Tuesday, June 21, 2016
Does nature look like classical art and architecture?
Does nature look like classical art and
architecture in having order, harmony and proportionality? What is
the “beauty” which is supposed to represent the “good?” If we
imitate the form of nature what does it really look like? I can say
it in one word: evolution.
Circles and cubes are nice but living
things are nicer. It is not the square or circle that are the most
beautiful, living objects are, and living things are much more than
the square and circle. Following the standard of the circle and
square is not a foundation principle, forms are not living things,
and neither are non-material ideals.
I don't think life is evolving toward a
non-material or spiritual circle or square, evolution is evolving
toward the zenith of living things. There is not a duality here.
Intellectual forms are not in the same league with living forms, and
spiritual forms are not better than living forms. Intellectual forms
are not God. Living things evolve to a living evolving Godhood.
Beauty does not arrive out of nowhere
imitating some form. Beauty arrives by way of the evolution of living
nature. Living things vary in beauty and in evolution and there is
good reason to approve of higher beauty and higher reason. Godhood
has always been considered better than non-Godhood and living things
can be judged in the same hierarchy as they evolve all the way to the
zenith of Godhood. True justice might give all life the chance to
evolve in beauty and reason, and would not demand equality.
Which came first the denigrating of
living things leading to rule by non-living mathematical forms, or
the other way around? The means for arriving at Godhood are found in
the material and supermaterial evolution of living things and not in
the affirmation of non-material formulas or non-material ideals.
We can use symbols and formulas, but they are not God. Art and culture need to represent living evolution moving toward Godhood, which retains the best of the
past while changing the present and future. That defines real
tradition and conservatism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment