sophiaserpentia: (Default)

I started reading the Enneads of Plotinus. I'm using an edition where the essays are arranged in chronological order, which for some reason is entirely different from the classical order. Since there are a lot of ideas here to digest, I thought I would start writing some thoughts and replies here.


I.6 is about Beauty, and Plotinus posits that things that are beautiful are so because they participate in the Platonic form of Beauty. He directly rejects the idea that beauty can be reduced to arrangements or proportions. He adds too that it would be impossible for a beautiful thing to be made of ugly parts. The last major thought is that our perception of beauty means that our soul, which is itself beautiful, resonates with the beauty that it beholds, and which reflects the beauty of our origin within the One.


On the point about it being impossible to make beautiful things out of ugly parts, I am not entirely convinced. But I can't readily think of counterexamples. I can't imagine that Beethoven's Ninth would sound just as sublime if played by a vuvuzela and kazoo orchestra. The Surrealists came to mind, with their bizarre idea of beauty in the chance meeting of an umbrella and a sewing machine on an operating table. But they were deliberately challenging established aesthetics.


Read more... )
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
I do not agree with the theory of cosmic causal determinism.

I mean, yes, you can generally determine a cause for most observed phenomena, and you can with arbitrary accuracy predict the outcome of events you set in motion in a controlled environment.

But I do not agree that these experimental outcomes imply that someone with a large enough computer and a keen enough understanding of the state of the singularity before the big bang could predict that on April 17, 2010, at 10:36 AM EDT, I would sit here typing these words. IMO the theory of cosmic determinism is a fallacy of induction.

So, yes, I think we have free will, and it's a wild world.

"about"

Aug. 31st, 2009 03:51 pm
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
So lately my interest has been piqued in the Cthulhu mythos. With its emphasis on bizarre geometry, nameless unspeakable horrors lurking just outside the edges of one's line of sight, and the concept of cosmic secrets known to ancient civilizations and since forgotten, it seems almost tailor-made for a nerd like me.

But as I re-read the seminal story "The Call of Cthulhu" over the past few days, I began to perceive a rather different set of unspeakable horrors lurking just outside of sight.

I've reached a point where everything I listen to, everything I read, everything I watch, gets filtered through a certain perceptual bias. It's impossible for me to not notice references to social power or imbalance. By the time I was done reading the story I was forced to conclude that it was about the "evil danger" of people of color.

"About" is a funny thing. I've written previously that I believe that the meaning of an utterance or artistic work is "primarily that reaction which is intended to be provoked by the work's creator". But I think that I have to include in that any agenda of which the author is only subconsciously aware. IOW, whether it was Lovecraft's intention or not to produce a work intended to provoke fear of people of color, this is what he produced, and it is not accidental, it is not something one "reads into the text now 91 years later."

As an aside to illustrate the point of "about", and just because it's on my mind today, and just to prove that I wasn't kidding when I said I am always viewing the world through this lens, consider the 1985 video to "Some Like it Hot" by the Power Station. The model featured prominently in the video is Caroline Cossey, also known as Tula; the video contains so many Terrible Tranny Tropes that it's practically "about" the fact that she is transsexual, though the 'obviousness' of this is only obvious to me in hindsight.

Anyway, back to Lovecraft and his story. It's not enough to say that the story draws a contrast between civilized, rational, yet unsuspecting white people, vs. violent and savage, yet knowing of the hideous horrors lying at the ocean floor, people of color. It's not enough that several times he refers to people of color as "mongrels," or suggests that the cultists are barely human, or avers at one point that to kill them would be an act of mercy. The story hangs its entire bid for effectiveness on the notion that voodoo and other "primitive" religions are evil and dark. Lovecraft presumes the reader is white and expects him or her to be complicit in his view that wherever we find people of color we might find the violent members of an ancient, savage, global cult. The cult and its secrets live "out of sight" in dark jungle type places until the beacon of white anthropology shines on it and reveals the terrible secret.

Furthermore, what of the "unspeakable horrors" this cult may usher in? What of the bizarre, otherworldly geometry in which they dwell? The popular interpretation is that Lovecraft was an anti-modernist concerned about what terrors might be ushered in by Twentieth Century science. In the post-atomic age this does not seem an unreasonable interpretation; indeed it almost seems to cast Lovecraft as a prophet. I'm inclined to suspect, though, that what Lovecraft feared was the thought of a populist uprising in the non-white or even the Eastern European nations. Perhaps the "otherworldly geometry" he feared was the upheaval of the Newtonian clockwork universe and the safe hegemony of the European colonial world order that proclaimed it.
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
What would scholarship on Gnostic Christianity be without heavy doses of intrigue, sketchy antiquities dealers, and boiling academic contention? (Thanks to [livejournal.com profile] twistedcat for the link.)

The article raises an interesting larger issue, which is what happens when you commodify scholarship. When a researcher has corporate sponsors who want to profit from the results of research, it decreases the likelihood that what the researcher delivers is detached, thorough, rigorous, objective science.

Profile

sophiaserpentia: (Default)
sophiaserpentia

December 2021

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930 31 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 13th, 2025 02:51 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios