[Fis] What is art?

[joe.brenner at bluewin.ch]

Dear Laszlo,
 
I was delighted to read your response for two important reasons: first, it is very rare to hear from someone who has an actual knowledge of Lupasco's work, if not my interpretations of it. Second, your evaluation of it as both true and false simultaneously. For me, this is a correct statement that goes beyond Lupasco and his dialectics. It is equivalent to the 4th Lemma of the Tetralemma of Nagarjuna, the 3rd being, in this case, neither true nor false simultaneously. Far from being "just metaphor" or "compact wisdom", I have tried to show, not without difficulty, that as in the more recent work of Yamauchi Tokoryu, for the French translations of which we must thank Augustin Berque and Romaric Jannel, the Tetralemma in its "non-statement" version is scientifically valid. Physics grounds the principles of Lupasco; the principles of Lupasco ground intuition, and intuition grounds the Tetralemma. 
 
I am aware that many common definitions may need to be changed, for example that of simultaneity. Does this exist, or do not all real phenomena instantiate simultaneity and succession? For me, this is all highly relevant to the questions of the nature and operation of information. We may start by agreeing that information cannot be defined within classical bivalent logic. But a lemmic logic can be defined, following the above, that gives proper weight to physical process and physical place, cf. the ecumene of Berque. As for Aristotle, let us say that some science and poetry, both characterized by a high information density, need not be totally disjunct. Criticisms welcome.
 
Best regards,
Joseph (Joe)
 
 

> Le 08.02.2026 10:58 CET, Csáji László Koppány <csaji.koppany at gmail.com> a écrit :
>  
>  
> Dear Joseph,
> I certainly respect Stéphane Lupasco and his non-Aristotelian argumentations in many of his infuential works. Nevertheless, my problem with such striking, seemingly eloquent statements that you quoted is that they lead us nowhere, just like soap bubbles. They do not contain an argument that others can use or build on. They can be considered both true and false simultaneously. The Lupasco quote seems to me much more a poetic metaphor than a scientific idea. It is just like the "compact wisdoms" spreading on the internet and capturing people's imagination. As a metaphor, it sounds interesting, anyway. ;-) Orson Welles interpreted Aristotle's mimesis-theory in a poetic way (leaving Aristotle's and Plato's elaborate argumentations without reference). 
> Best for all,
>                         Laszlo
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20260208/483274b1/attachment.html>