Theos-Talk Archives (December 1997 Message tl00049)

Dear Thoa,

Sorry for long time cease-fire (anyway cosmic fire never stop). Now I
got through a long tunnel. So let's get back to the Laya center court.

Thoa Thi-Kim Tran wrote:
>
> Eiichi:
> >A semiotist Victor A. Grauer finds similarity between Mondrian's
> >dialectic and Adorno's 'negative dialectic'. (Victor A. Grauer,
> >'Mondrian and the Dialectic of Essence', Art Criticism, Vol. 11, No. 1,
> >State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY,1996, n. 65
> >pp. 25-26 ). So I am interested in Adorno's 'negative dialectic'.
> >Zuidervaart explains Adorno's 'negative dialectic' in the book (Lambert
> >Zuidervaart, 'Adorno's Aesthetic Theory: The Redemption of Illusion',
> >The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England, 1991,
> >p.48) :
> >
> >"Adorno's arguments are dialectical in the sense that they highlight
> >unavoidable tensions between polar oppositions whose opposition
> >constitutes their unity and generates historical change. The dialectic
> >is negative in the sense that it refuses to affirm any underlying
> >identity or final synthesis of polar oposites, even though Adorno
> >continually points to the possibility of reconciliation. The main
> >oppositions occur between the particular and the universal and between
> >culture in a narrow sense and society as a whole."
> >
> >and quote:
> >
> >"It [Adorno's dialectical aesthetic] deals with reciprocal relations
> >between universal and particular where the universal is not imposed on
> >the particular 'but emerges from the dynamic of particularities
> >themselves."
> >
> >The similarity is quite evident when the above passage from Zuidervaart's
> >book is compared to a statement Mondrian put  forward (below)
> >regarding the individual and the universal:
> >
> >Subjectivity remains subjective, but it diminishes in the measure that
> >objectivity (the universal) grows in the individual.
> >
> >To understand Mondrian's style of thinking and his idiomatic terminology
> >and turn of phrase, familiarity with the special kind of'dialectic' in
> >his dualistic arguments is requisite. An example which typifies Mondrian's
> >operation of dialectical logic can be found in 'Liberation from
> >Oppression in Art and Life' (1939-40) where he relates:
> >
> >"In the present moment, oppression is so clearly evident that everyone
> >must regard it as one of the greatest evils. But does everyone see this
> >evil in its real significance, in its positive and negative factors?
> >'Human life is oppressed by internal causes both physical and moral'
> >as well as by external factors. It is necessary to fight against both.
> >All that can help us to understand the evils of oppression is useful to
> >present and future. Therefore, it is essential to demonstrate that
> >plastic art can help to clarify this evil.  We can conclude that plastic
> >art shows a double action  manifested in life and in art: an action of
> >decay and an action of growth, a progress of intensification and
> >determination of the fundamental aspect of forms, and a decay through
> >the reduction of their external aspect."
> >
> >In this example of Mondrian's perception of dichotomy, in this case
> >'internal causes vs. external causes', it is a dichotomy not of conflict
> >'each element juxtaposed against the other' but of a dialectical
> >complexion. In Mondrian's dialectical dichotomy, one element can
> >transform the other by means of clarifying the discrimination between
> >both elements. And also I found common attitude facing things between
> >Mondrian and Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein said somewhere (sorry I do not
> >remember the reference ) something like this: I find that my own voice
> >is much more important than the other philosophers'." Both of them were
> >independent thinkers. Recently I found W. J. T. Mitchell's book "Picture
> >Theory" (The University of Chicago Press, 1994, ISBN: 0-226-53231-3)
> >very interesting (but unfortunately I can not find enough time to finish
> >the book). He is also Wittgensteian. I have also found a lot of
> >interesting books or essays about rhythm. If you are interested in the
> >theory of rhythm itself, I will be quite happy to introduce some of them
> >to you.
>
> Adorno's argument is very materialistic and rationalistic.  Are you using
> the relation to Adorno as a way of drawing away from the mystical intent of
> Mondrian's art?  I disagree that Adorno's rationalistic argument is similar
> to Mondrian's.  In Adorno's argument, you have to see the particulars in
> order to guess at the universal, instead of turning away from the
> particulars and using intuition to turn to the universal, to something
> hidden and beyond the particulars (mystical).  Basically, a rationalist
> looks at the known things, while a mystic turns away from the material
> world to look at the unknown.
>
> As an example, take a look at what Mondrian said:
>
> >Subjectivity remains subjective, but it diminishes in the measure that
> >objectivity (the universal) grows in the individual.
>
> That's a mystical, not a rationalist point of view.  As an example, let me
> illustrate this relation to a yogic point of view.  Before the initiate
> seriously practices yoga, s/he has a very subjective personal identity
> reference.  By practicing yogic meditation, the core of the personal
> reference is seen to be identical with universal being which brings about
> the fundamental transformation of the personality, so that the person
> eventually starts to become an embodiment of the universal.  For example,
> now I can say I'm Thoa Tran, artist, I wake up in the morning, I practice
> martial arts, etc., but after successful yogic practice, I realize that all
> of my identity is just a shell.  I leave the worldly layer and look inward
> to see who I really am.  I will see the interior light and realize that my
> being is different than my personification of it.  Through that discovery,
> I begin to touch the spiritual, becoming more compassionate, etc.
>

For Hegel, philosophy and religion are identical: The content is the
same, the form is different. He said that Philosophy "accomplishes"
Christianity. Rationalists' arguments are not necessarily based on the
"known things", nor just looking at materialistic side of the things.

For Mondrian as well religious and philosophy are the same thing (so
does in theosophy, I think). We are now living in a no-truth world.
Truth cannot be authenticized now (such a naive era was gone, when
thinkers struggled to proof the truth).

Winchester wrote in his book: "Nietzsche's doctrine of necessary
fictions, presented most prominently in Beyond Good and Evil,
demonstrates that even if we live in a world devoid of truths, there
still exist, Nietzsche believes, certain fictions without which we
cannot live." (James J. Winchester, Nietzsche's aesthetic Turn: Reading
Nietzsche after Heidegger, Deleuze, Derrida, State University of New
York Press, Albany, N. Y, 1994, p. 7 ) And also he put: "When Deleuze
labels Nietzsche a pluralist he means that, for Nietzsche, reality
consists entirely of a plethora of unstable forces." (Ibid., p. 6)

Mondrian also seek for the 'reality' and the 'truth', but not just in a
naive way. He just can't. Because he was a practical painter and a very
serious one. For him every important theoria should be realized on
canvas, where there is no transcendental arguments - every entity of
elements of composition is exposed in front of you. My argument about
Mondrian's rationalist side is to show the limitation of the Hegelian's
logical thoughts, which Mondrian (and Adorno) inherited.

Hegelian's logical thinking is just an occurrence in the 'head.' This
side was seviourly criticized by the other philosophers championed by
Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard said that in Hegeliam logic there is no room
for argument of "movement": it's just a "mirage."

'Rhythm' is a strange thing: It's half thought, half experience. Earlier
stage of Neo-plasticism (1917-1927) Mondrian took the theory of 'rhythm'
based on Hegelian's dichotomy - 'subjectivity' vs. 'objectivity', on
which also many theosophical philosophers based in the beginning of this
century, especially such a scholar as Schoenmaekers, by whom Mondrian
got obviously influenced.

In Mondrian Hegelian logicalism and Theosophist mysticism are
interestingly mixed up. I think he sensed the limitation of the Hegelian
logicalism (Mondrian thought rhythm is the property of the subject and
the substratum of composition, and in the process of attaining the
objective (or the universal) functions as an agent to attain
equilibrated point, which was, in the earlier stage, (IT(Jstasis(IU(J).

In Hegel 'absoluteness' and the 'universal' is the same thing and which
is brought by 'judgement.' Within this 'judgement-universal' sphere
rhythm is the epistemological evidence and not empirical one.

Then Mondrian gradually elevated the status of rhythm as a role within
the subjective, from the substratum of composition to the same level as
composition, which organizes the elements of painting, such as lines,
colour planes.

Here my interest in Hinduism (and Theosophy), which you evoked me a
lot,  is  that the theory of rhythm in Hinduism, I conjecture, is not
limited to the epistemological evidence, but applicable to the empirical
field. In order to attest this point, all you have to do is to listen
Hindu music. A great deal of Hindu music is very rhythmic and exactly
based on the theory called Raga.

If Mondrian knew Yogic theory of rhythm like Bailey put it, it will be a
very interesting story. The scenario is like this: Mondrian quit the
theory of rhythm based on Hegelian logicalism, and in the process of his
deepening Theosophical-Hindu thoughts accompanied by his experience as a
practical painter, he constituted the theory in much empirical way,
which is still based on some logic; this time Hinduism. I hope this
scenario will work in a positive way. How do you think?


>
> You would not have seen the effort to abstraction in art without the
> spiritualizing influence of those days.  Spirituality was like a yeast in
> the culture.  Granted, some artists took that influence and turned it into
> a more formal inquiry into the abstract princples of art making.
>

I know. That's why I cannot quit the occult line to argue the theory of
visualized rhythm. Still, I want to say is that there is a danger to
emphasize this line too much: it might blur the practical side of the
artists. For example I do not believe that Kandinsky was still cling to
his theory (which, for example, colour yellow means a cheering up sound
of trumpet) even when yellow is sided by any other colour and
differentiated by tone: He just thought of the combination  and balance
of each element of painting while he is painting.

> >Here, it sounds becoming preaching style I stop here about this topic.
>
> It may be preachy in spoken language, but certainly not in the written
> language.  Preaching in the spoken language means there's an audience
> forced to listen for hours but too polite to walk away.  The written word
> offers the reader a choice to take it or leave it without hurting anyone's
> feeling.  Am I boring you, yet?  See, I can preach, too!  My English is
> better than yours. Watch out!!!
>

Definitely your English is better than mine, but you also should watch
out: too much vocabulary and rhetoric might kill the clarity of the
argument. Your throwing stone cannot kill two birds at the same time - a
clumsy English speaking preacher birdie with a clear argument and a
smart English speaking preacher birdie with a clear rhetoric. Clumsy
talker sometimes enchants the listeners because of the contents. Anyway
I always love your witty joke, Thoa.

> >OK. My religious experiences are not theoretical ones, though.
>
> If not theoretical, what were they like?
>

Maybe mysticism. This answer makes a tautology, doesn't it?

 Okay, partner, the tennis ball is on your side, again!$B!!(J

Eiichi