[Fis] Art as human practice

Wed Jan 21 00:51:37 CET 2026

Dear Mark, Francesco, Paul, and all FiS Colleagues,
I have stepped back for a while to experience your argumentation, without
pushing my points into focus.
Yes, Mark, you are right in pointing out particular views and perspectives
of Mozart, Beethoven, and Schutz. Especially thanks to involving Hume,
Aristotle, and Luhmann, for instance.
Let me turn back to the initial purpose and recall my fundamental paper of
a universal definition (3D vectorial model) of art. All these aspects and
examples seem to me as part of the possible vectorial model, in certain
positions. Some of them stress creativity, both the communal and individual
kinds, while others refer to emotions that link to the "experience" factor.
Some others rely more on interconnection, thus, communication. Mark had a
sentence that pointed out our primary focus: "in our way" of humans. That
would be the great question: the "differentia specifica" of human acts and
perception. You also gave an essential distinction on art as
perception/experience and art as creativity/acting (or "agency", as Alfred
Gell pointed out). But the question still remained unanswered if art would
be a human phenomenon or a universal one that fits with animals' creative
communication as well, or even plants/sunsets/christals etc.? Don't we, the
humans, give these latter things a "meaning" and an "emotional link" to our
cognitive-emotional worlds? But emotions cannot be the "human spark" in
this issue, as we seem to agree that animals also have this ability. Or
this common denominator would exactly be the reason why we could accept
animals' art as a valid statement? I do not want to give answers (yet). I
am just trying to gravitate the discussion and oscillating it around the
main issues.
Best regards:
                           László

Mark Johnson <johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2026. jan. 20., K,
15:02):

> Dear Paul
>
> In way, I would say you are right to challenge any universal statement
> like "we all inhabit the same universe". After all, how can I know that my
> universe is the same as yours? This is an epistemological problem as soon
> as we say "we" - to what does "we" refer? Indeed, it is equally difficult
> to consider to what "I" refers, although perhaps there is a case to say
> that "I" is self-reference, and from that self-reference, "we" arises. So
> from this perspective you're right.
>
> My background is in music, so I've been particularly interested in this
> discussion about art. If music didn't have some kind of ontological
> foundation in nature, it is difficult to imagine how it could communicate
> without any kind of reference unless it was to nature itself. This has
> prompted sociologists to speculate as to the mechanisms behind music's
> communication - Alfred Schutz, for example, talked of what happens when
> people make music together - see Schütz - 1951 - Making Music Tohether A
> Study in Social Relationship | PDF | Communication | Cognitive Science
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.scribd.com/document/248050630/Schutz-1951-Making-Music-Tohether-a-Study-in-Social-Relationship__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WQFQHWb6Mq43_TaitE-WfoZHv5Axm7pnJSIFfV_aNS-BGdriw_Ce3ihTbfTaYfziINU2HxIQithmg0DVA_lvs48$>).
> A central concept in his work concerns "we" - or what he calls a "pure
> we-relation", which is a kind of "tuning-in" to another's inner world.
>
> But of course that begs the question, "How does the tuning-in work, and
> does that entail some kind of universality at a fundamental level?". I
> recently published a paper arguing along similar lines to John Torday that
> if we were to look for a fundamental universal level it may concern both
> physics and physiology. If you are interested, the paper is here: Music,
> cells and the dimensionality of nature - ScienceDirect
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610723000998?via*3Dihub__;JQ!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WQFQHWb6Mq43_TaitE-WfoZHv5Axm7pnJSIFfV_aNS-BGdriw_Ce3ihTbfTaYfziINU2HxIQithmg0DVWtO6qr0$>
> .
>
> But it's long (and a bit dull!), and perhaps the key thing I want to point
> out is at the beginning and a quote by David Bohm on music: "at a given
> moment a certain note is being played but a number of the previous notes
> are still 'reverberating' in consciousness. Close attention will show that
> it is the simultaneous presence and activity of all these reverberations
> that is responsible for the direct and immediately felt sense of movement,
> flow and continuity.” (from Wholeness and the Implicate Order). For Bohm,
> the "sense of movement, flow and continuity" is universal, and indeed
> synonymous with physics.
>
> That is what I mean by "we all inhabit the same universe" - and perhaps in
> that statement, the word "we" is as important as "universe".
>
> The universal is common theme in artistic endeavours - Beethoven's "Alle
> Menschen Werden Brüder" in the 9th symphony is a particularly striking
> case. Was this just wishful thinking? But Beethoven knew what he was doing
> - although perhaps it's not to everyone's taste.
>
> That does raise the issue of "taste" and "preference" in art and ideas. If
> something isn't to our taste, does that mean it isn't valid or true? One of
> the great benefits of the arts is that it places focus on our own aesthetic
> responses to things, and shows how what we might reject at one point in our
> lives, we come to love and appreciate later on (and vice-versa).
>
> I can fully appreciate your perspective as a "pro-western intellectual
> underdog and anti-academic". That could be a matter of taste. But I ask you
> whether in being "pro-western", is there an implicit "we"? And is it the
> case that the "we" of being pro-western is very different from the "we" of
> physics or physiology? It is the latter where my statement comes from - but
> equally I appreciate that the "we" of physics and physiology cannot escape
> what you rightly call the toxic environment of academia.
>
> This is perhaps why the most interesting figures in science and the arts
> are outsiders from the academy. Many of us here on FIS fall into that
> category, as did people like David Bohm - so that's good company for "we"
> too!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 at 06:34, Paul Suni <paul.p.suni at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Francesco & Mark,
>>
>> Francesco: I am very sorry. Somehow, my email app associated Mark
>> Johnson’s comment with your email address. My response should have gone to
>> Mark, instead of you!
>>
>> Mark: You said to me, “  The fundamental challenge to Paul Suni is that
>> all humans inhabit the same universe.” I intended to respond to you, “ I
>> completely disagree with with you that all humans inhabit the same
>> universe. There is no evidence of that. I wonder what made you say that?”
>> I’ll add that you sound as if you are talking to a child. Did you intend to
>> diminish me with your comment? Having said that, I do think that an
>> interesting and deep conversation could be had following your comment, but
>> I imagine that you are not interested in a more meaningful interaction.
>>
>> Ciao,
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> I completely disagree with you that all humans inhabit the same universe.
>>> There is no evidence of that. I wonder what made you say that?
>>
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2026, at 10:02 PM, Francesco Rizzo <
>> 13francesco.rizzo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dearest Paolo,
>> Help me figure out how and where I wrote "that all human beings inhabit
>> the same universe"? I don't think I've ever asked myself this question.
>> Hugs,
>> Francesco, 19 gennaio 2026, ore 06,58.
>>
>>
>> Carissimo Paolo,
>> aiutami a scoprire come e dove ho scritto “che tutti gli esseri umani
>> abitano lo stesso universo”?. Non credo di essermi posto questa questione.
>> Un abbraccio.
>> Francesco, 19 gennaio 2026, ore 06,58.
>>
>> Il giorno dom 18 gen 2026 alle ore 23:01 Paul Suni <paul.p.suni at gmail.com>
>> ha scritto:
>>
>>> Dear Francesco,
>>>
>>> I completely disagree with you that all humans inhabit the same
>>> universe. There is no evidence of that. I wonder what made you say that?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On Jan 14, 2026, at 3:32 AM, Francesco Rizzo <
>>> 13francesco.rizzo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  The fundamental challenge to Paul Suni is that all humans inhabit the
>>> same universe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Dr. Mark William Johnson
> Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health
> University of Manchester
>
> Department of Science Education
> University of Copenhagen
>
> Department of Eye and Vision Science (honorary)
> University of Liverpool
> Phone: 07786 064505
> Email: johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com
> Blog: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RiH6D7X072wfM_EnSwLOgb03TrWeChpm6fvn0iVKjVsJCB3DWNSqL5FEKvWWWeTj6JYdUnWC84ipOYUdlr78DiwtSg$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WQFQHWb6Mq43_TaitE-WfoZHv5Axm7pnJSIFfV_aNS-BGdriw_Ce3ihTbfTaYfziINU2HxIQithmg0DVHHEWHak$>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por
> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
> siguiente enlace:
> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas 
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es 
> ----------
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20260121/b2fa3b29/attachment-0001.html>