Sunday, January 18, 2015

Reflections of (or on) the Soul and Spontaneity

It’s been over one week since I’ve done any substantive writing.  And the essays I’ve done recently aren’t my worse but by far aren’t my best.  I’m stationary in-terms of my development.  I try to keep my mind active, but that’s no guarantee that my mind is moving or advancing towards more sophisticated, nuanced and intelligent conclusions and analyses of the world around me.  Though this is largely predicated on consistent mental exercise and various other physical variables, it is also completely spontaneous and incapable of prediction and therefore irrational to expect.  This is what I took away from Kiki’s Delivery Service when her magic leaves her – the main intellectual aspect of the movie from what I saw.  Kiki could readily draw from her magic, it was predictable and though it is magic (and therefore cannot be described or explained as a science is) she understood it in the sense of something she could regulate and control.  But then it abandons her, as an artist’s creativity can abandon them, leaving both to simply be patient and wait for inspiration and that special kind of “magic” to fill their soul once again.
I have ideas to research, and that perhaps will be what I’ll do more of – at-least for some time.  Though I like to think I’m generally informed of what I’m writing on from casual digestion of material (particularly in-regards to philosophy) I have very seldom done heavy research before writing; the best examples being when I wrote critiques of particular Marxist pieces (of Lenin and Trotsky) reading of course the essays and material surrounding the essay.  Movies don’t require much if any secondary material, and the primary source is incredibly easy to digest – TV shows so as-well to a slightly less degree accounting for time and more irrelevant material to shift through both due-to the amount of material present and the nature of television.  However, I’m not sure if this will accustom my writing style, which though regular is largely spontaneous, as I’ve already indirectly alluded to.  Research requires long stents of concentration and absorption, focus I don’t consistently have for one subject matter at a time.  I prefer (“prefer” as if it was a matter of purely subjective aesthetic preference – which it isn’t.  And even matters of meaningless preference is determined for us by our mental-makeup) arduous but short-lived consumption of one topic then departure and transition to another topic.  The spontaneity of the artist is the main thing that differs him or her from the scientist.  Both have their principles and methodology, and while the scientist is of course in some sense creative, and relays on bursts of inspiration, he relays largely on empirical data and research methods while the artists contribution to the material is more significant and requires a spark of the artistic flare to conjure anything that could be rightfully called an act of “authentic creation” something that a scientist despite his invaluable services to mankind can never perform – at-least as a scientist.
As I reflect on the points I made, I believe I’ve made several substantive and at-least in the sense that they originally came from my own mind (whether or not they were “original” in the sense of being novel in the terms of human thought, which for the majority of them I know were not) unique insights on various conceptions of the world or the world itself.  However, Anarchism as Naturalism is I believe the most important point I can make, stemming from and being an addition to Scientific Socialism.  I’ve also made various Existential claims, but such were merely deep seated truths of either my own condition or the human condition in-general, which I believe any person will come to if they are intellectually honest and value the same things I do.  That being said, I could write analyses of every TV show, movie and book that strikes my fancy for the diagnostic, but most of which would be retreading the same waters I already have, which is what the majority of my essays likely are (which I know to a small degree at-least are) but am unwilling to verify because I seldom reread any of my essays. 
I need to be creative, if I am not for long periods of time my soul tightens and I become anxious and feel as if I’m compressed or have this great weight on me.  However, I’m beginning to explore both new avenues of creativity and different modes of creating that is largely in the same genre – that is, still writing essays, but using different methods either to create differing results or simply to have a new experience; which is the main purpose of art I hold, not to create something for the masses for either entertainment or enlightenment; though that is a crucial part of art as well, and it is a blessing of the human intellect how easily the three coincide, though society digests far too much of the lower arts (namely music and visual art which require lower forms of creativity and mental stimulation) and not nearly as much of the higher ones (being literature, great film and well-written essays; not blockbusters and opinion pieces).  – because of this (please excuse that brief tangent that interrupted the flow, such is the natural consequence of the active mind) I may be less productive (at-least seemingly) these next few weeks.  I however will still aim to create at-least one product (fiction or non-fiction) a week.  This is essential, for otherwise I would be merely rationalizing not being productive and would fall into a stupor.
The content I will attempt to create will be hopefully more conscious and novel.  That is it will be something that will be new for myself rather than taking the views I already have (excuse me, my legs are numb and it’s rather bothersome.  I.e. a real bitch.) and restating them in-regards to the plot of a movie I’ve just seen or how the moment strikes my fancy (or would it be the other-way-round?).  Much of it will be views I largely already have, yes, I couldn’t write much of anything if I only did so once my opinion changed, but hopefully I will only write when I have something authentically new to say.  For example AI has recently become a topic of interest, and I have re-watched Terminator Two in preparation for writing an analysis of the thing itself and perhaps the film itself.  I have already discussed digital modes of consciousness (in my On the Flaws of Innate Optimism and Optimistic Innatism in which I briefly delve into the ramifications of a “Matrix” esque reality for human beings; completely different from AI, at-least in some sense) but feel AI is a fascinating topic, worthy of lengthy (at-least as far as my attention-span will allow) exploration and analysis.  I can’t recall writing much if anything on it, so hopefully it will be something entirely novel, something I cannot remember experiencing for several months.
The soul of the deep souled man (or woman) must be something that is constantly given or creating new challenges to process lest it suffer some degree of atrophy.  This is something that Nietzsche speaks of in the Gay Science.  While mere commentary on art from one’s (well-reasoned or not) convictions is of greater ease and predictability, an artist (even one who takes on the medium of critic) must to grow and expand his horizons explore his mind as well as explore the external world; that is not merely process material of a film, but while doing so process and development the material of his own soul.  In a sense this is inserting Kant’s Critical Philosophy into creation, making it more a mere act of mechanical digestion and excretion, but instead an act of processing where the mind is a dynamic and self-aware and reflecting component of the art of writing, rather than merely a autonomous typewriter that is reporting the “facts” of the author according to their own mental persuasion.  For there to be true creation, there must be destruction of the past.  Therefore, if philosophy is meant to be this “true discovery” there must be always a higher sense of self that on seeing either new or everyday material becomes enlightened and shaped by states of mind that will likely never be synthesized, easily replicated, or even fully understood.  Philosophy therefore is just as neurological as it is intellectual.

No comments:

Post a Comment