Sunday, 21 April 2024

Process or substance ontology?

A lump of clay suggested this

I have been over time trying to write about my activities as an artist who draws and makes things under two essential headings, both of which at one time or another have been regarded as a particular nature of being, and it has always been difficult for me to reconcile the two approaches. One has been substance ontology, in which objects are the focus of philosophical interest and the materials of making become central to an understanding of possible metaphors. As a maker, I am very aware of the primacy of materials and how their physical nature shapes and affects possibilities, so I'm particularly attracted to this approach.

Cardboard, tape, a discarded child's bedroom table and a ceramic thought suggested this

The other is as a process ontology, which sees change as more fundamentally real than objects. This way of thinking seems to concur with an awareness of time and the nature of energy fields. At a deep level all is rhythm and a dance of particles and intellectually this is if I think about it probably true. So I am drawn towards any philosophy that argues this case; such as Alfred North Whitehead's as explicated in 'Process and Reality'. He believed that fundamentally, nothing exists in itself, everything is in transformation all the time. Therefore, all that really exists is the relationship between "things", such as mass and energy. This relationship can be either potential or actual. These ideas were based on his particular understanding of quantum theory, which for Whitehead was mathematical. Whitehead sought a holistic, comprehensive view of reality that provided a systematic descriptive theory of the world which could be used for 'the diverse human intuitions gained through ethical, aesthetic, religious, and scientific experiences, and not just the scientific'. A stance which of course led to his work being regarded as of great interest by artists such as myself. Intuition and aesthetics in particular holding a very important place in my own attempts to get to grip with what it is to think through the role of art as a means to come to terms with the world. Whitehead helped me to reconcile my own diverse approaches to visualising life experiences or at least to accept that I didn't have to always be clear or sorted out in my head about these things and that if I was confused, I could live with the confusion.  

Everything is in flux, but our problems seem to remain the same

Back in 1929 Whitehead stated; 'We diverge from Descartes by holding that what he has described as primary attributes of physical bodies, are really the forms of internal relationships between actual occasions. Such a change of thought is the shift from materialism to organic realism, as a basic idea of physical science'.

Whitehead: Process and Reality, 1929, p. 471


Seen that way, the important elements that make up a drawing are not the material things that it is composed of but rather the processes that come together in its becoming and these things are always shifting. However the material reality of the process is fundamental to how that process will operate. 

The peristaltic wave 

Trying to claim either one aspect or another as being fundamental to the make up of a drawing is perhaps a not very useful activity. My attempts to visualise inner body experiences have tended to be done by fixing certain visualised moments within a wider awareness of ongoing processes. Whitehead would though I think if he looked at this work, suggest that I have a problem with constant flux or change. 

The body as a moving inside/outside mass of energy

Perhaps all I'm looking for is a way of visualising moments of stability within the chaos of being and that death is just the dissolving away of one particular process that was stable for a time.

However the ultimate abstract principle of existence for Whitehead is creativity. Existence itself is for Whitehead a process of becoming, and “'becoming' is a creative act. This helps and reinforces my belief that every drawing or made image is also a metaphor for life itself. 

We experience this 'becoming', according to Whitehead as 'occasions' and these he states come in four types or grades. 

The first is a fundamental underlying force, like those interacting with a Higgs field, such as the propagation of an electromagnetic wave or gravitational influence across empty space. The second are occasions of experience that involve inanimate matter, something that I personally read as an opening for an animist reading of Whitehead's ideas. The third being an involvement with living organisms, a hierarchy which reminded me of Raymond Lull's ascending ladders and  the fourth, which was about the experience of presentational immediacy, which means, I think, the qualia of subjective experience. This 'presentational immediacy' Whitehead suggests, occurs  only in more evolved animals, again something I'm not sure about, but I know what he means. However I can only accept this if these things are enfolded into a totality of being, a totality that acknowledges that the qualia of experience are dependent on an interaction with the Higgs force and all living matter is composed of inanimate matter, which is itself composed of fundamental forces.

The mental and the material aspects of experience or becoming can therefore for us humans be seen as verbal or visual abstractions from experience, (interpretations via various languages). The brain is part of the body, and both are abstractions of a kind referred to by Whitehead as 'persistent physical objects', or in my mind 'nouns'; neither being actual entities. All of which points to a type of understanding that again sits within a flux of becoming; a flux which means that at one moment I seem to be able to nail down a thought, but the next sees everything dissolve into the flow of being. But things are still things and as such they seem to have their own reality.




Three responses to material possibilities offered to me by collaboration

These three responses to what others had done, were all made as part of a 'vitrine' project, 'Regenerative Things' and were done in relation to a 'Thing Power' research group. I'm no longer part of this project, but it did help me to come to terms with an acceptance of change and the letting go of ownership, as whatever was done, was quickly pulled apart and dismantled by someone else, but at the same time something of the idea, or material potential would remain, as the work was reinterpreted by whoever followed me and what I was therefore providing was 'potential'; and it is perhaps this idea of 'potential' that is the most intriguing for me. 

Every art work ever made is like a battery that is charged with 'potential'. As someone looks at and considers a drawing, a painting or an object, that potential is released as a thought transfer. The materiality of the work, gives weight and externality to someone's thinking, so that it can be offered forward to another person as a materialised thing. Those that encounter the 'made thing' can then interpret it in whatever way they need to. This potential is for myself so exciting. In my mind, it sits alongside the body's interoceptive ability to predict. The main thing I have taken from my work on visualising interoception is that the body is a focus for the construction of prediction loops, whereby emotions and physical responses to stimuli are entwined together in order to respond to things before they happen. The body hosts a mass of interconnected triggers that make it do stuff in response to best guess scenarios and this system of making best predictions, is central to how we think. By inventing a new thing that is open to interpretation, others are challenged as to how to read a possibility. Some will not see any need to spend energy on this but others will and the fact that something new has been made that adds to another body's awareness of potential is a wonderful idea. 
References:

Barrett, L. F. (2017) How Emotions are Made London: Pan
Pert, C. B. (1999) Molecules of Emotion London: Simon and Schuster

See also:

Why interoception

No comments:

Post a Comment