastic new form of music in a non-random pattern that must have some kind of ‘eonic’ explanation. Individuals with talent are essential but outside the dynamic their talents don’t realize themselves, as far as we can see. The Greeks seem to understand better: they thought all poetry had a muse in the background
But then pop music becomes of great interest to the student of the eonic effect: because it shows music developing outside the larger dynamic: its signature is truer of human talents as they are in raw form. It is very unnerving but we must begin to assess our evolutionary history in its complexities and this includes the stark discovery of just how much human culture is an induced process. But we must be wary of analysis: we have a set of facts, our interpretations are something else.
The modern age is still young and the example of pop music a step to a larger history to come, no doubt, so judgment in a way must wait many centuries, so to speak.

I recommend a study of the eonic effect!
Decoding World History_ED1 or World History and the Eonic Effect.

Watch out: the eonic effect is close to an indirect falsification of Darwinian science fantasy life: be careful who you talk about it to. Biologists and professors of history are probably out since they have very restricted paradigms. If professionals can’t see the problem with Darwinism they are basket cases and may need to be not listened to. So far it’s your/our little secret. But the ‘eonic effect’ is close to public realization. This is the first century with enough new knowledge over five thousand years to see the evolutionary dynamic behind civilizations suddenly stand out. Evolution in deep time and evolutionary history are connected and it is not random evolution. But this kind of model is tricky: it has a dynamic, but it must take into account free agents in the context of system generation. The two overlap in transitions as some kind of boost appears.
This is not science, but the facts don’t lie: world history shows a clear dynamic up to the level of art generation.

Be careful of such a data set: it is vast and tricky….

Any discussion here must include the emergence of Elizabethan drama starting with the fascinating starting point of Gorboduc to Marlowe. And then Milton (and what of Samson Agonistes?). It is important to note that our transitions are not promoting a tragic view of life, but do innovate such a view in the context of an immense dialectical spread of innovations.

The eonic effect eludes us. We study too much Newtonian mechanics, but less often fluid dynamics. (there is no direct analogy here): we see a fluid history suddenly show a fretting structure. And on a scale we can’t visualize.

This material has three or more sets of enemies, making it hard to publicize: Darwinism, Old Testament/Christian views of history, science idiocy claiming history is a causal science like physics, along with marxist confusion over Marx’s great insights but terrible theories of history. Capitalist ideology is another pit of confusion: the ridiculous faux mathematics of neo-classical economics is even more muddled than marxism. By contrast the model here behind this data in one corner of drama in world history is based on solid evidence, but you must read a LOT of books on history, the final obstacle or almost. But the evidence is starting to stand out and the claims made will seem obvious in another generation. But this is impirical: there is no science of history in the usual sense.  As a socialist I would say to throw out Marx’s theories: what is left is useful classic commentary on capitalism. Economics can learn to stick to models and computers and throw out calculus nonsense.The question of Jews and Christians needs another discussion.

This kind of new historical paradigm is for those who reject scientism, embrace science, but consider as did Kant a triple theme of reason, ethics, and aesthetics thence to find this in history in a post-theological era of collapsed theistic historicism which it resembles, in vain, because theistic histories are all bankrupt now. It is good to be lured into this forest and left there, as if  abandoned, to puzzle over the core and limits of evolutionary immensities. It is too much to grasp at first but the task evokes a new curiosity, and a challenge even to that refuge, secular humanism But this model shows directly how the ‘god in history’ theme arises and how it fails, a mystery still of evolutionary macrohistorical dynamics.  We cannot take in at first in a culture swamped in good physics, a dozen bad sciences. Say, something that can process art forms over millennia, and that is just one corner of the complex structure. Relax: you won’t figure out this riddle in a day. First you need historical facts: reading books on history. But the basic issue is very simple and very intuitive if you approach it carefully.

Reference Source: Is Cinema Dead Again? – CounterPunch.org The question points to the mediocre plots of almost every instance of cinema throughout its history. Here we must be snobs for a moment: Holly…

Source: Is the tragic genre dead? – 1848+: The End(s) of History

Is the tragic genre dead?

Source: Is Cinema Dead Again? – CounterPunch.org

The question points to the mediocre plots of almost every instance of cinema throughout its history. Here we must be snobs for a moment: Hollywood is all trash, a capitalist farce. Even the groundlings in the 3B for Big Beard Bard willy shakesbeard were closer to esthetes than the platonic dream-bound in darkened theatres and their hypnotic ‘well-made plays’. Most of 3B’s plots were ‘well-made plays’, especially Hamlet, yet its action is all in blank verse. Snobs in Shakesbeard’s time looked down on him, but history turned them over to ridicule before his genius. But the point is apt: the crudity in the bard’s poetics turned mysteriously into gold.

The tragic genre has had two mysterious flowerings, both in terms of the ‘eonic series’: Athenian Greece, and sixteenth/seventeenth-century: England/France. Shakespeare and Racine, especially

George Steiner in his classic Death of Tragedy discusses this classic question. And also the multiple compulsive efforts to produce ‘tragedies’ in the wake of Shakespeare and their strange failure. The problem is that the genre requires poetic dramas and while that is not so impossible in French it has defeated English poets, although Wordsworth in his Prelude, which is not a tragic genre, produces some fascinating blank verse. There are hundreds of attempts to produce blank verse dramas again, even by really good poets like Keats, but they all failed to the head scratching of Steiner.

Part of the problem is that people have forgotten how to write blank verse although with a bit of practice it can be produced as you speak like the hexameters and other multiple verse forms of the Greeks in their epics. But to the problem of simple versification comes the mystery of such a crude poetic  form  creating high poetry: Shakesbeard solved that also. Steiner struggles with the problem but it can be confused with other issues: a student of the eonic effect sees that the problem is a macrohistorical puzzle of the strange generation of literatures in the evolution macroevolution of civilization, a statement that would seem incomprehensible or plain false in most thinkers. But Shakespeare appears in the mid early modern at the height of the modern transition. Again the question of poetry suffers from aesthetic confusion over verse types and the result is the archaic highfalutin junk poetry of too many…snobs. But we see the way past the snob problem in the emergence of great literatures. Shakespeare speaks in ‘crude’ beauty without snob effects in a common language of crats and groundlings in the theatres of the times. But it is blank verse all the way. There is a mystery to poetry in the way in invokes an unseen dimension that the brain can detect but which our sciences of linguistics can’t yet explain. The same is true of ‘well made plays’: the brain kicks here  too, it locks on a ‘good story’ almost instinctively, although a story can have many varietied mander somewhat, in plays a special kind of ‘well made play’ is needed: the same but slightly faster  in a kind of rhythm that asks a question the play must answer in a fourth or last act. Lord of the Rings meanders for ever but behind all of it is the question that is to be answered: the fate of the ring. In plays like Hamlet the rhythm is striking, the most so given a here subject to inaction yet in all respects a melodramatic nugget turned into a tragedy.

Let’s put  our post today into blank verse:

The mediocre plots of Hollywood

next to the prose of unversed dialogue

begs forth verse tragical as ancient Greece...  three minutes, done, very low quality but blank verse, sort of: iambic pentameters, very close to yet distinct from ordinary speech. That blank verse, appearing with Chaucer or thereabouts is almost artificial yet adapted to English is seen in the near ‘iambs’ of three syllable words: ‘mediocre’, Hollywood, dialogue, tragical: they pass, but are borderline iambic, but good for variety. The Greeks had an immense range of differing versifications, in a tonal language unlike the English stressed syllables. Such was always a mystery, but now YouTube has dozens of videos trying to figure out how Greek, and then Greek poetry could have been pronounced. But if you can produce an imabic tidbit in three minutes, soon you can have tidbits at will and you are soon the realm of Homer who with a lyre could produce ‘Homeric epic poetry’ in a sort of a la carte bardic stir fry.

Cinema deserves better than our momentary snobbery but the fact remains that a great tragedy in blank verse is entirely possible. Our moment of snobbery over, we can see that cinema is good wholesome groundling trash for cash, no obstacle as such to blank verse tragedy. But that is a riddle even to most poets.

and Steiner struggled with that too). There is no reason whatever that a cinema could not be done in blank verse, but if you look at the examples of stage classics in cinema, most fail or disregard the meter. The issue is not high/snob art, but a potential of the brain: a sort of food. Human evolution was always accompanied by verse in some form. One exception, almost bizarre is the Hamlet of Mel Gibson, which is quite good.  Many of the highfallutin attempts are too arty. But good blank verse is not a boring arty exercise. The trashy junk of Hollywood like mud for a lotus is potentially usable.

etc

pl T

Source: Is Cinema Dead Again? – CounterPunch.org

repost: The worst part of the Afghan tragedy is that it was always a fake war based on the 9/11 false flag op (which the ‘left’ dummies at CP have always lied about)….the US is a hopelessly corrupt mafia state

It is mind boggling that the illusion of terrorism was manufactured to create a war, no doubt ‘fixed’ by the MIC to make a bundle….

Please spare the real critics of 9/11 the charge of conspiracy theories….

Article worth reading…

Source: Roaming Charges: Ain’t That America, Something to See, Baby – CounterPunch.org

 The worst part of the Afghan tragedy is that it was always a fake war based on the 9/11 false flag op (which the ‘left’ dummies at CP have always lied about)….the US is a hopelessly corrupt mafia state

It is mind boggling that the illusion of terrorism was manufactured to create a war, no doubt ‘fixed’ by the MIC to make a bundle….

Please spare the real critics of 9/11 the charge of conspiracy theories….

Article worth reading…

Source: Roaming Charges: Ain’t That America, Something to See, Baby – CounterPunch.org