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.

No comments:

Post a Comment