3-D Mind

April 11th, 2006 Fred McVittie

The experience of being human seems to be intimately connected to the physics of the space in which that being feels itself to be embedded. There is an uncanny match between the formulation of space articulated in the axioms of naive physics, roughly approximating Cartesian/Newtonian physics, and the feeling of being.This feeling of being might be described as a sense that one’s body is a single object with a clear boundary, existing at a single location in an extended 3-dimensional space, a feeling which is also extended to the mind, and the feeling that one is a singular entity, reasonably whole and separated in space from other entities, exactly here, precisely now. Studies on the early development of knowledge in babies and children (Baillergeon, 1994; Spelke, 1998) seem to indicate that the cognitive and perceptual apparatus driving these feelings is hard-wired. We know, however, that this perception of space and being is inaccurate. We learn from particle physics that these solid bodies are mostly empty space, our materiality consisting only of widely separated energetic particles blinking randomly in and out of existence. We learn that space itself is not as it appears, but is n-dimensional, curved, and worm-infested. We know that matter and energy are interchangeable. We know that consciousness and intention does not precede action but rather follows it, like a slick politician riding the wave of public opinion (Libet 2004), and we are told that subjectivity itself is an ideological effect, our most phenomenologically real feeling of self constructed by the projections and pressures of culture (Althusser 1998).

The degree of correspondence between Newtonian/Cartesian space and the intuitive understanding of being-in-space as captured in the informal axioms of naive physics requires explanation. I am suggesting that this correspondence is an inevitable feature of the embodied nature of naive experience and the largely embodied nature of scientific enquiry up until the time of Newton and Descartes. When the unaided human sensory system is the primary tool for examining the world, the model of the world is likely to reflect the experienced model of being.

Althusser, L. (1998) “Ideology and ideological state apparatuses.” Eds. J. Rivkin & M. Ryan. Literary theory: An anthology. Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 1998. pp. 294-304.

Baillargeon, R. (1994). “How Do Infants Learn About the Physical World.” Current Direction is Psychological Science 3(5).

Libet, B. (2004). Mind time: the temporal factor in consciousness. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.

Spelke, E. S. (1998). “Nativism, empiricism, and the origins of knowledge.” Infant Behavior and Development 21(2): 181.

And now I am taking my 3-D body to the bar….

Posted in Althusser, Baillergeon, Conference Abstract, Libet, Benjamin, Phenomenology, Space, Spelke, Elizabeth, Up | No Comments »

The View from Everywhere

April 15th, 2006 Fred McVittie

Normal waking consciousness is a located phenomenon supported/created by sensory organs which orient the normal conscious mind as a point or body in 3-dimensional space. This is particularly evident when considering the visual sense, which transparently places the individual at the centre of space and arranges the furniture of the world in relation to that central location, (although it is likely that the proprioceptive sense is even more potent in this positioning of consciousness).

A common feature of the experience of ‘enlightenment’ is a weakening of this sense of a located consciousness such that one feels oneself distributed across, and in some cases in union with, a wider environment than a point or body.

A more everyday version of this extension of the located self, which gives a suggestion of the phenomenological changes which take place in moments of enlightenment, can be found in the experience of binocular vision. The distinct difference between a two dimensional image and a 3-D space parallels, in a small way, that between 3-D space and the expanded field of consciousness experienced by the enlightened mind.

Nagel writes about ‘the view from nowhere’ in his critique of empirical objectivity, seeming to indicate a visual metaphor in which knowledge which is assumed to have a viewpoint is accorded the unique distinction of seeing everywhere and everything, like a giant omniscient eye hovering over the otherwise horizontal plane of usual (viewpointed, perspectival) knowing.

Posted in Centre, Consciousness, Nagel, Thomas, Space, Up | No Comments »

Metaphors for Change

September 30th, 2006 Fred McVittie

The particular metaphor one chooses to understand one’s own mind affects one’s phenomenological experience of that mind, and of aspects of the wider world. In other words, how you imagine yourself affects how you feel, and consequently how and at what level you are able to perform. In many ways, this is an obviousness; it has long been considered a fact that in order to do one’s best one should think ‘positively’, not have ‘low self esteem’, be ‘in the zone’, avoid ’self-consciousness’ etc. What is possibly not immediately obvious is that all these terms are metaphorical; there is no physical state which can be scientifically measured as ‘positive’ or ‘negative’, there is no real mental ‘zone’, self-esteem is not an object that might rise or fall in space, and there is no homuncular ’self’ outside of our normal consciousness which we might become literally aware of as a separate being. These terms, and the concepts and feelings they refer to, only make sense because of the use the mind makes of metaphor, using concrete physical experiences such as objects, height, space, amount etc to understand abstract entities like esteem. Furthermore, these metaphors, like all linguistic elements, do not make sense on their own, but because they are each part of coherent complex metaphorical models which structure a range of related concepts. For example, the low in low self esteem only makes sense because of a coherent set of understandings related to height including such elements as above, below, high, low, bottom, top, rise, fall, drop, float etc.

Once such a metaphor system is constructed, it becomes possible to discuss the otherwise abstract concepts referred to. It may also make available possible actions which affect one’s mental state and performance. For example, without the spatial metaphor implied by ‘low self-esteem’ there would not be the possibility of talking about ‘raising’ self-esteem or or any actions which might bring such ‘raising’ about. Part of the role of a trainer or counsellor is to assist in the construction of a form of understanding which is helpful in the optimisation of performance. A key way this might be achieved is through the sharing of a coherent metaphor for mental function which allows for the possibility of positive change.

Posted in Embodiment, Metaphor, Performance, Training, Up | No Comments »

All that Rises

August 16th, 2007 Fred McVittie

Transcribed from HERE.

There’s a short story called ‘All that rises must converge’, by Flannery O’Conner and the title of this story is taken from Teilhard De Chardin, who was a Jesuit priest and paleontologist, albeit somewhat controversial in both areas. De Chardin was the guy who came up with the ‘Omega Point’ which is the theory that at some point in the future our evolution… it is a model of directed evolution or teleological evolution that we are somehow evolving toward some point at which we become singular and God-like. It is not a popular theory, and not a good theory, but it is interesting. This idea that he had that ‘all that rises must converge’, as well as being a beautiful phrase, but, I think is also quite interesting in relation to some of the ideas to do with the image schema of knowledge to do with our understanding of different types of knowledge, and a map of our epistemology being based on embodied experience, and in many cases that means visual experience, it is to do with visual awareness, visual consciousness of the world. What I have also mentioned is how various entailments of that schema, of that selection of metaphors map onto or organise our understanding of different types of knowledge and the different scales at which knowledge operates at etc. One I have spoken about before is the entailment of height, so when we want to indicate that we have access to greater knowledge we often use a height metaphor because elevated positions, be it the top of hills, in crow’s nests, standing on the shoulders of giants etc are the positions from which we can see more and tend to be metaphors which extend across so the position from which we know more tends to be an elevated position, in the ascendant. I think this idea that De Chardin is putting forward here, this idea that all that rises must converge is a related way of saying this. One imagines oneself rising into the air one also imagines oneself having access to greater and greater swathes of knowledge… I have this image in my mind of lots of people standing in this field where I am standing now and we all rise together, and as we rise our shared vision extends and it is almost as if we are moving together as these various planes in this field triangulate upwards. So the sense in which that all that rises must converge is a (very idiosyncratic) application of this spatial metaphor, and particularly the height entailment of it. That as one ascends one has access to greater knowledge; that the totality of knowledge becomes arrayed out underneath oneself and one becomes the focal point, the unique focal point from which one might view all of knowledge and if everyone was to go through a similar ascension process all would eventually arrive at that focal point, so there we would all be, all rising together, all converging on this unique focal point.

Posted in Chardin, Teilhard de, Evolution, Religion, Spirituality, Up | No Comments »

Soul of an Atheist - Grasping the Big Picture

November 14th, 2007 Fred McVittie

If I was to sum up the aim of this writing in one sentence, I would say that it was about grasping the big picture. The picture we want, or I would say need, to grasp is very large indeed, and can only be seen from some elevated position high above the plane of usual human grasping, and we should recognise the ambition of our aim at the outset. Imagine a picture of everything. Got that? If you have then you can close the book now and join your friends on Mount Olympus, or Heaven, or wherever it is you Gods hang out. For the rest of us who are still mortal any attempt to grasp the big picture seems like a hopelessly hubristic endeavor. We are the barely conscious products of chemical reactions taking place in a film of moisture on a ball of rock. How in God’s names could we hope to understand things we can’t even see, or touch, or even think about properly? How could we hope to grasp the big picture if can’t even put a sentence together accurately, for goodness sake? Grasp the big picture? Surely we don’t ‘grasp’ a picture, we ’see’ it. When we ’see’ something we look at it from a safe distance and let the light of our objective knowledge bounce off it into our brains. ‘Grasping’, on the other hand, suggests taking hold of something, pulling it close to us, maybe pressing is against our bodies and feeling its contours merging with our own. There is something of love in this grasp, and of understanding, and compassion, and the intimate sharing of a single sense of being. Grasping the Big Picture? Surely this is nonsense? But this is exactly how it should be. No one sense is what we must use to contemplate the immensity and the complexity of Everything. The big picture is too big to hold with our eyes alone, and if we are to take it in then we must become synaesthetes and allow the familiar segregated play of our senses to spill over into each other, to cross the lines on the playground that usually keep them apart, allowing us to feel with our eyes and see with our hands.

We may say that this is impossible, and only those with some bizarre quirk of neurology are capable of such grasping. But if only we could remember back, and maybe we can, we would remember when this was first nature to us, before the second nature of common sense turned us into an I, and a You, and a He or She, or into an It.

Posted in Cosmology, Grasp, Knowledge, Love, Sense, Synaesthesia, Up | No Comments »

Why Up is Good

March 17th, 2008 Fred McVittie

The superior access to knowledge that is implied by the use of height metaphors may also contribute toward the forming of a well-established metaphor which associates height with the abstract concept of ‘value’ or ‘goodness’. This is usually expressed within the conventional syntax of Conceptual Metaphor Theory as UP IS GOOD. Like all such metaphorical mappings this draws upon routine embodied sensorimotor experiences to structure and articulate what would otherwise be inconceivable; values such as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are easily experienced in the particular but as general terms they make no impact on the senses, and can therefore only be conceptualised through the use of an organizing metaphor.

Evidence for the existence of the UP IS GOOD metaphorical mapping can be found in the extensive use of terms relating height to positive value or quality; we speak of ‘high value’, ‘high quality’, and ‘high performance’, and positive progress is usually considered as movement in an upward direction. When we wish to cite the ultimate authority we might refer to a ‘higher power’, or in more Earthly terms to someone who is at the top of their field, the top of their game, or the height of their success. We indicate value in commerce by saying that sales are up, production is up, employment is up, and profits are up, and we show this elevation on graphs and charts. We reach for the stars, climb the career ladder, move up the league, reach the top of the charts, and if we are churlish we might look down on those who are not at our level. In all of these instances the metaphorical correspondence between height and positive value is clear. In all cases UP IS GOOD. This consistency, in which positivity in many different areas is expressed using the same organizing metaphor, is strong evidence for its being grounded in a single experience or a small set of related experiences, ultimately originating in a common feature of our embodiment and the affordances it offers in relation to the environment in which it is embedded. Further evidence of the coherence and non-arbitrary nature of such an embodied metaphor is the fact that there is a complementary set of organizing metaphors which relate lack of height to negative value, expressible in the standard syntax as DOWN IS BAD. This is revealed in the badness of being ‘down in the dumps’, ‘beneath contempt’, ‘low on the totem pole’, a member of the ‘lower classes’ or possibly even the ‘underclass’, or ‘under the weather’. This correspondence in the relationships GOOD IS UP and DOWN IS BAD is a clear illustration of the non-arbitrary nature of these conceptual metaphors. The dimension of height, together with possible movement in this dimension, is an ‘image schema’ which structures a wide range of value-related concepts.

The most often cited origin for this schema refers to the common experience of acquiring and using material resources. In accumulating some kind of valuable resource, firewood for example, it is an obviousness that the more of this resource we accumulate the higher the pile will be. It follows from this completely embodied and indeed ancient fact of life that the pile of firewood which is high will have more value that one which is more lowly. Similarly, the height of a pile of fish, fruit, dead rabbits, projectile-sized rocks, gold, or any other substance which confers health, survival, or status, is a direct measure of the value of that pile. In terms of value, when it comes to the height of a pile of desirable material stuff, UP IS GOOD. This unambiguous and intuitive fact provides the concrete source from which we can structure, organise, and conceptualise the relative values of non-concrete entities such as ‘performance’, ‘esteem’, ‘profits’, ‘social status’, or ‘mood’. We may not be able to literally pile our achievements up and compare them to the pile of the guy next door, but when we use height-related terms to carry out such an evaluation that is, metaphorically, what we are doing.

Posted in Dimension, Feeling, Metaphor, Schema, Space, Up | No Comments »

Knowing is Seeing: The ‘Height’ Entailment

March 21st, 2008 Fred McVittie

Applied to the general schema of knowledge and more specifically to the well-established metaphor KNOWING IS SEEING, the dimension of height has a very clear application, and to explore this it might be useful to remind ourselves of the benefits that seeing from a height brings to the primate in the treetop and the lookout in the crow’s nest. Height, in the physical world, allows one to see further and to see more. It offers the ability to see over obstructions to what lies beyond and extends one’s gaze further into the distance, effectively pushing back the horizon and opening up new vistas. Looking from a high place also lets one take in more of the landscape at a glance, uniting the fragments of this piece of land, this lake, these trees, into a singular vision. Height shows patterns that would be invisible close to; the river deltas and the regularity of the coastline. From a position that is sufficiently elevated one can see all the way to the edge of the world in all directions, taking in the entire disc of the world and finding oneself at the centre of that disc.

It can easily be demonstrated that this height dimension is brought into the overall knowledge metaphor as a useful entailment by recognizing its usage within language. It is no accident that Isaac Newton famously remarked that ‘If I have seen further than other men it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants’; there is an intuitively self-evident recognition implicit in this remark that the kind of sweeping breadth of vision which Newton brought to science was only possible through his being elevated to a height from which such vision becomes possible. Here the KNOWING IS SEEING metaphor is transparently employed such that seeing more, and seeing further, infers greater access to knowledge and ownership of larger swathes of that knowledge. There is a strong sense here of recognizing patterns and seeing beyond obstacles, glancing over the horizon of 15th century natural philosophy into the newly revealed regions of early science. The coherence of this metaphor, and the ease with which we accept its terms, is partly produced by the familiarity we have of the part played by height in the overall act of seeing, and the deployment of this play as an important entailment in the KNOWING IS SEEING metaphor.

Posted in Dimension, Knowledge, Metaphor, Seeing, Up | No Comments »

Why Up Feels Good

March 21st, 2008 Fred McVittie

Returning to the theme of height as an entailment of the metaphor KNOWING IS SEEING, I would like to offer an alternative to this explanation of the origin of the GOOD IS UP metaphor which has particular relevance to our overall understanding. In addition to the ‘high’ value implicit in a pile of desirable goods that achieves such height there is also the possible value conferred by placing oneself in a high place. It is a routine experience available to all of us that standing on high ground allows one to see further than standing on low ground, and there is undoubtedly a certain pleasure associated with this kind of elevated looking. To offer a view out across an expanse of land or sea; to look at distant mountains and clear to the horizon is every house-buyer and estate agent’s dream. Everyone wants a room with a view and our coastlines are dotted with pay-per-view telescopes to further service those desires. Presumably, for our ancestors vying for survival on the plains of West Africa, having the sense to find high ground, or the topmost branch of a tree, would grant enormous survival advantages. Up there one can see the approach of predators and the gathering clouds of an approaching storm. The wildebeest are visible from up here whereas to those less fortunate primates on the ground they may as well not exist at all. In such circumstances, nature would be remiss if it did not reward those of our forebears who rose to the occasion by making being-at-the-top feel good. It seems quite likely that the lingering liking we all have for the house on the hill, the cliff-top hotel, the sea-view and the top bunk is a remnant of those times when, for purely practical reasons, UP IS GOOD. It also seems reasonable to imagine that, if we needed a dimension to measure relative values of abstract concepts, then the height dimension would serve very well. Being able to see farther than other men not only confers a literal survival advantage, experienced aesthetically as pleasure, but the metaphorical elevation of oneself such that one might look out over an extended field of knowledge mirrors this embodied and experienced sense. Desire for the acquisition of knowledge, the ‘cognitive imperative’ as Newberg and D’Aquili call it, drives us up the tree. It is the great human survival trick, the equivalent of the bower bird’s nest and the beaver’s dam, and the gaining of knowledge is regarded as a high (sic) value activity. From this it follows that those metaphorical positions occupied by individuals who have access to enhanced knowledge would similarly be regarded as high value. In this analysis UP IS GOOD because, as an entailment of the KNOWING IS SEEING metaphor, UP is the place where the really valuable seeing, and hence valuable knowing, takes place.

Posted in Dimension, Evolution, Feeling, Metaphor, Sense, Up | No Comments »

Height and Light

March 30th, 2008 Fred McVittie

The common metaphorical association of light with knowledge (in all its forms) seems to show a consistent relationship with the spatial metaphor of knowledge which relates the extent of knowing with height. This consistent pairing of these two metaphors may originate in an embodied experience which routinely links these two concrete experiences.

The light metaphor has been well covered within Arthur Zajonc’s ‘Catching the Light: the entwined history of light and mind’, in which he shows that the historical and cross-cultural application of this metaphor is impressively widespread. As a specific metaphor for the cognitive process of knowing this metaphor has common application within terms such as illumination, enlightenment, flash of insight, and seeing the light. It also features within graphical representations of knowledge acquisition such as lighbulbs, flames, and candles. It should be noted that the sense of knowing signified by light metaphors need not necessarily be the objective knowledge of empiricism; it is very common for light to feature within spiritual and religious epistemologies, and whilst these may not constitute knowledge in the academic sense, they do tend to be experienced as such, albeit Gnostic rather than positivistic.

The use of the vertical dimension as a measure of knowing similarly shows extensive usage across times and cultures, and again this application is not only to the knowledge of science and rationalism, but also to other forms of knowing including the spiritual and religious. Isaac Newton is cited as saying that, if he could see further than other men, it was because he ‘stood on the shoulders of giants’. The elevated position offered by this historical piggy-backing is used to signify greater knowledge (ultimately drawing upon a metaphor linking knowing with seeing), a metaphor widely exploited within ‘hierarchies’ of knowledge, in which higher vertical placement on the hierarchy is seen as suggesting greater knowledge. This verticality is also referred to within terms such as ‘higher power’ or ‘higher self’, in which the power or self which is placed in this higher position is one with superior (sic) access to knowledge and truth.

These two metaphors are both consistent in their application and can be confirmed in their consistency by noting that in both cases the opposite of height and light metaphorically implies the opposite of greater knowledge. There is also a strong consistency between these two metaphors; a source or repository of knowledge which is considered ‘high’ is usually also considered ‘in the light’, whilst one that is considered ‘low’ tends also to be thought of as ‘in the dark’.

It seems extremely likely that the origins of these metaphors, and the reason for their co-presence and coherence, is in the embodied experience of being the types of animal we are with the types of senses we have. To have greater access to information through the occupation of a more elevated position, the top of a tree for example, must be an experience we and our ancestors have had for millions of years, to the extent that such a correspondence must be hard-wired into the fabric of our cognition. Similarly, the fact that the major source of illumination available to us, the Sun, is above us must have structured our consciousness since the earliest dawning of that faculty. There is therefore an overwhelming correlation between height and light which can be verified simply by allowing one’s eyes to rise from the ground to the sky and experience the increase in illumination this rising brings to mind.

The hard-wired nature of this assumed location of light as being ‘up’ is witnessed by the various optical illusions which rely on this phenomenon for their effect. The image below, which appears to show alternative rows of ‘bumps’ and ‘dents’, relies on the unconscious assumption that light comes from above.

bumps.jpg

Posted in Illusion, Light, Perception, Up | No Comments »

Sublimation

April 9th, 2008 Fred McVittie

In chemistry, a substance is said to undergo the process of sublimation if, on heating, it changes state from a solid to a gas without passing through an intermediate state of liquidity. Observing sublimation in action is a relatively rare experience, confined primarily to chemistry students or, historically, to alchemists, and a prototypical experimental demonstration might proceed as follows:

A small amount of a solid substance is placed in the bottom of a test tube and the test tube is then held over the flame of a bunsen burner. For a few moments nothing happens, then a thin vapour may be seen issuing from the substance (or maybe not). This vapour may be seen to rise up the tube and, when it reaches the cooler regions at the top, deposits itself as a solid on the glass sides of the tube (1). With some substances there is not even the telltale trace of vapour to mark the passage of the substance through the intermediate space; it may appear to simply diminish in presence at one location and accumulate in another, higher place. This is the literal, ‘embodied’ sense in which the term ’sublimation’ can be experienced, and as noted is not an experience that many will have had. Nevertheless, this process of sublimation has extensive use as a metaphor and the structure of this metaphor links it to the wider imaginary landscape within which knowledge makes sense (and the senses make knowledge). The relationship between this particular metaphor to the wider imagination, and indeed why such an apparently arcane experience is appropriate in this case, can be revealed by an analysis of the various uses of the term outside of its specific scientific or alchemical context (2).

The term ’sublimation’ appears in Freudian psychoanalysis, and is most usually applied to the practices of artists. He writes that “Among the instinctual forces which are put to this [civilizing] use the sexual impulses play an important part; in this process they are sublimated.” (Freud, S. 1966. 27). This “process” “consists in the sexual trend abandoning its aim of obtaining a sexual component or a reproductive pleasure and taking on another which is related genetically to the abandoned one but is itself no longer sexual and must be described as social. We call this process ‘sublimation’, in accordance with the general estimate that places social aims higher than the sexual ones, which are at bottom self-interested.” (Freud, S. 1966. 429)

Note the use in this passage of terms indicating differences in elevation, and the unstated values associated with different ‘levels’. The originating substance of sublimation is placed ‘at bottom’ and is narrowly concerned with the self and the sexual body. The products of sublimation however are given the wider and more lofty perspective of the social. The metaphorical schema underpinning this image, in addition to its narrative of alchemical transformation, also makes use of the UP IS GOOD association discussed elsewhere. The view from the top of the test tube or alembic vessel takes in the houses and gardens of one’s neighbours.

The particular goodness of this sublime position, particularly when it becomes the precipitator of art, is, for Freud, not unclouded with potential problems. For Freud the libidinous and thanatoid drives of the ego, constantly under the whip of id and superego, ideally found release in the delights of sex and the void of death. But for those of us who are wedded to either celibacy or self-preservation these drives must send their energy elsewhere and the destination of choice for artists, writers, and other creative inadequates, is to exhaust them upward in the vaporous evanscences of art, the social function of which, for Freud, is questionable. He describes the artist as “…originally a man who turns away from reality because he cannot come to terms with the renunciation of instinctual satisfaction which it at first demands, and who allows his erotic and ambitious wishes full play in the life of phantasy.” (Freud, S. 1911. 24). This is an image of creativity in the arts as the steam above the factory; energy lost to the environment as uncontainable and useless gas. This unruly, and possibly even toxic, waste is deposited as solid accumulations on our gallery walls and the shelves of our libraries without even passing through the hydraulically practical liquid stage of useful procreation or of turning the wheel of life into the mulch of death. As is evident from the tone of these sentences, to Freud (as to Plato before him (3)) the product of arts practice was a deviation from the intended use of these drives. It is interesting to note that Freud, in keeping with the necessity of maintaining consistency in the utilisation of his image schema, (although he may not have thought of it in those terms) described the alternative to sublimation as ‘repression’. The workings of the steam-driven psyche act upon the unwanted desires such that instead of being evacuated to the air they are pushed underground. The verticality of the psychic dimension is retained, along with a notional position of the self, in the form of the ego, at ground zero. Repressed material enters the confines of the dark, whereas the sublime expands upward into the light.

This characterisation of sublimation as the cause of, at best, harmless vapourware, is obviously not one that tends to be shared by artists and those in the art industry more generally. For the cognescenti, the alchemical transformation that marks the change from the solid and indeed stolid experiences of this fallen world into the elevated condition of high art is little short of miraculous. This process, including the airy gap across which the substance disappears and reappears, bears the marks of the magickal, reminiscent of an earlier, more theological age. As Peter Harrison reminds us “Some of the practitioners of alchemy also wished to claim much more for their chemical experiments that that they merely signified Divine activities or theological doctrines. Thomas Tymme, the English translator of Calvin’s commentary on Genesis, believed that God had actually used alchemical processes to create the world, bringing it forth from an elemental chaos ‘by his Halchemicall Extraction, Separation, Sublimation, and Coniunction’”. (Tymme, 1605 in Harrison, 2001). As the base material of God writ small, the paint diminishes from the palette and recongeals in angelic form on the canvas; inconsequential ink evaporates from the pen and rises unseen to trace the shape of sounds across the page. The dull and profane solidity of matter passes invisibly upward to become a second solid, a bright and sacred work of art permanently glimmering in the empyrean of the cultural imagination. This is the alternative take on sublimity favoured, and most clearly exemplified, in the work of the Romantic poets; Wordsworth for example, uses the term ’sublime’ or its derivations twenty times in his ‘Prelude’, each usage referring to some kind of elevated state which, it seems fair to say, he never articulates well, which is probably the point, since almost by definition the Romantic sublime is forever an inarticulable idea beyond expression in the charnel-house language of fallen flesh.

For Edmund Burke, whose Enquiry into the Origins of our Ideas on the Sublime and Beautiful (1757) and for Kant in his Critique of Aesthetic Judgment (1790), the sublime finds its place within the glossary of formal aesthetics, and this place illuminates the intuitions of the Romantic poets and those painters of the period who similarly aspired to this transcendent position. Interestingly, the sublime of Burke is aspirationally more lofty even than the social overview suggested by Freud. He distinguishes the sublime in art from that which is merely ‘beautiful’. The judgment of beauty, he claims, “has its origin in our social feelings, particularly in our feelings toward the other sex, and in our hope for a consolation through love and desire.” http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-570785/sublime

The production of the sublime, on the other hand, may require the mobilisation of cthonic forces which one would be hard-pressed to consider social;

“Whatever is fitted in any sort to excite the ideas of pain, and danger, that is to say, whatever is in any sort terrible, or is conversant about terrible objects, or operates in a manner analogous to terror, is a source of the sublime; that is, it is productive of the strongest emotion which the mind is capable of feeling.” (Burke, E. 1757/1998. 50)

What is more, the view from the ground, when looking up into the eyes of this sublime horror is similarly enlarged. To feel oneself the object of that terrible subject is not the detached aestheticism one feels in the presence of beauty. The height of beauty is merely that of the pedestal, whereas sublimity touches the void, and the only appropriate response, as Burke notes is one of astonishment.

“Astonishment, as I have said, is the effect of the sublime in its highest degree; the inferior effects are admiration, reverence and respect.” (ibid. 53)

It is irresistable at this point to note in passing that one, ideosyncratic etymology of the term sublime traces it to the latin super limas, which means ‘above the slime or mud of this world’. (Beattie, J. in Monk, H. 1935. 129), although Monk does comment that Beattie’s contribution is “chiefly memorable” for its “etymological aberrations.”

To return to the ground on which we began, this term ’sublimation’ has its technical origins in the laboratory and marks this odd and counter-intuitive transformation in which the intermediate stage is invisible. Instead of seeing physical change one sees upward motion, disappearance and reappearance. This chemical act is not the first use of the term however, and if we are to get to grips with the meaningfulness of the concept in its full embodiment we may need to go further back. Without wishing to evoke etymology as explanation, it is worth noting that the origins of the word ’sublime’ lie in the Latin ’sub lintel’, indicating a metaphor to do with thresholds, entrances and exits, passage across, through, or under a significant boundary. To ’sublime’, in what may seem an overly literal sense of the phrase, would mean to pass from one location to another, very different type of location; leaving the cell in which one has been confined, stepping out of the darkness into the light. The identification of the metaphor in which STATES are understood as LOCATIONS has been well explored (Lakoff & Turner. 1989. 3) and this use of the concept of the physical threshold, a transition zone in which there is no perceptible and identifiable space in which change can be observed, merely the demarcation of a line of difference, is evidently an entailment of that overall metaphor.

It seems to be a consistent theme in much writing, unfortunately beyond the scope of this piece, that part of the human condition is to be a dweller on the threshold, without definition other than as a liminal interface between the inside and the outside, the fallen and the risen, the sublimated and the repressed, the day and the night. As Samuel Beckett put it:

“Perhaps that’s what I feel, an outside and an inside and me in the middle, perhaps that’s what I am, the thing that divides the world in two, on the one side the outside, on the other the inside, that can be as thin as foil, I’m neither one side nor the other, I’m in the middle, I’m the partition, I’ve two surfaces and no thickness, perhaps that’s what I feel, myself vibrating, I’m the tympanum, on the one hand the mind, on the other the world, I don’t belong to either.” (Beckett, S. 170. 34)

(1) Almost all gasses, if frozen, will pass from solid to gas without passing through a liquid phase if the atmospheric pressure is kept very low. There are some substances however which are solid at room termperature and that undergo sublimation at atmospheric pressure. These include include phthalic anhydride (1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid anhydride), which is widely used for making paint resins. Another is terephthalic acid (1,4-benzenedicarboxylic acid), which is used form making polyester. The most common substance is probably napthalene, which is the active ingredient in mothballs. Some substances, iodine for example, appear to undergo sublimation but this is actually a different process involving an oxidation and reduction reaction.

(2) Thomas Timme, in his epistolary to Duchesne’s 1605 ‘Practise of chymicall and hermeticall physicke’, wrote, “Then shall yee see the sublimated substances clinging to the sides of the glasses”

(3) In Plato’s ideal and noble Republic, poetry and the arts were to be banned, partly because of their status as imitations (and therefore further distancing man from the light of ideal forms), but also because they cause excessive and unnatural emotions and appetites to be aroused, that is, to ‘rise up’. (Republic X.595b-608b).

References

Beckett, S. (1970). The Unnamable. New York, Grove Press.

Beattie, James. (1783) Dissertations Moral and Critical. London, 1783). Quoted in Samuel H. Monk, 1935.

Edmund., B. (1998). A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Freud, S. (1966). The Complete Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis. . New York, Norton.

Freud, S. (1989). Formulations Regarding The Two Principles in Mental Functioning. The Freud Reader. P. Gay. New York, Norton: 301-306.

Harrison, P. (2001). The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, G. and M. Turner (1989). More than cool reason : a field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, Ill. ; London, University of Chicago Press.

Monk, S. H. (1935). The Sublime. A study of critical theories in XVIII century England. New York, MLA.

Posted in Light, Matter, Space, Substance, Up | No Comments »

Barthes Multi-dimensional Space

April 30th, 2008 Fred McVittie

In ‘Death of the Author’ Roland Barthes refers to a text not as ‘a line of words releasing a single ‘theological’ meaning (the ‘message’ of the Author-God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash.’ The dimensionality that Barthes is referring to here is, presumably, the tissue or fabric of language (and quotations) which make up the text. In making mention of the concept of ‘dimension’ he invokes the idea of a space, in this case a space of connection, deferral, and difference. Within the terms of the metaphor of this blog however, it might be more useful to talk about the ‘three-dimensional space of writing’. In this imaginary space there is horizontal extension away from the body and there is vertical extension. The objects of knowledge which are created by some of the writing are positioned at some distance in the horizontal plane, whilst some are positioned closer. Distant objects are most clearly delineated and bounded, separate from contamination by the body of the subject. Closer objects of knowledge fall within the reach and grasp of the hand, and are given affordance and malleability by their proximity. Objects inside the body cease to be objects at all, and acquire the properties of subjecthood.

The vertical dimension offers a vantage point from which a greater span of space might be panoptically available, and this elevated position offers the possibility of overview unavailable from ground level. The higher ground also suggests a more rarified, convergent, ’spiritual’ view, from which the irrelevant details disappear in favour of the grand plan.

Posted in Barthes, Roland, Dimension, Knowledge, Space, Up | 1 Comment »