FROM MAGICAL TO MYSTICAL

1. To conceive of the four basic elements as being divisible between the objectivity, in rectilinear (straight) divergence and/or convergence, of fire (noumenal) and water (phenomenal), and the subjectivity, in curvilinear (circular) divergence and/or convergence, of vegetation (phenomenal) and air (noumenal), the first pair female in their vacuous basis and the second pair male in their plenumous basis, the basis of being centred in a plenum (of subjectivity) as against rooted in a vacuum (of objectivity).

2. To distinguish the apparent bias of fire from the essential bias of air in relation to the noumenal elements, the elements of space and time, but the quantitative bias of water from the qualitative bias of vegetation (earth) in relation to the phenomenal elements, the elements of volume and mass.

3. Thus to conceive of the elements as having devolved from appearance to quantity on the objective side of the elemental and/or gender divide, but as having evolved from quality to essence on its subjective side, with essence being antithetical to appearance in relation to the noumenal options, and quality being antithetical to quantity in relation to the phenomenal options.

4. Thus not only do the elements exhibit a devolution from appearance to quantity, as from fire to water, and an evolution, by contrast, from quality to essence, as from vegetation to air, but it seems to me that the noumenal antithesis between fiery appearances and airy essences is of the magical and the mystical, while, 'down below', the phenomenal antithesis between watery quantities and vegetative qualities is of the gnostical and the classical.

5. Admittedly, it is not at first easy to see how terms like 'magical', 'gnostical', 'classical', and 'mystical' can be applied to the elements, even though there is a basis, I believe, for such an application, as already discussed. What I have no difficulty with, on the other hand, is ascribing such terms to those art forms which derive, in more devolved and/or evolved fashion, from the basic elements, like art from fire, literature from water, sculpture from vegetation, and music from air, since it seems incontestable to me that the fiery appearances of art are magical, that the watery quantities of literature are gnostical, that the vegetative qualities of sculpture are classical, and that the airy essences of music are mystical.

6. Hence I would have no hesitation in contrasting the magical appearances of art with the mystical essences of music with regard to the noumenal options, nor any hesitation in contrasting the gnostical quantities of literature with the classical qualities of sculpture with regard to the phenomenal options.

7. In fact, I now happen to believe that art, including painting, is the magical art form par excellence; that literature, including drama, is the gnostical art form par excellence; that sculpture, including figures, is the classical art form par excellence; and that music, including piping, is the mystical art form par excellence.

8. But if the Arts range from appearance to essence via quantity and quality, as from fire to air via water and vegetation, then the magical and gnostical art forms, being objective, will be female, while the classical and mystical art forms, being subjective, can only be male, with a further distinction, it seems to me, between the tragic nature of those on the objective side of the gender divide and the comic nature of those on its subjective side - the side, in other words, of sculpture and music.

9. For are not women generally tragic in their objective dispositions towards appearance and quantity, fire and water, but men, by contrast, generally comic in what amounts to a subjective disposition towards quality and essence, vegetation and air.

10. Hence it could broadly be argued that not only are art and literature basically female art forms, but that they are tragic in their magical and gnostical biases, respectively, towards appearance and quantity, fire and water.

11. Conversely, it could in broad terms be argued that not only are sculpture and music essentially male art forms, but that they are comic in their classical and mystical biases, respectively, towards quality and essence, vegetation and air.

12. For, like women, art and literature remain rooted in the particle objectivity of power and glory which, being primary, is tragic, whereas, like men, sculpture and music remain centred in the wavicle subjectivity of form and content(ment) which, being secondary, is comic.