[Fis] Book Presentation. The Interpersonal domain. Good Dualism and Bad Dualism

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear Mariusz,

Beyond philosophical nuances, one of the most intriguing aspects of art 
would concern its relationship with the intellectual & cultural ethos of 
each epoch.
Art, stemming from inner drives of almost unfathomable origins, seems to 
provide a compensation for some of the absences in the daily life of 
citizens (a mostly urban phenomenon).
The observer, or listener, gets some of the intellective/emotional 
contents emitted by the art producer, and that's satisfying for the 
permanent search for novelty that characterizes our species in civilized 
life regimes.
Your polysemic use of "contrast" is well adapted to discuss the above, I 
think, both in the art object and in the receiver whole appreciation.

The curious point is that the historical evolution of art becomes a 
fascinating mirror of social evolution itself. Thinking on Western art 
(classic, medieval, renaissance, neoclassic, modern...), how contents 
and styles have been evolved with the mentality of each epoch.... 
Reminding about "media", It would echo what McLuhan was saying about 
means of communication: every new media alters the psychic equilibrium 
and forces a mental readaptation of the individual within the whole 
communication mosaic.

Coming to our times, How far could go the present "deconstruction" of 
art, seemingly reduced to presentation of brute "novelty"?
Is there a way back to art contents satisfying the appetite  for 
intellective/emotional contents?

To complicate things for the worse, some portions of "public art" seem 
to have been swallowed by the superultimate "cancelation culture".
Is there anything left uncensored of the cultural & artistic past?

I will appreciate your comments & opinions --and of the list colleagues,
Best--Pedro

El 26/04/2022 a las 9:41, Mariusz Stanowski escribió:
>
> Dear Joseph,
>
> Thank you for your clarification, however I was only referring to 
> Cartesian dualism.
> You also write that "the best art is neither totally realistic or 
> abstract but has features of both".
> My understanding is that there is no absolutely abstract or realistic 
> art at all. In the history of
> art we had both realism (Courbet) and abstractionism (Kandinsky).
>
>
> Best regards
> Mariusz
>
>
>
>
> W dniu 2022-04-24 o 16:06, joe.brenner at bluewin.ch pisze:
>> Dear Mariusz,
>>
>> Please let me try this first rapid response, without re-presenting my 
>> entire approach. I understand your desire to avoid dualism, but 
>> dualism is a part of physics, of our world. There is thus "bad" 
>> dualism, which brings in invidious distinctions and separations. 
>> "Good" dualism recognizes the fundamental difference between what is 
>> (primarily) actual and (primarily) potential, as well as the movement 
>> from one to the other, and between many other real pairs.
>>
>> In my logic, ontological and epistemological entities are in any 
>> event not totally distinct, but /some/ share /some/ of one another's 
>> properties, as do parts and wholes and so on, without conflation.
>>
>> The dualism of electrostatic charge and magnetic polarity are real 
>> and influence the way we exist and feel neurologically, and 
>> cognitively. Another example is what is called colloquially "up" and 
>> "down" nuclear spin, and there is some thought that some sub-atomic 
>> particles are self-dual. I have even suggested that a form of 
>> self-duality may exist at cognitive levels of reality.
>>
>> As I stated above, the best art is neither totally realistic or 
>> abstract but has features of both. Perhaps the best strategy is to 
>> keep an open mind on the subject or perhaps, like some sets, a 
>> closed-open (clopen) mind.
>>
>> Best,
>> Joseph
>>
>>     ----Message d'origine----
>>     De : stanowskimariusz at wp.pl
>>     Date : 24/04/2022 - 10:52 (CEST)
>>     À : fis at listas.unizar.es
>>     Objet : Re: [Fis] Book Presentation. The Interpersonal domain
>>
>>     Dear Joseph,
>>
>>     You've written: "such as information processes, has both an ontic
>>     and an epistemic component"
>>
>>     If we introduce a distinction between ontic and epistemic then we
>>     are assuming a dualistic view in advance, which, for example, I
>>     am not in favor of.
>>
>>     Best regards
>>
>>     Mariusz
>>
>>

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com
pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/

Editor special issue: Evolutionary dynamics of social systems
https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/biosystems/special-issue/107DGX9V85V
-----------------------------------------------------------



-- 
El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220426/74399307/attachment.html>