Feeling
and Awareness
EDWIN: Since you are a self-proclaimed philosopher, what is the
distinction between awareness and will, as applying to the spirit?
TONY: The distinction
is between the negative and positive approach to and/or
application of spirit. When we use
spirit actively it becomes will. When,
on the other hand, we use it passively, which I interpret in a positive light,
it becomes awareness.
EDWIN: But isn't will
awareness?
TONY: Yes. But it is awareness directed towards
practical ends and does not result in the direct cultivation of spirit.
Awareness directed towards no other end than greater awareness makes for Truth.
EDWIN: Then what is
spirit?
TONY: The awareness aspect of the most positive use of electrons,
as when they are in a majority over protons in any atomic integrity.
EDWIN: And when or
where do they exist in such a majority?
TONY: In the new
brain. Now the new brain is of course a
physiological entity, but, like all such entities, it has a psychic aspect,
which we call the superconscious. This is synonymous with spirit or, rather,
the superconscious is that part of the psyche in
which spirit exists, just as the subconscious is that part of it in which the
existence of soul is to be found.
EDWIN: What is soul?
TONY: The psychic
aspect of proton-dominated regions of the body, which manifests in emotions.
EDWIN: As all emotions?
TONY: Yes, good and
bad, or positive and negative. The strong as well as the weak, the lasting as well as the
transient. Soul pertains to the
flesh and thus stems from the Diabolic Alpha, which is to say, from the cosmic
or natural roots of life. Spirit, though
lodged in a material entity, viz. the new brain, can be encouraged to reflect
an aspiration towards the Divine Omega, which is to say, pure spirit as totally
free electrons.
EDWIN: Thus our spirit
and our soul are alike impure?
TONY: Yes, they are
dependent on and connected with matter, which, as we both know, is atomic. Pure soul, however, is subatomic and
manifests in the proton-proton reactions of flame. Pure spirit, by contrast, will be
supra-atomic, as manifesting in the electron-electron attractions of
transcendence.
EDWIN: You say soul is
feeling, but would the sun, as a cosmic manifestation of pure soul, be capable of feeling?
TONY: Not in the
conscious sense! The sun or, for that
matter, any subatomic absolute would be unconscious of itself as feeling. So, incidentally, would mineral formations,
in which protons greatly preponderate. Consciousness of feeling only arises at that
point in evolutionary development when atomic formations are less radically
proton-dominated than with minerals - in other words, with plant life which,
although still proton-dominated, is capable of feeling pleasure or pain by dint
of a higher electron content than is to be found in stone. But so much does the proton content
preponderate over the electron content of this particular mode of life ... that
feeling is only registered subconsciously, never breaks into actual conscious
recognition, as with animals and men.
EDWIN: Thus there is a
difference between being unconscious of feeling because either absolutely or
near absolutely proton-constituted, and being subconsciously conscious of it,
as when the electron content increases slightly?
TONY: Yes, a
distinction, primarily, between the inorganic and the organic - the former
being beneath even subconscious receptivity, the latter on or above it.
EDWIN: If, unlike a
stone, a tree is capable of feeling pain or pleasure subconsciously, would a
dead tree or a log also be capable of doing so?
TONY: Of course
not! To be conscious of feeling, on
whatever level, one must be alive, and this applies no less to a tree or plant
than to an animal or a human being. A
dead tree would be closer to the inorganic than to the organic - indeed, it would literally become inorganic, as when wood
turns into coal, and accordingly be beneath the subconscious recognition of
emotions. A log would feel no pain from
an axe-blow, but a live tree certainly would, if subconsciously. We, too, feel pleasure and pain
subconsciously ... in sleep, which is the nearest we can get to understanding
what a tree would feel. Plants are a
life form that sleeps all the time, though if they dream they would have no
consciousness of the fact, because there are too few electrons in their atomic
constitution to enable a separate or viewing mind to emerge.
EDWIN: Would you
describe positive emotions as good and negative ones as evil?
TONY: I am no
Platonist, but I will concede to positive emotions the status of a relative
good, that is to say, good in relation to negative emotions without, however,
being good in any absolute or literal sense.
EDWIN: So still
basically evil?
TONY: Yes, because
dependent on and clinging to the flesh.
Whatever appertains to soul, whether negatively (as pain) or positively
(as pleasure), is inherently evil because temporal. Pleasure may result from the electron content
of flesh responding to positive stimuli, but the fact that it has to do with
the electron aspect of the flesh doesn't make it good in any absolute
sense. It is certainly preferable to
pain, and we recognize as much. But it
remains sensual, quite distinct from any absolute good (of awareness) in the
spirit. Indeed, the spirit itself falls
short of Absolute Goodness by dint of the fact that it is impure, or dependent
on the new brain for physiological support.
We aspire, if virtuous, towards Absolute Good from the relative goodness
of spiritual awareness. But, by
comparison with positive emotions, even the lesser degree of awareness to which
I have just alluded, which appertains to the superconscious,
is closer to an absolute good, and we customarily regard it as such.
EDWIN: Clearly, you are
no aesthete! For, if I understand you
correctly, the contemplation of beauty would, to your mind, be but a means to effecting the relative, or lesser, evil of positive
emotions.
TONY: Yes, and
therefore not a means to transcending soul, such as any genuine aspiration
towards the Divine must be all about.
Beauty in art is only practicable or acceptable for a given period of
evolutionary time - in other words, until such time as men turn away from
emotions towards the cultivation of awareness through one or another degree of
transcendentalism. Art then becomes a
matter of Truth, a mode of intimating of Absolute Truth in the interests of
increased awareness. We don't want
positive sensations from art in a developing transcendental age but, au contraire,
something that encourages us to transcend emotions through passive
contemplation, something, in short, that negates or stills emotions in
deference to the spirit.
EDWIN: Yet not all
twentieth-century art does so. After
all, there is a fair amount of ugly or anti-beauty art around, while some of it
still appeals to our aesthetic sense.
TONY: That's true, and
as far as the latter kind of art is concerned I have nothing to say, preferring
not to lose my cool! But ugly art, as
you call it, is certainly an important aspect of modern art, reflecting the
fact that contemporary man is at a further remove from the Beautiful, regarded
as an abstract virtue, than were the ancients or, for that matter, his
nineteenth-century predecessors, and is more disposed, in consequence, either
to interpret beauty in a relatively ugly way or to consciously turn against it
in a determined attempt to undermine and slander it. I suspect that most petty-bourgeois artists
who create a relatively ugly art are really interpreting the Beautiful in their
own rather modernist way, and so extending the aesthetic tradition into
increasingly rarefied regions of Being which, in some people's minds, may seem
inseparable from ugliness. I don't think
we need criticize such artists for having a different concept of beauty than
the ancients or their bourgeois and/or aristocratic predecessors. Yet, regardless of their respective
intentions, the art they are producing will be on a lower level, in my opinion,
than that which is being produced in the realm of transcendentalism, or an art
exclusively concerned with Truth and, as a corollary of this, the cultivation
of greater degrees of awareness in the public at large.
EDWIN: So a distinction
exists between 'emotional art', irrespective of the quality or type of emotions
it encourages, and 'awareness art', which, by contrast, is the truly modern
art.
TONY: 'Feeling art' is
never absolute, nor, for that matter, is most 'awareness art' completely
detached from feeling-engendering qualities, as we discover when we respond to,
say, a Neo-Plastic work as though it were intended to reflect a higher concept
of the Beautiful. But to the extent that
a distinction of sorts does in fact exist between them, then yes - aesthetic
art pertains, even when only tenuously beautiful, to the tradition, whereas
'awareness art' pertains to what is truly modern, as signifying a post-atomic
bias for electron freedom. One could
speak of materialistic art on the one hand and of idealistic art on the other -
a distinction extending across the entire spectrum of petty-bourgeois
creativity and even into the, by comparison, nominally proletarian realms of
light art and holography. From a
proton/bound-electron distinction in atomic art, we progress towards a
quasi-electron/free-electron distinction on the post-atomic levels of much
twentieth-century art. From works in the
former contexts that directly appeal to the emotions and indirectly to
awareness ... towards works in the latter contexts that indirectly appeal to
the emotions and directly to awareness.
EDWIN: You are
alluding, I presume, to works, in the former contexts, of concrete beauty and
concrete truth respectively, but to works, in the latter contexts, of abstract
beauty and abstract truth respectively.
TONY: To be sure, and to works, in the latter contexts, of
abstract beauty that may well appear ugly and give rise, in consequence, to
less than positive emotions! Perhaps
they are a better incentive than more concrete works to our turning away from
emotions and embracing awareness instead?
I, at any rate, have always found so, which is why I prefer them to more
traditionally aesthetic works, despite the difference in quality of the
emotions engendered. Even a negative,
indirect incentive to awareness is preferable to no incentive at all!
EDWIN: Ah, I'm almost
afraid that I shall have to agree with you, incorrigible aesthete that I am!