Beauty, Art and Freedom with Jonathan Pageau and DC Schindler

[@WhiteStoneName]

Definitely present. Definitely will watch. Loved the series on Freedom from Reality. Pageau is always a nice add.

[@thesecondlawandthetowerhou6026]

“Beauty is harmony joined to a particular. It’s integrated harmony into the contingency of a particular place, a particular thing.” Yeah! Beatrice!!!!

[@marklefebvre5758]

This is a great talk, but doesn't get going until 45 minutes or so in. :) Comments start around 50:00 Thanks for getting these two together, what a wonderful group. Please do this again. If you bring John in, please push back on his ideas, hopefully both Jonathan and David could help him see a few things. Techne is an abstract because the world is flattened, yes, it 'can' be good, but we don't even know what good is anymore, so it's not relevant that it could be good. I like this idea that freedom is the power to make choices. I need to ponder this. The lack of Telos is the flattening of the world. Power isn't a telos, freedom isn't a telos, none of those has that vertical causality required. You can try to re-enchant the world with 'good' or 'above' but without a proper hierarchy, not everyone has a place, so they are either up top, down bottom or just following along (but no one says that, they say they are for top or bottom because the world is flat). The Amish might be anti-fragile, as Nassim Taleb talks about in his book by that name. Once you flatten the world, the problem becomes that you cannot orient things towards the good, so you end up defaulting to an emergence is good mentality instead of a being is good mentality. Now abortion can be justified, because it's equal to not allowing something to emererge that you'd be under the control of (I hear tell newborns keep their parents up, children take up their time, energy and attention plus cost a lot of money). AI nicely exposes everything. So the thing that was totally dependent upon humans will somehow destroy their own creators, this is just psychological projection, we killed God, our creator, now our creation will kill us. Projection explains so many behaviors. Love this point, if we don't do it someone else will - what are they saying? They are saying, we are good, if we don't control it, someone who isn't good might control it. So it's all about Post Modern Top Down Power from above narrative all over. In an emergence is good (creation denial) that is all you have, things need to be controlled (always by ME, btw, because I'm way better than any person I know less well than myself) or who knows what will happen. If that conveys power onto me, well, that is just a happy accident! No ego needed. *cough* Why does Jonathan Pageau understand AI better than anyone in the field? How shocking, it's almost as if the world is attention and he knows this. *cough* Wow, I did not have any idea chat GPT was that far off the rails. I've been able to do cool things with it, caught its failures for sure, but man, that level of lie and doubling down is really reflective of a certain group that might vote a certain way and control the tech field, unfortunately for us. I like this idea that true things are integrated, I think that is a key point to make. Beauty plus truth. Nostalgia is a flat world idea - returning to the past as it 'was'. This is linked to the KayFabe idea, another reprehensible way to think about the world by removing the relationship that happens only in participation. Jonathan, John is technically incorrect about AI, he made a bunch of totally off the wall statements about what it is, how it works, what it can and cannot do, etc. Peterson has been down that same crazy talk rabbit hole with people I can only assume aren't actually familiar with the technology (I've been dabbling in AI for 15 years) of Neural Networks (or the math) but are using a linear progression projection of 'technology' (Moore's law) to guess at what will happen. Mostly based on a total misread of what AI is doing and where it's limits are (notice, they spend very little time talking about mistakes and limits and base all their predictions on successes).

[@TheVeganVicar]

Great and lowly are RELATIVE. 😉 Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@corykobel6117]

Dude!! Three of my favorite people! Wonderful synthesis of minds Ken, I cannot WAIT to watch this.

[@dalibofurnell]

oooh, this is going to be good, I'm looking forward to this ❤Bless your hearts

[@sherieharkins2460]

A lot of great things to ponder here. I especially appreciated the revelatory concept in the creative process. Making art as a painting major we were supposed to have the vision and statement mapped out from the start, which always made me inadequate as an artist, I did not have sufficient self inspiration. As I have matured as an artist I love jumping off with what feels like a calling and then letting the revelation develop. It is always so much better than what I could have planned. Thank you all, I am going to listen again.

[@TheVeganVicar]

What you have written/spoken presupposes freedom of volition. ☝🏼 However, it is a demonstrable scientific fact that EVERY thought, action, and motion that has occurred in the phenomenal universe was entirely determined by every preceding action, all the way back to the “Big Bang” singularity event. 🤓

[@janthonycologero9206]

I appreciate all 3 of your work so much. Keep it up, you're changing the world for the better!!

[@imacg5]

Great conversation, very enlightening. Which leads me to a realization of something related to the "Cubist Decade" (according to Jacques Barzun). We can all agree that modern art got "unhinged" at the turn of the century (some traced the turning point back to the Impressionism Movement, personally I disagree, but that's another topic), all the "monstrosity" (according to Jonathan Pageau) were unleashed right at the end of the Great War (WWI). At first I was also baffled at what happened, but right when Mr. Pageau mentioned "Art for Art's sake" again, it dawned on me: they were not just talking about "unquestionable individual freedom", they were also talking about the sovereignty of the Art Sphere, but most importantly, they were talking about not becoming the tools of propaganda. Yes, refusing to be tools of the State was the main purpose of "Art for Art's sake". If you wanted to be useful artist at the time, you would either join the government, or the dissenting group, and send their messages (Ideas in the context of this dialogue, either for maintaining the status quo or for revolutionary mobilization) as "useful art". I wrote a big chunk explaining what it means to create "art that is useful" in Europe, Soviet Union and China in 20th century, and what it looked (and looks) like, but deleted all. I think you could just look at the US in the last half the century, from war movies, blacklist, to "unAmerican" accusations, magnify that by two magnitudes, and get the idea. In fact, Jackson Pollock became the face of "Contemporary Art" precisely because his works were deemed "unuseful" by the Soviet Union. I guess my point is, "useful Art" in Modern Age has been co-opted by the State and the Capital, in different proportions in different places, following the Age of Religion (aka the Middle Ages). So maybe artists striving for an Art for its own sake was after a nobler initiative, a failed attempt to realize freedom, yet still respectable. In other words, cut them some slack. There are many caveats here, like how "the People" meant "the Mass" for them, but my rambling has gone on too long. I guess this video provides a safe place for me to sort my mind on this topic, for that I thank all three of you and especially Ken. Thanks for this place to think.

[@TheVeganVicar]

Great and lowly are RELATIVE. 😉 Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@thesecondlawandthetowerhou6026]

529 times the pleasure!!!! So cool!

[@Teamfra]

Ooooh…I cannot wait to watch this!!!

[@WhiteStoneName]

Great books about the terrifying beauty of “ugliness” are “The Power and the Glory” by Graham Greene and “Silence” by Shuzako Endo.

[@TheVeganVicar]

Great and lowly are RELATIVE. 😉 Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@WhiteStoneName]

46:50 God vs Mammon. Technological “use” is mammon. Toward a controlled, desired, comprehensive end.

[@projectmalus]

The arrival of playing cards must have been sensational, since one could fan them out in a semi-circle and collapse them into a rectangle. Is that where Art became more representational? Instead of readjusting one's focus, to a higher level than just royalty, the attaching of oneself to objects or the division of objects. Remember Kim Mitchell? Kind of a Byzantine Canadian with his Akimbo Alogo album.

[@expert12390]

What do you mean by participation in art? Don’t we all participate in art just generally? Or do you mean a deeper participation

[@shovas]

While listening to this I had the thought that what we’re really saying about technology (or any phenomenon really) is that it is dangerous to the one who doesn’t truly understand it.

[@thesecondlawandthetowerhou6026]

“…in the affect of the idiosyncrasy” Wow! The strange and the wild.

[@almondtree]

Beauty at the end of pain and suffering and ugliness. Beauty in Sheol - Persephone, and she softens the heart of Hades

[@j.g.4942]

From the understanding of their mythologies I have, it's the opposite; Persephone being the earlier goddess of death

[@koshoxy]

Jonathan at his strongest here

[@schmitzkaylee]

41:40 novelty

[@MrJamesC]

A very exciting discussion, but I don't quite agree with Jonathan. He talks a lot about art needing to be purposeful or integrated, but at the same time belittles advertising which is extremely purposeful design. Of course there are mendacious advertisements, but there are also sincere advertisements that use beauty and clarity to proclaim the benefits of a product to the public. Not everything has been "reduced to immediate pleasure", as Jonathan puts it. Also when people express themselves with their art, it means that they build a bridge from themselves to society and you experience a change of perspective. This is not "art for art's sake". People can use music to relax, to focus while learning or to inspire themselves and others. Even if you don't participate in a ballet, for example, the high level of artistry is very inspiring and, as I have often seen, can have a very positive effect on the well-being of the individual as well as on the community. I think Jonathan is too selective about which purposes are valid and which are not when he says things like: "The church is one of the only places left in the world where you sing for a reason, where you move for a reason, where you could have beauty for a reason".

[@QuixEnd]

I like seeing people disagree. Actually thinking through the given beliefs rather than just accepting them😅 I think it's a matter of semantics though, Jonathan defines meaning and purpose as ultimately or "truly" meaningful and purposeful, or pointing towards _the_ Ultimate. Not just towards God necessarily, as an artistic piece could be meaningful in the wrong way. Its just hard because of language, technically you'd be right because a sign has meaning as much as any symbol. But I think he intends to say it in a universal sense, otherwise there's really no difference between the iconography and the stop sign.

[@MrJamesC]

@@QuixEnd Thank you for your answer :) I had the impression that Jonathan was engaging in his own elitism and reductionism when he defined meaning so narrowly. How exactly would you describe the difference between a symbol and a sign, or the function of the two?

[@QuixEnd]

@@MrJamesC yeah it does come across that way. I tend to be overly careful with words like "meaning" or even "truth", it's really hard these days with how loosely language is used so I get bogged down in semantics a lot. But I'd only speak of meaning along with what specifically, like my favorite Yggdrasil, it accurately symbolizes a transcendent or universal truth in a material world. While a road sign or smiley face is sort of the opposite, it takes a piece of our material world and reduces it

[@MrJamesC]

@@QuixEnd In what way would you say does a road sign reduce the material? For me, the material is arranged in a meaningful way to perform a function in society. The fractal hierarchy of meaning would be: the sign regulates the local traffic, the local traffic integrates into the overall traffic, which in turn ensures supply and general welfare, etc.

[@missh1774]

Hahaha "healthy suspicion" thats a good one. 38:08 how is talent given away? If talent means money or tools and the master is idk the boss? ... I would think the guy with one talent was correct, even though he was punished. It almost implies he goes above the boss and makes a rebellious symbolic gesture by burying his talent in the earth. That was his investment, not the system for production. Because that guy also saw the devastation around him and knew that the talent was not so important for him to create more wealth for the boss, rather he probably went about helping people connect with the spirit and soul...🤔. I just made up my own interpretation so I can make sense of the quest-ion. But how is talent given away? I still dont think it can be given away with tools or money. But say it magically does exactly that...that would mean the master expects for those lessons or skills to be put to good use. The first two invest their time and energy and get back exactly what they deserve. The last guy is apparently "afraid" and hides his talent deep in the soil 🤦🏽‍♀️. Okay. Maybe the master was wrong, maybe he was too presumptuous, arrogant even. All artist's have some kind of crazy after all. Maybe thats the artist's sense of fear or failure? Always that little bit of doubt and he the one person with one talent never being noticed or seen. Yes, i like that. Its real. Its anyone's experience with an unknown but what it lacks is how to resolve that sense of doubt. It doesn't say why that's the place of deciding whether its the art piece made with others for others; or is it that art piece that is made to fill the coffer - I think that's the thing I wanted to find for my "giving away" question. Either one is fine though. Its just that place where the artist has to choose what it speaks to and why it's relevant to him/her perspective of a subject. I spose that's the actual work, balancing the use of any one of the three men and their different sets of talents.

[@projectmalus]

Do you mean recognizing what it lacks is how to resolve that sense of doubt? Which is gainful, but adjusting relations is that filling in part which needs the info in the recognition. Which might be self recognition, as conformalist give away. Sort of a meet at the border and exchange gifts, the plant sequesters its talents and gives away the green unknowingly, its doubts are fanned out into the microbiology which can represent them in a statistical way perhaps.

[@thesecondlawandthetowerhou6026]

Michelangelo nails the contrapposto.

[@maximosmagyar9653]

Please get these guys back with Dr. Timothy Patitsas

[@b.melakail]

Lovely, now put these two in a room with Mcgilchrist and Vervaeke and let them have it for 3 hours

[@Jacob011]

I fully concur with Jonathan about his assessment of Vervaeke's AI video. I thought that at times in that vid he really came across as a crazed prophet of a machine god. What I also didn't like was that he didn't cite his sources, just saying things like "there are poeple working on this type of AI". This is bad academic practice. It came off as demagogical and manipulative.

[@thesecondlawandthetowerhou6026]

It isn’t seduction. It is longing.

[@Shotzeethegamer]

I stand contrapposto

[@thesecondlawandthetowerhou6026]

The straight line and the curved line. The snake on the staff.

[@thesecondlawandthetowerhou6026]

Meant to see beauty in the extreme of pain and ugliness….