The state of mind is what society would call slightly Schizophrenic, the vision is spiritual, and the facts are perceived. If there were whole genius in all of us (a perception akin to one of the five senses), perhaps we could derive the mathematical interpretations of unexplained, simply observed phenomena. The artist needs a mathematician to conform the two dimensional web of sight that documents form constructed of lines (shape), which creates a cohesive and sensible connection in any given, perceived moment. This does not mean that there isn't chaos. If a photographer did not have eyes he or she would not process "composition." However, through our eyes, composition is often there. Visual and artistic impression is based upon perception. What does this mean? It means that the inspiration is already there. All music has evolved from the drum beat. Let us not forget that the first rhythm is the human heart. As humans are as much a part of nature as a Peony, or snail, let us not forgot we move as cells through the Universe as cells move through us. Multiple studies have been done which confirm that the role of the human brain is to derive order. But are we deriving order or perceiving it? If there is an order to things is not safe to assume that it must be sensed, not through our metaphysical and intellectual capacity to impose a mathematical map onto nature Herself, but rather, through our very senses? And isn't it our very senses that we are naturally endowed with which have taken us, say, from Lucretius's observation that things, in order to cast reflections, must cast actual films - to the scientific discovery that it is not that things cast films, simply, but rather that there is an entire world of light and electrons (which in a way, can be seen as these primitive "films") which brings us closer to the truth? And so, as long as there is order, disorder must be conceived.

It does not do us any good to live in an argumentative world which says, this theory is better, or that theory is better - that there is chaos and there is order, but rather that order shifts into chaos, and back again. And is it crazy to believe that this can be seen constantly, to the eye which has practice noticing and seeing, rather than merely looking - Indeed, is it right to call a man or woman Schizophrenic because in a given moment, the clouds shift from differentiating form from the tops of trees, to immediately fall behind them with what appears to be the exact same form as the trees, divots and all?

If a particle shifts from a wave to material based on our perception, does this not suggest that when we look at things, there is an external response? And if this exists in the world of the very small, and size is relative - if we consider ourselves as particles in the grand scheme of things, do we, as humans, not also exist as belonging to a world of possibility, in which something may be looking at us, and guiding our behavior? And if this is an all encompassing consciousness which is the greater thing that has its eye on us, is it not, at the very least, conceptually human, as an atom belonging to the vast Universe of our body is also human?

The only seeming link between the world of the very small, to the world of the very big (the physical world in which there are objects) would be that of speed. So while we exist on a very low level of energy, it makes sense that the subatomic world would exist in the realm of possibility, rather than definition. But this does not mean that we cannot exact change in the world of objects and Newtonian physics, perhaps it just means that it takes a lot of work, and a very long time.

It is not my role, to read books that have come before me, though I read in my spare time that which interests me. It is important for me to exist an observer of this world, and to derive my knowledge from intuitive experiences so that I may not be unconsciously influenced by others, though others may have shared thoughts before me.

It is my goal to explore my inquiries from a basic, phenomenological view point, so I am certain that the bulk of my ideas and thoughts are sourced from within, and communicated without, and vica versa, with my experience as a guide, and informant of inner truth.

A Thought To Elaborate On

Psychologically we create symbols out of our first experiences with the object. This can be hypothesized as evidence of a biological tendency to map patterns of behavior onto the physical brain. If we are taking real situations, and creating a repetitive process out of them (repetition compulsion, as theorized by Freud), then it would seem that the brain has a tendency toward creating patterns, and simultaneously has an interest in the recognition of pattern. In this sense, a developed brain can see a shark, for example, and rather than accepting it as merely a carnivorous animal, it's characteristics are recognized, and related to human characteristics. We can theorize that a person who has an obsession with carnivorous animals might also be interested in, or expressing his own internal aggression and "dangerous" behavior through this interest. This is how symbols are born.

"Indeed, the introjection of the "object" of the drive along with the sensations, affects, related to the gratification or to the frustration of the drive, are basic to continuity of interpersonal communication.  As the continuity of object relationship is maintained, the memories of object relationship plus drive experience become stored as object representations and self-representations and become the nuclei of organization in the mental apparatus. The subject of identifcation becomes an extension of biological theory. ... Identifications constitute theoretical bridges between biology and personality and between personalities and social groups." (Grinker, 14), as quoted from Therese Benedek M.D. Parenthood as a Developmental Phase - A Contribution to the Libido Theory.

Thus, truth does not lie simply in philosophy, but is also biological. We cannot escape our biology, yet we can become aware of it, and becoming aware of our biological tendencies, are we then able to master them and forge ourselves as individuals, as well as our species, toward evolution.

Nature as the Primordial Womb and Artistic Creation as Symbolic Birth

There a difference between birthing a symbolic world that is a physical manifestation of unconscious processes (a painting, or a story, for example), as the physical world is a manifestation of an unseen energy, and the biological process of reproducing (giving birth). The reproductive process in individual biological organisms, can be seen as a microcosm of the creative force within the Universe. The unseen world (this can refer to the subatomic world, or consciousness itself, both which are still shrouded in scientific mystery) is first what made physical existence possible. First, we have space, which is akin to a giant womb, which is then populated by various objects (planets, and other cosmic entities), and specifically in our subjective view, we have Earth. Here we can hypothesize that the Earth is like an egg inside of the giant womb (space) which was fertilized to create not only Man, but life itself).

The artistic process can be seen as a reverse avenue to the greater creative force. This is what many religions in various ways describe as "The Way of Return", this "way" referring specifically to the Tao.

"Tao or Dao (/taʊ/, /daʊ/; Chinese: 道; pinyin:  Dào (help·info)) is a Chinese concept signifying 'way', 'path', 'route', or sometimes more loosely, 'doctrine' or 'principle', or as a verb, speak. Within the context of traditional Chinese philosophy and religion, Tao is a metaphysical concept originating with Laozi that gave rise to a religion (Wade–Giles, Tao Chiao; Pinyin, Daojiao) and philosophy (Wade–Giles, Tao chia; Pinyin, Daojia) referred to in English with the single term Taoism. The concept of Tao was later adopted in Confucianism, Chán and Zen Buddhism and more broadly throughout East Asian philosophy and religion in general. Within these contexts Tao signifies the primordial essence or fundamental nature of the universe. In the foundational text of Taoism, the Tao Te Ching, Laozi explains that Tao is not a 'name' for a 'thing' but the underlying natural order of the universe whose ultimate essence is difficult to circumscribe. Tao is thus "eternally nameless” (Dao De Jing-32. Laozi) and to be distinguished from the countless 'named' things which are considered to be its manifestations." - Wikipedia

This can also be recognized in other religions, in which the physical world is referred to as a kind of "darkness" (quotations for conceptual purposes), whereas the truth lies in the non-physical realm.  Science studies the physical world, and therefore the Taoist idea that "The Way" cannot be understood or described, is similar to the idea in Christianity that the existence of God cannot be proven, and requires, essentially, a personal knowing which in Christianity is termed, "faith." More specifically in the Christian faith there is the concept of "Dark Night Of The Soul" in which an individual must fall away from "God" to return to God.

Scientifically, we have originated, physically, from one source. Hypothetically, if this one source experienced consciousness, without an objective world to find understanding, it would not be able validate its own existence. This original source (let's imagine the Big Bang Theory here) has imploded in on itself to fragment into external environment, ultimately imparting intelligence and consciousness into humanity.

(I ask the reader now, if he or she would like, to read this Wikipedia reference for synoptic purposes on the history of the theorized origins of life:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Spontaneous_generation)

 "Tao is thus "eternally nameless” (Dao De Jing-32. Laozi) and to be distinguished from the countless 'named' things which are considered to be its manifestations."

My field of study is Psychoanalysis. Here is an obvious reference in ancient religion to what we began discussing in the beginning of this article, the process of actual human birth as well as the psychological process of the infant emerging from the mother, first experiencing oneness with the mother and then slowly becoming his or her own person capable of taking care of his or herself.  Here, the mother then becomes differentiated from the infant.  When a human reproduces, physically, it is an experience of becoming the mother (father), in the way that a human falls into the darkness that is the physical realm and through creation in general (not simply artistic creation, but let's here envision the elaborate world we have created in terms of architecture, technology, etc.) is pointed again to the truth or "the way".

Is this why creative inspiration seems so cosmic and otherworldly? Do we know intrinsically that we are channeling a greater force that was responsible for our own creation?

The Universe has seen to it that there is a biological tendency in place to reproduce, and even rewards (or bribes!) us with making extreme pleasure and release an intrinsic part of conception. Here, we can infer that both the creative process and actually giving birth are ways to recognize our individuality, as well as our creative power, through becoming the source which has created us. We are tied to this source historically, and hence we are the source, yet we are also separate from the source.

We see this process taking place also in the world of politics, exemplified in in Camus' The Rebel:

"We see that the affirmation implicit in every act of rebellion is extended to something that transcends the individual in so far as it withdraws him from his supposed solitude and provides him with a reason to act... Why rebel if there is nothing permanent in oneself worth preserving?  It is for the sake of everyone in the world that the slave asserts himself when he comes to the conclusion that a command has infringed on something in him which does not belong to him alone, but which is common ground where all men - even the man who insults and oppresses him - have a natural community. (Camus, Rebel, 16)

Here, the rebel asserts his or her individualism simply to return to a place of authority, which is a source that is in charge and guides humanity itself. The rebel breaks free of societal authority, asserts individualism and suggests that he or she stands for a greater truth that must be imparted through the vessel of the individual to all men.

Here I will say that it is my opinion that it is a gross mistake to believe that we are separate from The Whole. Whether or not there is a God or intelligence that created us (in reference to an energetic force or process, rather than a physical God or alien race, which I believe for some are merely tangible symbols to give a voice to this concept of Tao). The inferred truth here is that we have evolved and emerged from a biological process that finds its roots/history in a very small world. The broken Whole is a way for the Universe to converse with itself, and the study of the physical world, which is in parts, in a way for the Whole to communicate with itself. In a sense, a person is a holographic reflection of the larger and more detailed picture, and a person's individual physical existence is cast into a darkness that is away from the light. Only to understand the true concept of "light" which is another mythological characteristic of "God" and "Truth" - one must study what they can see in the darkness (the physical world) to find the source of this faint luminosity. Here is where artistic creation is employed. In artistic creation, a person becomes that source of light and truth, and splits him or herself into parts by creating a body of creative work which provides clues for the human to become consciously aware of the processes of the psyche.

Symbolism From A Phenomenological Perspective.

During an art critique in my school days - a professor pointed out in a student's painting the repetition of form. Interestingly enough, there it was, hidden but in plain sight. Certainly, consciousness of this form repetition would have to be genius, a kind of tapping into some vault of esoteric knowledge that exists only within the ether. This gifted insight was one I had always remembered, and since then I had been able to see it manifesting (unintentionally) in my own work. In one particular piece, for example, entitled, "Drowning With You", there was no "you", yet I had called it this. There it was in the distance, a tiny hand emerging from a charcoal sea - reaching past the horizon line into whatever it was that was "above."  Who was I drowning with? And what was I reaching for? The drawing is presented below.

It hadn't occurred to me until much later that the actual hand (presented in blue pen to the right of the painting) mimicked the larger form (which I had considered to be a rock (nature) to the left of the composition. Similarly - the tiny blue hand that can be seen (right bottom and diagonal to the perpendicular blue hand) mimics the form (another rock) that is in the forefront of the composition.  If one looks closely, even details such as the thumb and fingers are abstractly duplicated.  

My thought:  How could this be a mere coincidence?  

Clearly, there was an unconscious process happening during this drawing's creation. Furthermore, who was I drowning with? With these symbolic forms manifested, the correlation drawn is this:  

I was drowning with nature.  

But what does it mean to be drowning with nature? Here, I had unconsciously formed a visual connection between the subject (the arm and hand which represent a human drowning (myself)) and the object (the rocks, rather, nature). Let us explore why, unconsciously, I may have visualized this.

From a psychoanalytic perspective - to destroy the self is to destroy the primary object. The primary object is the human "mother." Killing oneself is a way to kill the object. Why? Because we are born from another human, and our initial experience is the experience that we are a small piece of this "greater" thing that we have emerged from. Any feelings we experience as children toward our object (mother, and in some cases father) (for example, anger toward our mothers if we are not fed right away) activates the aggressive drive which we are born with biologically that enables our survival.  "You are hurting me. You are preventing me from getting the nourishment I need. I must destroy you so that I can survive." There is an opposite reaction that occurs from the experience of this aggressive drive, and that is the protective urge to keep the object safe, because biologically we also know that our source of food and care comes from this object (mother). We are dependent on the mother. If the mother is bad, we still need her to survive, yet we also want to expedite the process of detaching from her (physically and psychologically) by destroying her and becoming our own, separate object.  At this stage, this is impossible to achieve. To go off and die and refuse the mother is a way of killing a part of the mother as an expression of aggression which can create or activate a destructive impulsive action. Because we depend on our objects for guidance and nurture, we learn and internalize behavior, as well as feelings, that are experienced and presented by the mother (in this case, also father). As we get older, we carry this within us. How many times have you heard someone say, "Oh he's just like his father!" "I'm worried that I'm becoming my mother." In the adult, suicide is not just a killing of the self - it is a rejection of the internalized object - the object which can not be tolerated and must be destroyed.

However, the drawing does not simply represent a feeling of destruction toward the primary object.  We must ask, "Why then, is this 'greater' object represented in the natural environment, and not in the form of another human?" I wondered, what is it that is trying to speak with me through this image?  Clearly, I did not represent this consciously, which means there is an unconscious and symbolic message hidden within, that, as was mentioned before, can only be understood through connecting to that esoteric vault within the ether. Is it as simple as saying, "Well, I'm drowning, and nature itself is also drowning, so this is a representation of wanting to destroy the primary object, yet it is presented in code to bring these repressed, unwanted and destructive urges to murder the primary object to light." The reason I do not believe that it is as simple as this is because we must consider further circumstances surrounding the image that apply to its hidden meaning. I will consider the fact that the analysis of this image is an analysis of self - and therefore the interpretation is altered based on personal bias. However, my intention is not to find answers, but to present the reader with the advent of this mind journey that has been embarked upon.

Further circumstances that must be considered are as follows:  

What is the symbolism of drowning in the ocean?

 Could this be representative of the "oceanic feeling" which Freud has never felt but discusses in his work (which was unbeknownst to the artist during the creation of this drawing)?  

Does this oceanic feeling correlate with days in the womb?

Why should we stop at "physical" mother, child, father?  

If all living things reproduce, and sexual processes permeate existence, what does this say about the creative force and its role in the universe at large, which flows through all living things?  And what is the role of human creation in all of this?  

Should we look at the destruction of the self, not only as destruction of the "greater" thing - this primary object (physical mother) but as destruction of the "greatest" thing - nature itself?

What was I reaching for?

These ideas will be explored and formulated in the evolution of this blog.

Testing, 1, 2, 3...