View allAll Photos Tagged metaphysical
Please NO adding Favourites without comments (code
award). You risk being BLOCKE
My Images Do Not Belong To The Public Domain - All images are copyright by silvano franzi ©all rights reserved©
Giorgio de Chirico (1888-1978) - The prodigal son (1973). In the collection of the Fondazione Giorgio and Isa de Chirico, Rome. Shown at the temporary exhibition "De Chirico e l'Oltre: dalla stagione barocca alla neometafisica (1938-1978)" at Palazzo Pallavicini, Bologna.
At some point in the 1970's de Chirico decided to return to the metaphysical painting that had brought him fame and artistic influence around 1920. This included revisiting some themes, like the return of the prodigal son, which he had treated in a painting from 1922 now at the Museo del 900 in Milan:
When I came to this spot on the Alanvale TAFE College Campus, the late Autumn sun was producing very long shadows. This shot is the first scene that I saw, and my mind immediately went to the surrealistic paintings of Giorgio de Chirico (1888-1978).
There're two reasons for this: (1) De Chirico's enigmatic surrealistic works are usually set on late afternoons in empty city plazas. There is often a long looming shadow that symbolises a presence; and (2) We have a painting in the style of de Chirico at home by the Australian modernist artist Ernest Smith dating from the 1960s. I bought it specifically because it reminded me of Giorgio de Chirico.
Although he was clearly a forerunner of surrealistic art (later made more famous by Dali, Ernst and Magritte, etc.) de Chirico called his early work Metaphysical Art. Now this is what connects it to the two previous photos in this series today.
Giorgio de Chirico's most famous quote actually brings together very succinctly our theme today:
"There is much more mystery in the shadow of a man walking on a sunny day, than in all religions of the world. To become truly immortal a work of art must escape all human limits: logic and common sense will only interfere."
One more thing: If you enlarge this photograph you will find somewhere (but not too well hidden) a copy of the actual de Chirico painting, "The Disquieting Muses". The title is NOT meant to be ironic either.
The exoteric claim to the exclusive possession of a unique truth, or of Truth without epithet, is an error purely and simply; in reality, every expressed truth necessarily assumes a form, that of its expression, and it is metaphysically impossible that any form should possess a unique value to the exclusion of other forms; for a form, by definition, cannot be unique and exclusive, that is to say, it cannot be the only possible expression of what it expresses.
Form implies specifications or distinction, and the specific is only conceivable as a modality of a "species;' that is to say, of a category that includes a combination of analogous modalities. Again, that which is limited excludes by definition whatever is not comprised within its own limits and must compensate for this exclusion by reaffirmation or repetition of itself outside its own boundaries, which amounts to saying that the existence of other limited things is rigorously implied in the very definition of the limited. To claim that a limitation, for example, a form considered as such, is unique and incomparable of its kind, and that it excludes the existence of other analogous modalities, is to attribute to it the unicity of Existence itself; now, no one can contest the fact that a form is always a limitation or that a religion is of necessity always a form- not, that goes without saying, by virtue of its internal Truth, which is of a universal and supraformal order, but because of its mode of expression, which, as such, cannot but be formal and therefore specific and limited.
It can never be said too often that a form is always a modality of a category of formal, and therefore distinctive or multiple, manifestation, and is consequently but one modality among others that are equally possible, their supraformal cause alone being unique. We will also repeat - for this is metaphysically of great importance - that a form, by the very fact that it is limited, necessarily leaves something outside itself, namely, that which its limits exclude; and this something, if it belongs to the same order, is necessarily analogous to the form under consideration, since the distinction between forms must needs be compensated by an indistinction or relative identity that prevents them from being absolutely distinct from each other, for that would entail the absurd idea of a plurality of unicities or Existences, each form representing a sort of divinity without any relationship to other forms.
As we have just seen, the exoteric claim to the exclusive possession of the truth comes up against the axiomatic objection that there is no such thing in existence as a unique fact, for the simple reason that it is strictly impossible that such a fact should exist, unicity alone being unique and no fact being unicity; it is this that is ignored by the ideology of the "believers", which is fundamentally nothing but an intentional and interested confusion between the formal and the universal. The ideas that are affirmed in one religious form (as, for example, the idea of the Word or of the Divine Unity) cannot fail to be affirmed, in one way or another, in all other religious forms; similarly the means of grace or of spiritual realization at the disposal of one priestly order cannot but possess their equivalent elsewhere; and indeed, the more important and indispensable any particular means of grace may be, the more certain it is that it will be found in all orthodox forms in a mode appropriate to the environment in question.
The foregoing can be summed up in the following formula: pure and absolute Truth can only be found beyond all its possible expressions; these expressions, as such, cannot claim the attributes of this Truth; their relative remoteness from it is expressed by their differentiation and multiplicity, by which they are strictly limited ...
It was pointed out earlier that in its normal state humanity is composed of several distinct "worlds." Certain people will doubtless object that Christ, when speaking of the "world," never suggested any such delimitation, and furthermore that He made no reference to the existence of an esoterism. To this it may be an answer that neither did He explain to the Jews how they should interpret those of His words that scandalized them. Moreover, an esoterism is addressed precisely to those "that have ears to hear" and who for that reason have no need of the explanations and "proofs" that may be desired by those for whom esoterism is not intended. As for the teaching that Christ may have reserved for His disciples, or some of them, it did not have to be set forth explicitly in the Gospels, since it is contained therein in a synthetic and symbolic form, the only form admitted in sacred Scriptures ...
In the final analysis the relationship between exoterism and esoterism is equivalent to the relationship between "form" and "spirit" that is discoverable in all expressions and symbols; this relationship must clearly also exist within esoterism itself, and it may be said that only the spiritual authority places itself at the level of naked and integral Truth. The "spirit" (that is to say, the supraformal content of the form, which, for its part, corresponds to the "letter") always displays a tendency to breach its formal limitations, thereby putting itself in apparent contradiction with them. It is for this reason that one may consider every religious readaptation, and therefore every Revelation, as fulfilling the function of an esoterism in relation to the preceding religious form; Christianity, for example, is esoteric relatively to the Judaic form) and Islam relatively to the Judaic and Christian forms, though this is, of course, only valid when regarded from the special point of view that we are here considering and would be quite false if understood literally. Moreover, insofar as Islam is distinguished by its form from the other two monotheistic religions, that is to say, insofar as it is formally limited, these religions also possess an esoteric aspect as between Christianity and Judaism. However, the relationship to which we referred first is a more direct one than the second, since it was Islam that, in the name of the spirit, shattered the forms that preceded it, and Christianity that shattered the Judaic form, and not the other way around ...
www.flickr.com/photos/psychoactivartz/8647805714/sizes/l/...
twin brains behind PsychoActivArts Studio
God's in a coma
Put faith in a life support
Running away won't feel the same
If you reach your metaphysical last resort
Oh, malevolence and purgatory give you pause
It's a miracle you haven't broken any laws
We are not entitled to surviving
So keep your friends and your enemies thriving
What a cliché
Every time this happens
I'm breaking a promise
I made to a version of me
Why can't I covet
And keep it away
From the leeches who want to deceive?
What is coming has begun
It's something that you got to see
We lie and say that it's too late for some redemption
What is coming has begun
An ending I won't live to see
We tell ourselves there can't be hell if there's no heaven
Once again we got suffocated
In a sick perversion of a spider's web
Crawling over all the spent digested pieces
Celebrate the dead
Here come all the judging eyes
Got to pave the road with your best intentions
I only wish you can picture a future
That doesn't resemble your crazy inventions
A mirror only works if you open your eyes
Even then you have to understand what's inside
The easy part is always hardest to see
I know you'll never guess, but darling
You're so critical
Darling, you're so critical
Oh, you're so critical
Oh, this is a cave-in
The weight of the catalyst
Just wait, let the games begin
Going to tell you all about it for the savages
You're so critical
Darling, you're so critical
Oh, you're so critical.
Bracketing the rhetorical and metaphysical aspects [mythical village] -- even to this day some believe there could be a Brigadoon out there somewhere .... out there somewhere sleeping beneath the fog just beyond the outer-most boundaries of perception ....
*
*
* [Taken from Highway 3 -- about sunrise -- near Hayfork Summit -- Dec. 1, 2008]
*
Questions from various angles
Paul Jaisini claims he paints invisible paintings.
Is it Anti-Realism?
Is it Visual Emancipation? Is it full Visual Emancipation from any kind of visual image?
Paints Invisible Paintings - Is it just a figure of speech?
Is it Utopian?
Is it driven by unconscious and irrational thus in accordance to Sigmund the invisible painting is not rationally autonomous?
How could it be verified and where or what is the invisible painting’s by Paul Jaisini evidence?
Paul Jaisini wants to cultivate Invisible Style. It surely is a style that is not a lucid one, for clarity would expose the lack of content.
Is there any content?
Is it an attack on the ‘metaphysics of presence’?
What is the definition if there is certain definitions to apply to Invisible Painting? Can it be informative about contemporary culture?
Is Paul Jaisini with Invisible Paintings promotes Postmodern Obscurantism - deliberately preventing (fully if it is in fact the invisible painting) the facts or the full details of Invisible Painting’s matter from becoming known?
(Obscurantism: deliberately restricting knowledge—opposition to the spread of knowledge, a policy of withholding knowledge from thepublic; and, deliberate obscurity—an abstruse style (as in literature and art) characterized by deliberate vagueness.) Leo Strauss also was criticized for proposing the notion of “esoteric” meanings to ancient texts, recondite knowledge inaccessible to the “ordinary” intellect.
Kant employed technical terms that were not commonly understood. Schopenhauer contended that post-Kantian philosophers such as Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel deliberately mimicked Kant’s way of writing. “Because of his style which was obscure, Kant was properly understood by exceedingly few. And it is as if all the philosophical writers, who since Kant had had some success, had devoted themselves to writing still more unintelligibly than Kant. This was bound to succeed!”[
Does Paul Jaisini wants to be understood on any level or he wants no understanding of his Invisible Paintings? Can there be any level of understanding if not seeing the Invisible Paintings?
on explore 08\11\2012
Highest position: 254 on Thursday, November 8, 2012
All rights reserved - Copyright © Alessandro Signore - www.alessandrosignore.it All images are exclusive property and may not be copied, downloaded, reproduced, transmitted, manipulated or used in any way without expressed, written permission of the photographer.
Perception of Canal Grande, Venice
...and a pinch of sunset-induced metaphysics.
Please, do not use this photo without permission. Thank you
on explore 09\11\2012
Highest position: 263 on Thursday, November 8, 2012
All rights reserved - Copyright © Alessandro Signore - www.alessandrosignore.it All images are exclusive property and may not be copied, downloaded, reproduced, transmitted, manipulated or used in any way without expressed, written permission of the photographer.
°=° With a touch of Giorgio de Chirico...
Light and shadows created a special kind of unreal situation.
Cologne Feb 2018
“There was something disquieting about the way an intimate object, seemingly withdrawn into its solemn steadfastness, could affect human emotions. Any old thing forgotten in a corner, if the eye dwelt on it, acquired an eloquence of its own, communicating its lyricism and magic to the kindred soul. If a neglected object of this kind were forcibly isolated, that is, divested of its warmth and of the protective coat of its environment, or even ironically combined with completely unrelated things, it would reassert its dignity in the new context and stand there, incomprehensible, weird, mysterious.”
—Werner Haftmann, Painting in the Twentieth Century (1982)
© All Rights Reserved. Please do not use this image on websites, blogs or other media without my prior permission.
I just can't stop eating all the delicious chocolates Fabio brought me from one of the best chocolates factory in Italy called GAY ODIN (you can find their website on Google)
....they are simply...DELICIOUS!!!!!
PRESS "L" Please!!!
This photo was not only a TON of fun to shoot, but I really love the concept behind it. This year I'm interested in the topic of the metaphysical side of reality: Thoughts, emotions, feelings, ideas. What is the difference between a material brain and a thoughtful mind? What makes up "us"? The top figure represents the 1/2 of reality that is metaphysical and what I believe to be transcendental. It's how we experience our world through what we feel and think as opposed to what we see and touch. The bottom figure represents how we experience our physical world, the other 1/2 of reality, the one of material and matter. These two are linked and connected within us to create one person.
... but almost.
Milan, August 2021.
38mm lens, Fujicolor C200 film.
Perspective adjustment and crop in Darktable.
[...] Metaphysics is a dark ocean without shores or lighthouse, strewn with many a philosophic wreck [...]
-- Quote by Immanuel Kant (German Philosopher one of the foremost thinkers of the Enlightenment. 1724-1804)
Fiumicino, Italy (June, 2008)
Nikon D70, Tokina 12-24 f/4, hdr 3xp +2-2ev, f/7, 2.5s, 12mm, ND8 filter+Cokin grad dark tobacco+PS vignetting and old paper texture
• 13/52 •
• fear [of flying] •
I won't go into a metaphysical dissertation on deep-seeded fears.
I have a very specific fear, a fear that sometimes takes over my brain and my life and activates my anxiety in ways that make me miserable — and that fear is flying.
It's been with me for most of my life, since my first flight as a six-year-old, but there have been times when I was better about it. I have been able to fly somewhat calmly, in the past. And that's why I hope I can turn this phobia around again, and be able to see all the places I want to see. Because there's oh, so much world out there to visit.
--
[ somos seis, amigas e fotógrafas, a fazer um '52 semanas' em conjunto. publicaremos semanalmente nas nossas redes sociais, e podem seguir-nos através da hashtag #52sisterhood. caso se queiram juntar a nós, podem usar a hashtag #52sisterhoodchallenge! contamos convosco desse lado, nesta aventura! vamos lá!
-
there’s six of us, friends and photographers, doing a '52 weeks’ project together. we’ll publish every week, and you can keep up with us through the hashtag #52sisterhood. If you’d like to join us, you can use the #52sisterhoodchallenge! we’re counting on you to join us on this journey! come along! ]
The error in the thesis of "art for art's sake" really amounts to supposing that there are relativities which bear their adequate justification within themselves, in their own relative nature, and that consequently there are criteria of value inaccessible to pure intelligence and foreign to objective truth. This error involves abolishing the primacy of the spirit and its replacement either by instinct or taste, by criteria that are either purely subjective or else arbitrary.
We have already seen that the definition, laws and criteria of art cannot be derived from art itself, that is, from the competence of the artist as such; the foundations of art lie in the spirit, in metaphysical, theological and mystical knowledge, not in knowledge of the craft alone nor yet in genius, for this may be anything at all; in other words the intrinsic principles of art are essentially subordinate to extrinsic principles of a higher order.
Art is an activity, an exteriorisation, and thus depends by definition on a knowledge that transcends it and gives it order; apart from such knowledge art has no justification: it is knowledge which determines action, manifestation, form, and never the reverse.
It is not necessary to produce works of art oneself in order to have the right to judge an artistic production in
its essentials; decisive artistic competence only comes into play in relation to an intellectual competence which must be already present.
No relative point of view can claim unqualified competence except in the case of innocuous activities in which competence applies anyhow in a very narrow field; now human art derives from a relative point of view; it is an application, not a principle.
---
Frithjof Schuon
---
Quoted in: The Essential Frithjof Schuon (edited by Seyyed Hossein Nasr)
In civilizations of a traditional nature, intellectual intuition lies at the root of everything; in other words, it is the pure metaphysical doctrine that constitutes the essential, everything else being linked to it, either in the form of consequences or applications to the various orders of contingent reality.
Not only is this true of social institutions, but also of the sciences, that is, branches of knowledge bearing on the domain of the relative, which in such civilizations are only regarded as dependencies, prolongations, or reflections of absolute or principial knowledge.
Thus a true hierarchy is always and everywhere preserved: the relative is not treated as non-existent, which would be absurd; it is duly taken into consideration, but is put in its rightful place, which cannot but be a secondary and subordinate one; and even within this relative domain there are different degrees of reality, according to whether the subject lies nearer to or further from the sphere of principles.
Thus, as regards science, there are two radically different and mutually incompatible conceptions, which may be referred to respectively as traditional and modern. We have often had occasion to allude to the 'traditional sciences' that existed in antiquity and the Middle Ages and which still exist in the East, though the very idea of them is foreign to the Westerners of today. It should be added that every civilization has had 'traditional sciences' of its own and of a particular type. Here we are no longer in the sphere of universal principles, to which pure metaphysics alone belongs, but in the realm of adaptations.
(…)
By seeking to sever the connection of the sciences with any higher principle, under the pretext of assuring their independence, the modern conception robs them of all deeper meaning and even of all real interest from the point of view of knowledge; it can only lead them down a blind alley, by enclosing them, as it does, in a hopelessly limited realm.
Moreover, the development achieved in this realm is not a deepening of knowledge, as is commonly supposed, but on the contrary remains completely superficial, consisting only of the dispersion in detail already referred to and an analysis as barren as it is laborious; this development can be pursued indefinitely without coming one step closer to true knowledge.
It must also be remarked that it is not for its own sake that, in general, Westerners pursue science; as they interpret it, their foremost aim is not knowledge, even of an inferior order, but practical applications, as can be deduced from the ease with which the majority of our contemporaries confuse science and industry, and from the number of those for whom the engineer represents the typical man of science.
(…)
Modern experimentalism involves the curious illusion that a theory can be proven by facts, whereas in reality the same facts can always be equally well explained by several different theories; some of the pioneers of the experimental method, such as Claude Bernard, have themselves recognized that they could interpret facts only with the help of preconceived ideas, without which they would remain 'brute facts' devoid of all meaning and scientific value.
Since we have been led to speak of experimentalism, the opportunity may be taken to answer a question that may be raised in this connection: why have the experimental sciences received a development in modern civilization such as they never had in any other?
The reason is that these sciences are those of the sensible world, those of matter, and also those lending themselves most directly to practical applications; their development, proceeding hand in hand with what might well be called the 'superstition of facts', is therefore in complete accord with specifically modern tendencies, whereas earlier ages could not find sufficient interest in them to pursue them to the extent of neglecting, for their sake, knowledge of a higher order. It must be clearly understood that we are not saying that any kind of knowledge can be deemed illegitimate, even though it be inferior; what is illegitimate is only the abuse that arises when things of this kind absorb the whole of human activity, as we see them doing at present.
(…)
One of the characteristics of the present age is the exploitation of everything that had hitherto been neglected as being of insufficient importance for men to devote their time and energy to, but which nevertheless had to be developed before the end of the cycle, since the things concerned had their place among the possibilities destined to be manifested within it; such in particular is the case of the experimental sciences that have come into existence in recent centuries.
There are even some modern sciences that represent, quite literally, residues of ancient sciences that are no longer understood: in a period of decadence, the lowest part of these sciences became isolated from all the rest, and this part, grossly materialized, served as the starting-point for a completely different development, in a direction conforming to modern tendencies; this resulted in the formation of sciences that have ceased to have anything in common with those that preceded them. Thus, for example, it is wrong to maintain, as is generally done, that astrology and alchemy have respectively become modern astronomy and modern chemistry, even though this may contain an element of truth from a historical point of view; it contains, in fact, the very element of truth to which we have just alluded, for, if the latter sciences do in a certain sense come from the former, it is not by 'evo-lution' or 'progress' - as is claimed - but on the contrary, by degeneration.
(…)
These are the two complementary functions proper to the traditional sciences: on the one hand, as applications of the doctrine, they make it possible to link the different orders of reality and to integrate them into the unity of a single synthesis, and on the other, they constitute, at least for some, and in accordance with their individual aptitudes, a preparation for a higher knowledge and a way of approach to it - forming by virtue of their hierarchical positioning, according to the levels of existence to which they refer, so many rungs as it were by which it is possible to climb to the level of pure intellectuality.
It is only too clear that modern sciences cannot in any way serve either of these purposes; this is why they can be no more than 'profane science', whereas the 'traditional sciences', through their connection with metaphysical principles, are effectively incorporated in 'sacred science'.
The ways leading to knowledge may be extremely different at the lowest degree, but they draw closer and closer together as higher levels are reached. This is not to say that any of these preparatory degrees are absolutely necessary, since they are mere contingent methods having nothing in common with the end to be attained; it is even possible for some persons, in whom the tendency to contemplation is predominant, to attain directly to true intellectual intuition without the aid of such means; but this is a more or less exceptional case, and in general it is accepted as being necessary to proceed upward gradually.
The whole question may also be illustrated by means of the traditional image of the 'cosmic wheel': the circumference in reality exists only in virtue of the center, but the beings that stand upon the circumference must necessarily start from there or, more precisely, from the point thereon at which they actually find themselves, and follow the radius that leads to the center. Moreover, because of the correspondence that exists between all the orders of reality, the truths of a lower order can be taken as symbols of those of higher orders, and can therefore serve as 'supports' by which one may arrive at an understanding of these; and this fact makes it possible for any science to become a sacred science, giving it a higher or 'anagogical' meaning deeper than that which it possesses in itself.
Every science, we say, can assume this character, whatever may be its subject-matter, on the sole condition of being constructed and regarded from the traditional standpoint; it is only necessary to keep in mind the degrees of importance of the various sciences according to the hierarchical rank of the diverse realities studied by them; but whatever degree they may occupy, their character and functions are essentially similar in the traditional conception.
What is true of the sciences is equally true of the arts, since every art can have a truly symbolic value that enables it to serve as a support for meditation, and because it’s rules, like the laws studied by the sciences, are reflections and 'applications of fundamental principles: there are then in every normal civilization 'traditional arts', but these are no less unknown to the modern West than are the 'traditional sciences'. The truth is that there is really no 'profane realm' that could in any way be opposed to a 'sacred realm'; there is only a 'profane point of view', which is really none other than the point of view of ignorance.
This is why 'profane science', the science of the moderns, can as we have remarked elsewhere be justly styled 'ignorant knowledge', knowledge of an inferior order confining itself entirely to the lowest level of reality, knowledge ignorant of all that lies beyond it, of any aim more lofty than itself, and of any principle that could give it a legitimate place, however humble, among the various orders of knowledge as a whole. Irremediably enclosed in the relative and narrow realm in which it has striven to proclaim itself independent, thereby voluntarily breaking all connection with transcendent truth and supreme wisdom, it is only a vain and illusory knowledge, which indeed comes from nothing and leads to nothing.
This survey will suffice to show how great is the deficiency of the modern world in the realm of science, and how that very science of which it is so proud represents no more than a deviation and, as it were, a downfall from true science, which for us is absolutely identical with what we have called 'sacred' or 'traditional' science. Modern science, arising from an arbitrary limitation of knowledge to a particular order-the lowest of all orders, that of material or sensible reality-has lost, through this limitation and the consequences it immediately entails, all intellectual value; as long, that is, as one gives to the word 'intellectuality' the fullness of its real meaning, and refuses to share the 'rationalist' error of assimilating pure intelligence to reason, or, what amount to the same thing, of completely denying intellectual intuition.
The root of this error, as of a great many other modern errors - and the cause of the entire deviation of science that we have just described - is what may be called 'individualism', an attitude indistinguishable from the anti-traditional attitude itself and whose many manifestations in all domains constitute one of the most important factors in the confusion of our time; we shall therefore now study this individualism more closely.
----
excerpts from The Crisis of the Modern World by René Guenon
Chapter 4: Sacred and profane science
----
painting by Blake