THE ARGUMENT OVER NATURAL FORMS

One of the fundamental precepts of Western art over the eons is that art copies nature.  And by nature, I mean any natural form that we knowledge with our senses, from outside the body.   The argument, about how we knowledge these forms, has been going on for thousands of years.

My goal is to present a quick synopsis of the West’s ongoing theoretical argument about where, exactly, forms are.  How do we understand forms?  Are they derived from external sensory input?  Are they solely internal?  Is it a mix of the two?  And I offer this synopsis with our Transparent Drawing tools and mindset.

The three key phrases of this compendium are are:

-External Images (of form via sensory input)

-Internal Images (of form that already exist in the mind)

-Natural Forms (without human intervention)

Each entry starts with the philosopher’s name.  Dates are unimportant and would impede the flow.  

I apologize for the length of this.  I thought about making two sequential pages, but that seemed to be a cop out.  I don’t expect anyone to read this fully.  So you don’t get bogged down, I encourage you to just skim the list below, as an efficient way to understand that we, in the West,  have been arguing about form, holistic form, for thousands of years.  I find this argument mind boggling.  

THE 3000 YEAR ARGUMENT

Thales is the first who offered a theoretical distinction between the physical (external) and the soul (internal).  

Pythagoras accepted this distinction, and then conceived of the soul separate from the natural world.  (G46).

Anaxagoras further separated the mind from nature.  Yet the mind creates nature by providing a structure.  Thus, there is a symbiotic relationship between nature and the mind.  (G47)

Leucippus completely separated the mind from nature.  Nature exists as a complete entity.  We only are aware of nature because of the materialistic imprint it leaves on our minds.  (G48) 

Socrates, accepting this duality,  said that we are born with inherent knowledge of nature.  The goal now was to seek factual knowledge of nature, as a way of confirming our innate understanding of form. (G49).

Plato felt that any art is an imperfect copy of nature, and nature is an imperfect copy of his ideal, Platonic Solids.  These forms, which are solely internal, comprise the universal understanding of the natural world. True knowledge comes from turning inward, toward these elemental forms in your mind. (G51)

Aristotle introduced empiricism. Sensory input of nature will give knowledge of universal form.

Plotinus put forward the theory of the One.  This was a type of knowledge which employs the inherent form of an object.  Once this one form is understood, the viewer understands the source of the form.  This inherent knowledge of form is inside us, and it is not derived from the senses.  (G70.)

Alberti believed in the fundamental mathematical ordering of the natural world.  In this manner, all of art and architecture do their best to copy nature.  So he worked to establish sets of ideal mathematical relationships, all based on nature.  Following these templates then allowed the designer to produce, by default, a beautiful form.  (G98).  

Leonardo da Vinci took Alberti’s concepts one step further.  Leonardo theorized that any object reaching the senses was suitable inspiration.  If it was in nature, and it reached the senses, then it must be beautiful.  This negated Alberti’s use of mathematical templates.  (G101)

Michangelo increasingly turned away from nature as he insisted that ideal forms existed within his mind.  Natural forms were merely imperfect copies of these mental images.  So nature was used as a pathway of reflection toward true knowledge.  (G106).

Lomazzo stated that beauty is a direct transmission from the mind of God to the minds of humans.  The input of our senses have nothing to do with it.  To generate beautiful forms, all you need to do is look inward with great focus.  God has given you everything you need.   (G108)

Galileo believed in the inherent geometrical structure of the world, which he considered primary knowledge.  This is contrasted with subjective properties of forms, which are what reach our senses.  So if you want knowledge of holistic form, you can achieve this via a geometrical analysis.  (G122)

Descartes reversed this.  He said that the mind builds up an image of an object from a few truthful yet separate precepts. Intuition allows for a combination of these images, which allows for the deduction of how a form works.  (G124).

Spinoza then said that anything that is a product of the rational mind must be real.  So, any form that we establish on our papers, because it is resolved, it is rational and therefore real. (G126).

Bacon offered that we can’t use scientific deduction, because of the prejudicial components of previously established rules.  To seek truth, we must clear our minds first, which then allows for a fresh sensory evaluation of the facts of form.  (G128)

Newton hypothesized that knowledge of nature was imprinted as a pure concept into the mind.  Sensory input admits similarities and differences of this pure knowledge, which then allows for the search for forms of truth.  (G129).  

Locke conceived of the mind as a tabula rasa.  Knowledge of natural forms was then 100% a product of sensory experience, written onto the blank canvas.  Sensory input of nature was the source of all knowledge.  The mind combined these sensory inputs into holistic knowledge.

Hume did not believe in a cohesive natural structure outside the body.  The mind is shaped by a constantly changing, and incohesive, set of sensory images.  The mind synthesizes these inputs into a holistic form.  (G134).

Rousseau proclaimed that humans are in a state of nature when their emotions and feelings are dominant over the rational.  These subjective inputs offer far greater knowledge of nature.  This shifts the focus from specific objets, to sensory impressions of these forms.  (G157).

Kant said that space and time are internal.  The mind then overlays these onto incoming sensory input.  Pure form is the result of the mind processing sensory input into logical forms with the space and time already in our minds.  (G179).

Nietzsche thought that objective knowledge is futile.  All that is possible are personal interpretations about the fundamental structure of nature.  Thus, everyone’s view is valid.  (G186).  

Fichte posited that everything that we perceive are sole products of the mind.  Therefore, nature is a simply byproduct of human thought.  We share this knowledge via a unifying intelligence which he termed the ego, which is a collective, transcendental mind.  (G195).

Schelling took this farther by saying that the unification of our minds is called the Absolute.  Nature is a visible form of this absolute.  Therefore, our generation of form is a pure rationalization of the Absolute.  (G197).

Hegel accepted the shared mind, and termed this the Absolute Spirit.  This Spirit is completely rational.  So any form that we conceive must then be real.  The Absolute Sprit, starting with the primitive, has evolved to what we perceive to be the world today.  (G199).  

Comte also believed in the evolutionary conception of the world.  This was divided into three phases.  1.  Theological, in which nature is explained by spiritual forces.  2.  Metaphysical: nature is explained via ultimate realities.  3.  Positive:  humans describe nature by only that which can be perceived.  (G209). 

THE OUTFALL

We have been arguing about knowledge of natural form for thousands of years.  This is all about holistic form, people.  None of this has anything to do with representation.  We are talking about the core of human truth, which is knowledge of holistic form.  Sounding familiar?

As with all human endeavors, many of these overlap.  Some circle back a 1000 years and start again.  Others offer a different yet parallel pathway. The philosophy of Plato, as we have said before, is just as valid now as it was then.  

In a way, it is difficult to believe that we have not found it yet.  Or have we?

These pages, and the pages in the book, extoll the virtues of drawing forms as a means to knowledge.  The word “internalization”, as in the internalization of knowledge, has been bandied about.  In the context of the Argument, in what manner do we internalize?  With drawing, are we adding to our innate knowledge of forms?  Are we drawing this knowledge of form onto a blank mindset? 

And I continue to be dumbfounded that, despite our eons of haggling about how we knowledge form, which the above list amply demonstrates, that we have become so utterly complacent to apply our collective energies, our collective mind, to Representational Spacetime as a default mindset.

1. Gelernter, Mark.  Sources of Architectural Form.  Manchester University Press:  Manchester.  1995. 

3 November 21
I don’t know about you, but every time that I re-read the argument summary above, I get a headache. So to let this pass, it will be a bit longer till the next page drops.