My question addresses (or attempts to) the nature of conflating a creator, with their work; and whether there exists a 'responsibility' (both of the person creating the work, and of the person partaking in it) to infuse oneself within it (upon a subjective, and/or person level); or to detach the 'creator', and the 'creation'; essentially, is it problematic to connect the two, or is it more an opportunity to excite, and draw upon/elicit further ‘participation’, and sensation?
My Personal Thought(s): Questions of My Making; as Directed Towards the Online Experience/'Event'; Known as 'Death', Skulls, and Witches: The National Gallery on Hallowe'en''
CommentThis is concerning the live 'lecture'/'seminar'—as hosted upon the online website known as 'Zoom'—by the 'National Gallery'; of which the known title is 'Death, Skulls, and Witches: The National Gallery on Hallowe'en; an experience/'event'; of which I joined/ and was in attendance of.
My Personal Question(s):
Question One:
Hello; thank you very much for the opportunity of this experience. Seemingly the notion of 'magic', has existed, permeated, and made manifest throughout possibly each society, civilisation, and culture (as developed, and 'known') of/within 'humanity'.
Perhaps as a means to elucidate upon—and acquire erudition towards—the 'internal'; the 'external'; and the experiential information of the human 'condition'.
My question concerns whether this concept extends further; beyond the human 'entity' (and of human expression); including in addition other forms of life, and/or beyond; what is your opinion of this? Is what I would like to ask; the opportunity again is greatly appreciated.
I am meaning to 'say'; is this idea of the 'magical'; uniquely human?
My Personal Question(s):
Question Number Two:
A recognition of mortality (of 'death'); and within/through the expressions of it; has seemingly been studied (and possibly shown to be extant) within other organisms (notably where a 'higher intelligence' is believed to exist); examples being animals, mammals, specifically 'apes' continuing to care for their young beyond the moment of death; and 'corvids' placing objects 'unique', and 'salient'; adjacent to 'their'/the 'fallen'/'passed'. Does this mean that 'ritual', and 'reverence'; are concepts more 'universal'; and seemingly beyond the 'anthropic' perspective alone?
My Personal Thought(s)
CommentMy personal thought(s)
Questions (01/10/2020)
My first question:
Organised, systematic communication—seemingly—within a written form; has long been the preserve of the chosen few (something esoteric, guarded; a transmission of power, knowledge, and influence); throughout much of recorded history.
Within its origins, 'writing' appeared to have been a divisive technology; challenging the power, and importance—as then perceived—of 'memory' (considering the mythologies of the Mesopotamians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, and Greeks).
My question is:
Concerning recent advances within the study of 'mnemonics' (and similar learning techniques); what importance do you think 'literature' has—connecting perceptions, with memory—as learned, intelligent experience?
My next question:
Narrative, and story—seemingly—have a significant effect, and power upon the human mind, and thought. The origins of recorded communication (of 'art', and 'writing'); appear intimately connected to mythology, and early spiritual, and cultural beliefs—the concept of 'euhemerism'—as can be observed of/evidenced by the Phoenician scribe 'Taautus'; the Egyptian 'Thouth’; the Alexandrian 'Toth'; and the Greek 'Hermes' (the Hellenistic 'Hermes Trismegistos'; or 'Thrice-great Hermes').
My question is:
What significance do you think 'literature' has; within inspiring, moving, and influencing people; and what purpose/function can technology have (in providing 'meaning'); in the facilitation of this?
My next question:
'Language'—seemingly—is a word often associated with 'communication'; whether within conceptual forms ('art', 'literature' etc.); or as external vocalisations; there is often a debate, however, as to whether this is a small facet of what 'language' 'is'; a proposition of the idea/concept that 'language' is a systematic 'processing' of organised (internal) 'thought'; and that external modes of self-expression are an ancillary result, of a more 'fundamental system'.
My question is:
To what extent do you think that external communication is an outgrowth/'by-product' of an evolved (possibly mutated) adaptive cognitive system of the brain; and what importance does 'literature' have (as a learned 'technology'); within affecting thought, and influencing expression?