Comment on The Aesthetic Ground (part 3)

Fast T Sat, Jan 21, 2012
Letting oneself into the “middle”, the solid concreteness of restrictions is re-examined anew and projected into possible tensions that generate change. The structural stability of the hard yields to the dynamic potential of the soft, giving play to corridors of yet unexpressed opportunities, momentary shapes, endless reshuffling of landscapes.

In a momentary crossing over from a world of definite restrictions toward the wilderness of dynamic tensions, mind learns to morph singular states in soft matter.

Being me, after all, is a process (and so, is, as far as I can tell, being anyone). It is an epistemological process.

‘Soft’ and ‘middle’, the way they are depicted here, describe the quality of the Epistemological process, discerning at that the medium, ecology and very intelligence in which and by which knowledge is forming and morphing. The ecology and process in turn are molding ‘knowledge itself’ (I put ‘knowledge itself’ in Quotation marks to emphasize that ‘knowledge’ has no a-priori or stand alone state).

One of the focuses in this is the crucial impact states of softness have in the process of becoming, while becoming here stands for interacting with the knowledge (attained and potential) of being ‘me’; or in your words: when contact produces different versions of ourselves.

Of course one of the interesting issues here is the necessity to employ navigational tools that are, once departing from the ‘structural wisdom’ of hard matter, of open nature and in fact lacking a-priori direction.
Otherwise put, what if at all is applicable in order to maintain consistency of said versions of ourselves?

One is tempted to call whatever means employed in this context, aesthetic ones.

A conscious catalyst that interferes with becoming (of form) becomes in its turn intimate with the process of exceeding itself while in the ‘middle’. Thus opening doors that are disengaged from the natural.

The difference, where manifested, is not a matter of perfection or imperfection as in the world of Plato, rather it is an aesthetic probe, sensing where to make the difference visible, harvesting its power to un-domesticate form. From cracks on the surface of the familiar into the liquid streams of possibilities, emerging as the singular.

But are they (disengaged from the natural)? What aspect of natural might be amiss in that ‘aesthetic probe’?

I think the intimate and the alien, so beautifully brought into the thought of aesthetics, are naturally infused in the process of morphing knowledge that is at heart (in its virtual sense) of becoming human.
For this particular tension is of the richest veins along the undulating histories of our intelligent minding. One without which I find it verging on impossible to describe myself to myself.