Randall
I would like to corroborate intuition and imagination with vision and
image.
I'm thinking about a lot of people, so I'll try to name them as I go:
Intuition
Aristotle. Intuition is direct apprehension, non-mediated, before
predication, the
term of the syllogism, not found by means of relation nor is it able to
be proven
to the skeptic whom intuits it not. If you agree it's a white rock, we
can talk about it. If you
don't, I might as well give up.
Baron-Cohen(The man wrote a book named Mindblindness). Intuition is the
ability
of the child to visually understand the direction of a parents motion
including eye movements, attention focus, body language, and sharing
without words early in life. Lack of which results in
autism(mindblindness). He calls visual intuition "mindreading" and we
all
do it. Interestingly, the congenitally blind kids mindread without
vision, more by ear.
Ethical intuition. While logic and law may prohibit the immoral, they
cannot promulgate
the good because what one ought to do to improve the world hasn't
happened yet and
must use intuition as a guide. I'll call this Derridian knowing and add
the vision thing, say a
white rock, or we don't have anything to talk about (or I could put
Duchamp's Urinal or Beuy's
fat in place of the white rock).
Shakespeare. Hamlet. The character had no intuition.
The computer. The computer is not intuitive. What passes as intuition is
the in-tuition,
the preset conditions of the algorithm. In-tuition as an agreed price of
exchange.
Imagination
Shakespeare. Macbeth saw an imaginary dagger floating before him before
his dirty deed. Was
this illusion visual? It looked like materialism to Macbeth! Is vision
always imaginary?
To simplify or purify this, I will limit myself to the color white. (as
I do in my book)
The so-called "white" light from the sun is invisible until it is
diffracted or "hits" a rock
or some surface. Plato. White, the white rock, and the eye seeing
whitely produce white
which may be thought of like a shadow on the wall, an imaginary image
only. The real
thing is in the mirror universe. Funny as it sounds, I like Plato.
Aristotle. The white man, as such (ousia) is formally but not finally
that identity. Can
I write like Aristotle? This man being white as such exists in a shared
suchness of vision as
sufficient in essence when combined with other species of white not of
the same specie.
The Organum, the books about language and logic make this clear.(Laugh)
Shelley. "The White light of Eternity" transcends organic nature. It
transcends the functional
presence, essence, of Aristotle's metaphysics if you think Aristotle is
not intuitively imaginary
to begin with--as I do. Shelly's imagination of white operating
metaphysically grasps liberty
and freedom and associates it with America, where rebel love "goes to"
after organic death.
This imaginary image of white is, like the super-vision of a computer,
"on" even
when not causal. It is open to the metapoetic program. And this
imaginary white is literally
the memory of white imagined in a non-mechanical environment while
stored in a local
machine. The metaphysics of this love transcends the address:
human-experience/existentialism/
responsibility.zip/, i.e., the place.
A logical positivism will dismiss this imaginary white in order to focus
on pragmatic facts, but
then it corroborates white's means. The denial of the image-imagined
only sinks it deeper into the mind to rule as a latent Demiurge, a white
cut. Attempting to defeat it only empowers it.
One solution is to find a way to dwell with it, Heidegger. I'll call
this the spacial relationship
of imagination, as linked to an ethical intuition. Or, as I see it,
the nimble nihilism of romantic
love. And I can hear Zarathustra say, "Do you dare to love your
computer! Again and again!
And with a whip!"
It is, Nietzsche notwithstanding, only my suggestion that intuition and
imagination have something to do with vision and images, a corroborative
piece of evidence that suggests we choose our metaphysics along with our
images. I'll call this metapoetic. That white exists ergo metaphysics
is perchance a workable spacial relationship. I do not claim to
proselytize this, however, for I am inclined to see "with" it in order
to "get over" it. I see a choice not to "get it" especially at this
time in The America of Zero Artistic Tolerance with Hamlet in The House.
(The House of Representatives voted this week to cut arts funding to
zero)
(Can I afford to care what America thinks about Art?)
Maybe I should condense this as: the image is imaginary at best, when
the vision is intuitive,
and the art will need to be "cut" properly in order to further such
vision.
Sorry if I bugged you by being so dry and anemic.
(And can anybody tell me how much CAD has done for architecture?
Nothing at all? Can
we yet reach out? Or must we be in-sane only?)
Regards,
Jaakko
-- ?_