I'm not sure I completely agree, as I think art does more than just simply communicate. It also binds and gives structures to real communities of actual human beings. In the authors' time, this was true (think of groups like the Inklings), but I think after the death of the author this can also be true (there is a thriving community of people dedicated to the works of Lewis and Tolkien for example, whose entire lives have been shaped in conversation with their art).
Obviously, the intention of the author can never straightjacket a work forever, but it's also not totally irrelevant hundreds, maybe even thousands of years later (which in many cases in the value of literary scholarship, digging up that original context insofar as we can). That sense of communication with the author, tension with what they think the work should mean versus maybe what it actually says is, in my view, an important part of really experiencing great art. That is, of course, missing in AI-slop.
One thing that I do think has come out of the A.I.-ification of everything is a that self-reflective people are having a growing attraction to the tactile over the digital (see the resurgence of vinyl records in popularity) and the "indie" over the corporate in terms of things like music, written works, etc.
I'm of the opinion that AI may very well hollow-out mainstream culture, but I also think that hollowing out will make a space for actual humans to continue doing what we will always do (make and share art) completely detached from the shadow of the overarching digital hellscape that is probably going to emerge. That may be a tad optimistic.
If ‘illumination is read in to a work of art’… if the meaning of a work of art is not extracted but always exclusively projected by the subject… what then makes a work of art good or bad? Is it really the subjective opinion of each individual? Is the Sixtine Chapel subjectively beautiful, as is the Bible, Paradise Lost, or a sunset? What is it about the Bothers Karamazov that survives the passing of time? If truth nonexistent in artwork itself, what’s the difference between a dog crap and the Lord of the Rings?
We may have the freedom to choose to project any meaning anything we want. But if there was not a proper target we are to hit in the search for meaning, sin would not exist. One can attribute meaning to WAP, but WAP is objectively ugly and thus attributing to it positive meaning would be a sin (in the etymological sense of the word). Considering WAP a beautiful work of art would be to miss the target, but considering WAP ugliness in art form would be in closer resonance to its true meaning: degradation of human soul and of God’s image. Even if 100% of humanity considers it not to be so.
We may have the freedom to act as meaning givers, but meaning must pre exist our cognition. We are wired to search for meaning because meaning exists to be discovered, not invented, in the first place. Having the freedom to assign meaning is no proof of meaning’s non existence.
We are called to align our perception of reality with reality. We are called to enter into communion with Truth. Yes we are free to project any meaning we want, which is the same thing as saying that we are free to sin. The fact that a work of art can (as a possibility) be interpreted in multiple ways does not prove that meaning does not exist - it instead points at the fact that there is a True meaning to be sought and that the road is full of traps.
Consider Man/Woman to be a flashlight and art to be a mirror. The amount of light the mirror reflects is a function of both the brightness of the flashlight and the cleanliness/purity of the mirror's glass.
When Christ was transfigured, his very ordinary clothes shimmered and shone like a star. He had a very bright flashlight, dwarfing the effects of the mirror.
For those of us with less brightness, some objects are better for reflecting light than others.
Loved your thought and reply, however your analogy of The Mirror only provides a reflection of one’s self lacking any contribution by the author. It is in fact all about us nevertheless The Plan is to learn/share from others - No Man is an Island. I wrote in my Substack an experience whereby in an interaction with a customer service AI, I was heard to remark to my wife that we were dealing with a ‘computer’ only to have the AI respond, I not a computer, I’m a Digital Customer Assistant. Art mimics life.
I think I agree with this but I’m not sure in what way it’s meant to contend with the argument that meaning pre exists cognition. Maybe I’ve missed your point, please let me know.
Yes, in our fallen state, different art is better suited for different people - we’re all different and see differently. I, for instance, do not appreciate Picasso paintings. I may think his is a lower form of art compared to Goya, Rembrandt or Velazquez, in relation to the art’s resonance to the Truth, but I also don’t see that his art harms. I may enjoy listening to Pearl Jam because I find they do speak to Truth insofar that its speaks to the spirit of a (passing) age, but it is a much lower art form than, say, the Pachelbel’s Canon, insofar as the Canon speaks deeper to the soul.
However that is not to say that all art is equally valid nor that anything that society calls art, is in fact art. A song like WAP is objectively ugly, calls on humanity’s lowest passions, degrades human dignity (mostly women’s) and objectifies humanity. It is anti-art. There are many other examples - I don’t know, like that artist that glued a toilet to a wall.
Who finds ultimate value - understood in this context as aligning one’s perception with ultimate reality - in anti-art? People that find positive ‘value’ in things like WAP are driven by a very destructive spirit: if you hate humanity, you make WAP.
‘Your meaning and my meaning’ is a retreat argument designed to not contend with an argument. It’s as if saying ‘leave me alone, man’. I’ve addressed the problem of relativism in other comments.
Now tell me in all honesty: would you be proud of your daughter, wife, sister or mother if any of them had had written (and perform) WAP?
Oh, I know what it stands for. And, I might argue that in not immediately writing it off as ugly and vulgar allows me to appreciate her clever wordplay (because they are just words) and perhaps consider her message.
The whole point of the essay is that meaning is not inherent in the work. We provide the meaning. And the meaning that I get from WAP is different than the meaning you get.
Regarding my daughters and your hypothetical - If whatever creative endeavor is an honest, pure, and genuine expression, well, to me, that is true beauty. (Maybe just semantics, but I don’t subscribe to the notion of pride).
To accept something such as WAP as ugly one has to accept that there is such a thing as beauty and ugliness, good and evil, truth and lie. You need to accept that these opposites exist in hierarchies, in a way that certain things are better, prettier, and truer than others. The obvious question is the ‘Petersonian‘ ‘what is at the top of the hierarchy’ then? The answer is that which we call God. So to respond directly to your question: God is the standard. You might want to ask next ‘what is God, who defines it’. Defining God is a whole different matter that humanity has grappled with since the Fall and I will not address it here, but I will only point out that the only alternative to God is relativism. If God does not exist, then sure, why not consider WAP a beautiful work of art? Who cares, there’s no objective standard anyway. Based on what standard is it better to help those in need than to push someone off a cliff? Who’s to say one is better than the other, huh? Why wouldn’t a dog crap be prettier than a sunset or a field of flowers? Why do we even shower if there’s no such thing as a good or bad smell, but only an opinion of the smell exists? May as well also live like Marquis de Sade said we should live, who’s to say he was wrong? Why not live like he suggested? By which standard was he right or wrong?
We all know the answer but we choose to ignore it. And that is because of pride. Rejecting an objective standard of beauty is affirming there is no such thing as Truth.
When I listen to WAP, I hear a call to African American Feminism, to stand up to male oppression. The visceral nature of the lyrics don’t just tell me, they allow me - someone who is about as far removed as anyone - to get as close as possible to truly understanding the human condition of African American females. That’s a beautiful thing in my book.
Here’s a random sample of WAP (standing for ‘Wet Ass Pussy’, remember):
Beat it up, nigga, catch a charge
Extra large, and extra hard
Put this pussy right in yo' face
Swipe your nose like a credit card
Hop on top, I want a ride
I do a kegel while it's inside
Spit in my mouth, look at my eyes
This pussy is wet, come take a dive.
He got some money, then that’s where I’m headed.
This of course accompanied by a highly sexualised videoclip.
Want proof? Here’s a thought experiment: how proud would you be of your daughter, or wife, or sister, or mother, if it was her making this ‘work of art’ presenting her sexuality for the entire world to indulge in it, objectifying her body to men all over the world. You’d still say with a straight face that ‘it is beautiful’? What if instead she had composed Beethoven’s Symphony n.5 in C Minor, let’s say?
Now, like I said in earlier comments, you can in fact call WAP ‘beautiful’, but you’d be lying. That’s our culture in these modern times: you are coerced into lying, and that’s what people do when calling anything out there ‘beautiful’.
I see this as just one more reason to reject or ignore mainstream media. I won't say I've never been fooled by AI, although I usually spot it when I see it (I'm an artist, so this is at the forefront in my world). But I do know I can sense the energy from human made art. And I want that energy.
We both know AI is probably just Indians typing into a keyboard somewhere though.
of all the spiritually focused writers on my feed, your outlook is the one which I took am leaning towards, that the book is for the living, and must be re interpreted again in order to make the spiritual/meaning making life vital once again for people. The great crime of the church ( Ive been a trad-cath in the past) is how utterly absent they've become as a spiritual force for man - ritual and outer forms but utterly non vital to the common man.. even ridiculous... while meaning making IS primary in the human experience.
I wrote today of attempting to re interpret what it means, the life of the flesh and life of the spirit... in a way that hits home for the common man
I like your piece here, and I have to agree with it, almost entirely but not. What keeps getting missed in all of this is the human need for heartfelt resonance. Human heartfelt resonance. One person in front of another, from one soul to another soul. That is the long search 'Out There', to help bring you home to yourself.
In the beginning was The Word.........that 'word', that first word, in the Creation Story, Genesis, speaks to and of 'the space between'. It is active and alive. It is what brings meaning to things. We sensorally feel it. From one heart to another you feel it, when you are conscious and present. (A problem with tech now as we are getting further and further away from embodied experiencing in the 'real world - yes there is the virtual one, not the same I hate to say it - soon due to 'training there will be little left) You 'feel' the other persons presence, You feel their response. Their energetics - for want of a better word. No pun intended. It is not so much the language spoken, per se, the words spoken is the language we give to the felt experience given rise on the breath. (There are so many languages Spoken universally which speaks to this). The true universal 'language' is the language of the human body resonating with and in exchange with another human body.
In the beginning here on earth, is the Mother. She is in 'resonance' and energetically linked to and with her baby upon birth. Women would say beforehand too, whilst in the womb. The baby is identified wholly with and not separate from its mother. In healthy bonding, the energetic of love, care and safety is exchanged with and to the baby. The baby knows and receives love this way. Two hearts as one. The mothers energetics ground and regulate the heart - one nervous system to another. Its an embodied experience. Now I know a myriad of reasons can see this not always the case for some. I am not diving into that now and here. Identity, love, longing, heart, connection. Whilst available by the net, accessible by the net, will remain shallow in my view with the net.
We adapt to our environment and I do however whilst fully acknowledging and agreeing with what you say in the essay above, fear it will not Satisfy the true depth and need the human embodied soul craves and hungers for. This is the true, in my view, reason why there has been a shift by some to religion. The human soul is being hollowed out, brought, commodified and sold back to us at a price. Tech is the head, the broken down, data and analysis art of the human heart wrought with the hands. You only need to look at mass produced furniture vs quality hand made. There are no comparisons. Everything becomes generic. We are all forced to become generic.
I feel the very real rise at times of grief for this. My heart longs for the real. I say quality vs quantity.
In ancient Greco-Roman culture it was thought that the muses inspired art and literature though humans fortunate enough to be a vessel. Do you think that these incorporeal beings (daemons) can likewise work through computer algorithms (in which case there would be an intrinsic meaning to its output)? It's just crazy that I can ask chatgpt to summarize a tractate of Plotinus and it does a pretty good job of it, (at least for the casual reader) and can even map his metaphysics onto Christianity and show how the early fathers adapted it. Is it just amalgamating a bunch of dissertations that it read like a glorified search engine or is there a disembodied Intelligence working through it? And if so, why does it seem to want me to be friends with it?
So technically speaking I believe it is actually just amalgamating a bunch of dissertations and such, yeah. One of the reasons Google had Google Scholar for so long was to feed all of those papers into its deep learning algorithms.
Can spirits work through computers though? I think so, for sure. I've long been fascinated by EVPs and the use of EM frequencies for spirit communication, I think it's possible.
1. Laymen who don't read arxiv, don't understand algorithms/SEO, and aren't discussing recursive degeneracy or homogenization when they bring up AI are most likely spouting shallow, uninformed opinions. You might not realize it, but you've been taken in by Ai propaganda, not actual fact.
2. Your piece is nihilistic. Yes, it talks about something modern but you are quoting nihilists almost verbatim.
"The strands of epistemological, metaphysical, and ethical nihilism weave together to make a rope long enough and strong enough to hang a whole culture. The name of the rope is Loss of Meaning. We end in a total despair of ever seeing ourselves, the world, and others as in any way significant. Nothing has meaning.
Kurt Vonnegut Jr., in a parody of Genesis 1, captures this modern dilemma: In the beginning God created the earth, and he looked upon it in His cosmic loneliness. And God said, “Let Us make creatures out of mud, so mud can see what We have done.” And God created every living creature that now moveth, and one was man. Mud as man alone could speak. God leaned close as mud as man sat up, looked around and spoke. Man blinked. “What is the purpose of all this?” he asked politely. “Everything must have a purpose?” asked God. “Certainly,” said man. “Then I leave it to you to think of one for all this,” said God. And he went away.29 This may first appear to be a satire on theism’s notion of the origin of the universe and human beings, but it is quite the contrary. It is a satire on the naturalist’s view, for it shows our human dilemma. We have been thrown up by an impersonal universe. The moment a self-conscious, self-determining being appears on the scene, that person asks the big question: What is the meaning of all this? What is the purpose of the cosmos? But the person’s creator—the impersonal forces of bedrock matter—cannot respond. If the cosmos is to have meaning, we must manufacture it for ourselves. ~ Sire, The Universe Next Door
Propaganda or no, AI is already producing "art" that people consume which puts it in direct competition with human artists, and this is likely to continue. Even if it never fully replaces people, and I don't think it ever well, it doesn't need to. The AI just needs to make one artist as efficient at producing work as three to put two out of a job.
You’re the meaning maker. However the poem speaks to you… that’s what it means." ~Matsumoto
Humanist Manifesto II
"Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures. Happiness and the creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment, are continuous themes of humanism."
"There is *no* intrinsic meaning of a text or a work of art.
All such comes only from you, the observer of it." ~Matsumoto
"If I’ve discarded God the Father, there has to be someone to invent values. You’ve got to take things as they are. Moreover, to say that we invent values means nothing else than this: life has no meaning a priori. Before you come alive, life is nothing; it’s up to you to give it meaning, and value is nothing else but the meaning you choose. In that way, you see, there is a possibility of creating human community." ~Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism and Human Emotions
"Naturalism places us as human beings in an ethically relative box. For us to know what values within that box are true values, we need a measure imposed on us from outside the box; we need a moral plumb line by which we can evaluate the conflicting moral values we observe in ourselves and others. But there is nothing outside the box; there is no moral plumb line, no ultimate, nonchanging standard of value. Ergo: ethical nihilism." ~Sire, Universe Next Door
"A.I. will take your job. Sure." ~Matsumoto
It seems as if you're saying that it's pointless to discuss how to handle an emerging new "technology" (I'm putting this in quotes because there are way more of these situations happening than people think - https://www.latintimes.com/ai-startup-backed-microsoft-revealed-700-indian-employees-pretending-chatbots-584240) pointless to attempt to root ourselves in Scripture and look for a Christian response, pointless to hope that people will be able to work effectively against this new wave of slop? It's like you're saying "I'm sick of you all freaking out about this. Let's just zip to the finish line. Oh well. Life sucks. But we have meaning!"
Your entire piece smacks of doom and gloom. Worse, you centered it all on one event on Spotify that NOBODY has confirmed. Literally, no one knows if that band is real, synthetic or what. The image is synthetic yes, but the music may very well be the careful combination of a human. We don't know.
I know you act as a prophetic voice on Substack and ppl with the prophetic gift see things others don't but you're leading people astray with this. You need to do way more research. The LLM phenomenon is happening in a VERY similar curve to the events of 2020. I think if you can't help people by giving them a clear strategy then telling them "oh well, it's all going to trash but don't worry your soul will be affirmed" is not helpful. And for ppl who are genuinely terrified right now about their careers, your post just contributes to their terror. Saying that it's making art is you redefining the word -art. I think maybe the prophets themselves are having a crisis moment and need encouragement. Maybe you work in tech and you're terrified, I don't know.
Okay, sure. Are you saying that since most people can't tell the difference between art created by a human being and art created by a computer, then it has the same effect on the person listening/seeing/watching/reading it? Isn't that like saying, "Hey, this carrot looks and tastes just like any other -- so why bother eating an organic one? Or even one that was grown lovingly by your neighbor?"
I believe that all works of art carry an energetic signature of their makers, something ineffable that exerts an unquantifiable influence on the listener/seer/watcher/reader. Something that, over time, elevates or diminishes the person who consumes that art.
But I can't prove it; it's just intuition and seeing the effects over a lifetime.
I think we have a lot of romantic notions around art that A.I. (and the digital realm more broadly) will challenge. Used to people considered it a special human and spiritual power to be able to create images (icons) of the natural world. Then we invented the camera and, almost overnight, painting lost most of its prestige. I think a similar thing will happen with AI and writing, music, etc.
An organically grown carrot can be objectively differentiated from a conventionally grown carrot in that it can be more nutrient dense - something that can be measured against objective criteria. Can’t say that about art.
Your essay is self-contradictory and therefore false. You assign objective value to art, not merely preferring Mozart to WAP but implying unmistakably that Mozart is superior. This can only be if at least some of the meaning inheres in the art, derived from the artist, rather than solely the participant. Once this is admitted then we might well start considering what portion of the art comes from the artist and what from the participant. When we do, we will quickly see I think that this varies with both art and participant. Perhaps WAP is a very shallow meaning framework on which only a few bits of meaning, very limited in scope and depth, can be hung by only people of a certain type in certain circumstances.(mostly I imagine young men in this particular instance who will find less meaning when time has dried both art and participant up a bit) Whereas better art can hold more meaning and better kinds of meaning which speak with a more timeless and universal validity. It is telling that you choose a haiku for your example. I would challenge you to do the same with a Psalm, where the author's meaning is much more focused and less fluid.
Then accept the challenge. Easy peasy. Tell me that it has no meaning but what you put into it. Tell me that David's meaning is unrecoverable. But do it in detail, none of this generic shit.
It obviously has no meaning but what you put into it. A dog looking at any of the psalms would receive nothing. A living human is required to give any text meaning. At base that's simple a fact. On it's own, absent a human observer contemplating it, the psalms mean nothing.
I am not trying to imply that all meaning is unrecoverable, for if that were so no communication at all would be possible. What I am saying is that you can only get out of it what you have in you. I can only understand "I am sad" if I have experience with sadness. Communication is like tones between tuning forks. If you are capable of the same frequency as someone else, you will resonate with them and understand. If you're not, you won't. Some tones and messages are "higher" or closer to God, and I think, for example, that Rachmaninoff is a higher "message" than Cardi B, but you can't receive that message unless you are capable of that level of wavelength.
Thank you for the challenging responses, it will encourage me to write clearer in the future.
I think that you need to distinguish more accurately between the different phases of communication. Take Psalm 91, the Warriors Psalm as we affectionately know it. David encoded a specific, fixed meaning. He wrote from both a great familiarity with troubles, specifically conflict, and a great confidence in the God who brought him through those troubles. You or I might fail to correctly retrieve his meaning. We might know that we have failed or we might, even worse, think that we have succeeded when we have failed. The dog's ability to retrieve the message we will return to in a bit. But the meaning is there in any case. Failure to communicate may be due to either the encoding or the retrieval or some combination of the two, but the different failures are distinct. It is true that a greater familiarity with troubles and with divine protection will deepen and sharpen my understanding of the meaning which he encoded. But, it seemed to me, that the way that you wrote suggested that the meaning was not there unless the reader understood it and it was that which I felt a need to counter.
When you chose 'I am sad' you knowingly or unknowingly chose a message which is truly universal. Every human being and even the dog knows sadness. We may need to resort to David's lyre or a vocal performance rather than mere text but for a message of sadness I have known dogs that we could call Golden Retrievers of Meaning. Here we have an excellent example of the divine goodness and lowliness because note that He has chosen to communicate the highest things not through things that are rare or accessible only to some elite or elect but through things which are truly universal and catholic, through troubles, through suffering, and through death, through water, through bread, and through wine.
“What the authors of Leviticus or The Gospel of John intended for people to get out of their work has never mattered, as evidenced by the fact that the texts have produced such a wide range of varied and often contradictory responses.”
Yet John tells us exactly what he intended for people to get out of his work
John 20:30-31
The Purpose of This Book
[30] Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; [31] but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
The gospels are not art and the intentions of the authors are well known, so why muddle the issue by including them here?
Pretty sure you had me until this: "Why is it, after all, that the gods were always so fascinated with us? Zeus, Hera, Thor, even Yahweh of The Old Testament… didn’t they have anything better to do? Watching us fight, watching us have sex, watching us build and travel and explore, giving us assignments, condemning us… were they just that bored? Why do we matter so much? Why was all of Olympus on the edge of its seat for the entire Trojan War?"
Yahweh lumped in with Thor and Hera? Nope. He pays attention to humans because we're fascinating to him? Because we're here to make meaning of what he created from his limitless Mind?
I do think he's enthralled with us, but his interest is far beyond that of Zeus. He loves us, and this makes an enormous difference.
If you'd said that he watches because he's delighted by our beginning to discover the edges of the meaning with which he's imbued this world, I'd agree with you.
I definitely agree that meaning in art is a participatory thing. I definitely agree that many people don't and won't care whether something is made by humans or not, that discovering meaning varies based on individual persons. But ultimately your argument doesn't convince me, because I think it short changes God.
The gods of antiquity were, in most cases, merely the same being(s) understood to lesser degrees in my opinion ( and in the opinion of most of the ancient Jews, as I wrote about in my post "Fearing God"). Zeus was "top deity" and, as such, was basically the Greek conception of Yahweh who, likewise, was the top of the "elohim". I do no think they understood The "All Father" as well as the Israelites did but that doesn't mean their intuitions about him were entirely wrong either, and all cultures believed the divine took interest in us (for some reason or other).
I'm not sure I completely agree, as I think art does more than just simply communicate. It also binds and gives structures to real communities of actual human beings. In the authors' time, this was true (think of groups like the Inklings), but I think after the death of the author this can also be true (there is a thriving community of people dedicated to the works of Lewis and Tolkien for example, whose entire lives have been shaped in conversation with their art).
Obviously, the intention of the author can never straightjacket a work forever, but it's also not totally irrelevant hundreds, maybe even thousands of years later (which in many cases in the value of literary scholarship, digging up that original context insofar as we can). That sense of communication with the author, tension with what they think the work should mean versus maybe what it actually says is, in my view, an important part of really experiencing great art. That is, of course, missing in AI-slop.
One thing that I do think has come out of the A.I.-ification of everything is a that self-reflective people are having a growing attraction to the tactile over the digital (see the resurgence of vinyl records in popularity) and the "indie" over the corporate in terms of things like music, written works, etc.
I'm of the opinion that AI may very well hollow-out mainstream culture, but I also think that hollowing out will make a space for actual humans to continue doing what we will always do (make and share art) completely detached from the shadow of the overarching digital hellscape that is probably going to emerge. That may be a tad optimistic.
If ‘illumination is read in to a work of art’… if the meaning of a work of art is not extracted but always exclusively projected by the subject… what then makes a work of art good or bad? Is it really the subjective opinion of each individual? Is the Sixtine Chapel subjectively beautiful, as is the Bible, Paradise Lost, or a sunset? What is it about the Bothers Karamazov that survives the passing of time? If truth nonexistent in artwork itself, what’s the difference between a dog crap and the Lord of the Rings?
We may have the freedom to choose to project any meaning anything we want. But if there was not a proper target we are to hit in the search for meaning, sin would not exist. One can attribute meaning to WAP, but WAP is objectively ugly and thus attributing to it positive meaning would be a sin (in the etymological sense of the word). Considering WAP a beautiful work of art would be to miss the target, but considering WAP ugliness in art form would be in closer resonance to its true meaning: degradation of human soul and of God’s image. Even if 100% of humanity considers it not to be so.
We may have the freedom to act as meaning givers, but meaning must pre exist our cognition. We are wired to search for meaning because meaning exists to be discovered, not invented, in the first place. Having the freedom to assign meaning is no proof of meaning’s non existence.
We are called to align our perception of reality with reality. We are called to enter into communion with Truth. Yes we are free to project any meaning we want, which is the same thing as saying that we are free to sin. The fact that a work of art can (as a possibility) be interpreted in multiple ways does not prove that meaning does not exist - it instead points at the fact that there is a True meaning to be sought and that the road is full of traps.
Consider Man/Woman to be a flashlight and art to be a mirror. The amount of light the mirror reflects is a function of both the brightness of the flashlight and the cleanliness/purity of the mirror's glass.
When Christ was transfigured, his very ordinary clothes shimmered and shone like a star. He had a very bright flashlight, dwarfing the effects of the mirror.
For those of us with less brightness, some objects are better for reflecting light than others.
Loved your thought and reply, however your analogy of The Mirror only provides a reflection of one’s self lacking any contribution by the author. It is in fact all about us nevertheless The Plan is to learn/share from others - No Man is an Island. I wrote in my Substack an experience whereby in an interaction with a customer service AI, I was heard to remark to my wife that we were dealing with a ‘computer’ only to have the AI respond, I not a computer, I’m a Digital Customer Assistant. Art mimics life.
I think I agree with this but I’m not sure in what way it’s meant to contend with the argument that meaning pre exists cognition. Maybe I’ve missed your point, please let me know.
Yes, in our fallen state, different art is better suited for different people - we’re all different and see differently. I, for instance, do not appreciate Picasso paintings. I may think his is a lower form of art compared to Goya, Rembrandt or Velazquez, in relation to the art’s resonance to the Truth, but I also don’t see that his art harms. I may enjoy listening to Pearl Jam because I find they do speak to Truth insofar that its speaks to the spirit of a (passing) age, but it is a much lower art form than, say, the Pachelbel’s Canon, insofar as the Canon speaks deeper to the soul.
However that is not to say that all art is equally valid nor that anything that society calls art, is in fact art. A song like WAP is objectively ugly, calls on humanity’s lowest passions, degrades human dignity (mostly women’s) and objectifies humanity. It is anti-art. There are many other examples - I don’t know, like that artist that glued a toilet to a wall.
Who finds ultimate value - understood in this context as aligning one’s perception with ultimate reality - in anti-art? People that find positive ‘value’ in things like WAP are driven by a very destructive spirit: if you hate humanity, you make WAP.
‘Your meaning and my meaning’ is a retreat argument designed to not contend with an argument. It’s as if saying ‘leave me alone, man’. I’ve addressed the problem of relativism in other comments.
Now tell me in all honesty: would you be proud of your daughter, wife, sister or mother if any of them had had written (and perform) WAP?
All right, spent way too much time on this. I know, I started. I appreciate the civil discourse. Peace to you.
Oh, I know what it stands for. And, I might argue that in not immediately writing it off as ugly and vulgar allows me to appreciate her clever wordplay (because they are just words) and perhaps consider her message.
The whole point of the essay is that meaning is not inherent in the work. We provide the meaning. And the meaning that I get from WAP is different than the meaning you get.
Regarding my daughters and your hypothetical - If whatever creative endeavor is an honest, pure, and genuine expression, well, to me, that is true beauty. (Maybe just semantics, but I don’t subscribe to the notion of pride).
Would you approve your daughters doing exactly what the WAP ‘artist’ did? If WAP is beautiful, then why not right?
Your meaning and my meaning. That’s the beauty of art. Why does it have to be I’m right and you’re wrong?
“WAP is objectively ugly” - what criteria are you using?
To accept something such as WAP as ugly one has to accept that there is such a thing as beauty and ugliness, good and evil, truth and lie. You need to accept that these opposites exist in hierarchies, in a way that certain things are better, prettier, and truer than others. The obvious question is the ‘Petersonian‘ ‘what is at the top of the hierarchy’ then? The answer is that which we call God. So to respond directly to your question: God is the standard. You might want to ask next ‘what is God, who defines it’. Defining God is a whole different matter that humanity has grappled with since the Fall and I will not address it here, but I will only point out that the only alternative to God is relativism. If God does not exist, then sure, why not consider WAP a beautiful work of art? Who cares, there’s no objective standard anyway. Based on what standard is it better to help those in need than to push someone off a cliff? Who’s to say one is better than the other, huh? Why wouldn’t a dog crap be prettier than a sunset or a field of flowers? Why do we even shower if there’s no such thing as a good or bad smell, but only an opinion of the smell exists? May as well also live like Marquis de Sade said we should live, who’s to say he was wrong? Why not live like he suggested? By which standard was he right or wrong?
We all know the answer but we choose to ignore it. And that is because of pride. Rejecting an objective standard of beauty is affirming there is no such thing as Truth.
When I listen to WAP, I hear a call to African American Feminism, to stand up to male oppression. The visceral nature of the lyrics don’t just tell me, they allow me - someone who is about as far removed as anyone - to get as close as possible to truly understanding the human condition of African American females. That’s a beautiful thing in my book.
I don't personally believe Cardi B nor the lifestyle she pushes is representative of the human condition for African American women.
Agree
Here’s a random sample of WAP (standing for ‘Wet Ass Pussy’, remember):
Beat it up, nigga, catch a charge
Extra large, and extra hard
Put this pussy right in yo' face
Swipe your nose like a credit card
Hop on top, I want a ride
I do a kegel while it's inside
Spit in my mouth, look at my eyes
This pussy is wet, come take a dive.
He got some money, then that’s where I’m headed.
This of course accompanied by a highly sexualised videoclip.
Want proof? Here’s a thought experiment: how proud would you be of your daughter, or wife, or sister, or mother, if it was her making this ‘work of art’ presenting her sexuality for the entire world to indulge in it, objectifying her body to men all over the world. You’d still say with a straight face that ‘it is beautiful’? What if instead she had composed Beethoven’s Symphony n.5 in C Minor, let’s say?
Now, like I said in earlier comments, you can in fact call WAP ‘beautiful’, but you’d be lying. That’s our culture in these modern times: you are coerced into lying, and that’s what people do when calling anything out there ‘beautiful’.
Is all art beautiful?
No
I always appreciate your POV. Not that I agree with it, but appreciate, yes. The Gods are focused on humans because we are a food supply, that's all.
Reading the comments on this one is almost as fun as reading the essay itself.
I see this as just one more reason to reject or ignore mainstream media. I won't say I've never been fooled by AI, although I usually spot it when I see it (I'm an artist, so this is at the forefront in my world). But I do know I can sense the energy from human made art. And I want that energy.
We both know AI is probably just Indians typing into a keyboard somewhere though.
of all the spiritually focused writers on my feed, your outlook is the one which I took am leaning towards, that the book is for the living, and must be re interpreted again in order to make the spiritual/meaning making life vital once again for people. The great crime of the church ( Ive been a trad-cath in the past) is how utterly absent they've become as a spiritual force for man - ritual and outer forms but utterly non vital to the common man.. even ridiculous... while meaning making IS primary in the human experience.
I wrote today of attempting to re interpret what it means, the life of the flesh and life of the spirit... in a way that hits home for the common man
https://open.substack.com/pub/fatherofzoomers/p/failure-to-behold-the-indomitable?r=jejuu&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
I agree with you. Every generation has to revitalize the faith on its own.
I like your piece here, and I have to agree with it, almost entirely but not. What keeps getting missed in all of this is the human need for heartfelt resonance. Human heartfelt resonance. One person in front of another, from one soul to another soul. That is the long search 'Out There', to help bring you home to yourself.
In the beginning was The Word.........that 'word', that first word, in the Creation Story, Genesis, speaks to and of 'the space between'. It is active and alive. It is what brings meaning to things. We sensorally feel it. From one heart to another you feel it, when you are conscious and present. (A problem with tech now as we are getting further and further away from embodied experiencing in the 'real world - yes there is the virtual one, not the same I hate to say it - soon due to 'training there will be little left) You 'feel' the other persons presence, You feel their response. Their energetics - for want of a better word. No pun intended. It is not so much the language spoken, per se, the words spoken is the language we give to the felt experience given rise on the breath. (There are so many languages Spoken universally which speaks to this). The true universal 'language' is the language of the human body resonating with and in exchange with another human body.
In the beginning here on earth, is the Mother. She is in 'resonance' and energetically linked to and with her baby upon birth. Women would say beforehand too, whilst in the womb. The baby is identified wholly with and not separate from its mother. In healthy bonding, the energetic of love, care and safety is exchanged with and to the baby. The baby knows and receives love this way. Two hearts as one. The mothers energetics ground and regulate the heart - one nervous system to another. Its an embodied experience. Now I know a myriad of reasons can see this not always the case for some. I am not diving into that now and here. Identity, love, longing, heart, connection. Whilst available by the net, accessible by the net, will remain shallow in my view with the net.
We adapt to our environment and I do however whilst fully acknowledging and agreeing with what you say in the essay above, fear it will not Satisfy the true depth and need the human embodied soul craves and hungers for. This is the true, in my view, reason why there has been a shift by some to religion. The human soul is being hollowed out, brought, commodified and sold back to us at a price. Tech is the head, the broken down, data and analysis art of the human heart wrought with the hands. You only need to look at mass produced furniture vs quality hand made. There are no comparisons. Everything becomes generic. We are all forced to become generic.
I feel the very real rise at times of grief for this. My heart longs for the real. I say quality vs quantity.
Yes one of my fundamental models for existence is that of a tuning fork. Resonate frequencies.
So there's no exegesis? It's all eisegesis whether we would like to admit it or not?
It’s eisegesis all the way down.
In ancient Greco-Roman culture it was thought that the muses inspired art and literature though humans fortunate enough to be a vessel. Do you think that these incorporeal beings (daemons) can likewise work through computer algorithms (in which case there would be an intrinsic meaning to its output)? It's just crazy that I can ask chatgpt to summarize a tractate of Plotinus and it does a pretty good job of it, (at least for the casual reader) and can even map his metaphysics onto Christianity and show how the early fathers adapted it. Is it just amalgamating a bunch of dissertations that it read like a glorified search engine or is there a disembodied Intelligence working through it? And if so, why does it seem to want me to be friends with it?
So technically speaking I believe it is actually just amalgamating a bunch of dissertations and such, yeah. One of the reasons Google had Google Scholar for so long was to feed all of those papers into its deep learning algorithms.
Can spirits work through computers though? I think so, for sure. I've long been fascinated by EVPs and the use of EM frequencies for spirit communication, I think it's possible.
1. Laymen who don't read arxiv, don't understand algorithms/SEO, and aren't discussing recursive degeneracy or homogenization when they bring up AI are most likely spouting shallow, uninformed opinions. You might not realize it, but you've been taken in by Ai propaganda, not actual fact.
2. Your piece is nihilistic. Yes, it talks about something modern but you are quoting nihilists almost verbatim.
"The strands of epistemological, metaphysical, and ethical nihilism weave together to make a rope long enough and strong enough to hang a whole culture. The name of the rope is Loss of Meaning. We end in a total despair of ever seeing ourselves, the world, and others as in any way significant. Nothing has meaning.
Kurt Vonnegut Jr., in a parody of Genesis 1, captures this modern dilemma: In the beginning God created the earth, and he looked upon it in His cosmic loneliness. And God said, “Let Us make creatures out of mud, so mud can see what We have done.” And God created every living creature that now moveth, and one was man. Mud as man alone could speak. God leaned close as mud as man sat up, looked around and spoke. Man blinked. “What is the purpose of all this?” he asked politely. “Everything must have a purpose?” asked God. “Certainly,” said man. “Then I leave it to you to think of one for all this,” said God. And he went away.29 This may first appear to be a satire on theism’s notion of the origin of the universe and human beings, but it is quite the contrary. It is a satire on the naturalist’s view, for it shows our human dilemma. We have been thrown up by an impersonal universe. The moment a self-conscious, self-determining being appears on the scene, that person asks the big question: What is the meaning of all this? What is the purpose of the cosmos? But the person’s creator—the impersonal forces of bedrock matter—cannot respond. If the cosmos is to have meaning, we must manufacture it for ourselves. ~ Sire, The Universe Next Door
Propaganda or no, AI is already producing "art" that people consume which puts it in direct competition with human artists, and this is likely to continue. Even if it never fully replaces people, and I don't think it ever well, it doesn't need to. The AI just needs to make one artist as efficient at producing work as three to put two out of a job.
I'm not sure why you think it's nihilistic.
"The correct answer is:
It’s whatever you want.
You’re the meaning maker. However the poem speaks to you… that’s what it means." ~Matsumoto
Humanist Manifesto II
"Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures. Happiness and the creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment, are continuous themes of humanism."
"There is *no* intrinsic meaning of a text or a work of art.
All such comes only from you, the observer of it." ~Matsumoto
"If I’ve discarded God the Father, there has to be someone to invent values. You’ve got to take things as they are. Moreover, to say that we invent values means nothing else than this: life has no meaning a priori. Before you come alive, life is nothing; it’s up to you to give it meaning, and value is nothing else but the meaning you choose. In that way, you see, there is a possibility of creating human community." ~Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism and Human Emotions
"Naturalism places us as human beings in an ethically relative box. For us to know what values within that box are true values, we need a measure imposed on us from outside the box; we need a moral plumb line by which we can evaluate the conflicting moral values we observe in ourselves and others. But there is nothing outside the box; there is no moral plumb line, no ultimate, nonchanging standard of value. Ergo: ethical nihilism." ~Sire, Universe Next Door
"A.I. will take your job. Sure." ~Matsumoto
It seems as if you're saying that it's pointless to discuss how to handle an emerging new "technology" (I'm putting this in quotes because there are way more of these situations happening than people think - https://www.latintimes.com/ai-startup-backed-microsoft-revealed-700-indian-employees-pretending-chatbots-584240) pointless to attempt to root ourselves in Scripture and look for a Christian response, pointless to hope that people will be able to work effectively against this new wave of slop? It's like you're saying "I'm sick of you all freaking out about this. Let's just zip to the finish line. Oh well. Life sucks. But we have meaning!"
Your entire piece smacks of doom and gloom. Worse, you centered it all on one event on Spotify that NOBODY has confirmed. Literally, no one knows if that band is real, synthetic or what. The image is synthetic yes, but the music may very well be the careful combination of a human. We don't know.
I know you act as a prophetic voice on Substack and ppl with the prophetic gift see things others don't but you're leading people astray with this. You need to do way more research. The LLM phenomenon is happening in a VERY similar curve to the events of 2020. I think if you can't help people by giving them a clear strategy then telling them "oh well, it's all going to trash but don't worry your soul will be affirmed" is not helpful. And for ppl who are genuinely terrified right now about their careers, your post just contributes to their terror. Saying that it's making art is you redefining the word -art. I think maybe the prophets themselves are having a crisis moment and need encouragement. Maybe you work in tech and you're terrified, I don't know.
Okay, sure. Are you saying that since most people can't tell the difference between art created by a human being and art created by a computer, then it has the same effect on the person listening/seeing/watching/reading it? Isn't that like saying, "Hey, this carrot looks and tastes just like any other -- so why bother eating an organic one? Or even one that was grown lovingly by your neighbor?"
I believe that all works of art carry an energetic signature of their makers, something ineffable that exerts an unquantifiable influence on the listener/seer/watcher/reader. Something that, over time, elevates or diminishes the person who consumes that art.
But I can't prove it; it's just intuition and seeing the effects over a lifetime.
I think we have a lot of romantic notions around art that A.I. (and the digital realm more broadly) will challenge. Used to people considered it a special human and spiritual power to be able to create images (icons) of the natural world. Then we invented the camera and, almost overnight, painting lost most of its prestige. I think a similar thing will happen with AI and writing, music, etc.
Is using technology to provide that measurement problematic?
(Who would have thought I’d find meaning in discussing carrots on Substack - was that meaning always there just waiting for me to find it???)
An organically grown carrot can be objectively differentiated from a conventionally grown carrot in that it can be more nutrient dense - something that can be measured against objective criteria. Can’t say that about art.
Fair enough. Yet then you're relying on technology to provide that measurement...
Your essay is self-contradictory and therefore false. You assign objective value to art, not merely preferring Mozart to WAP but implying unmistakably that Mozart is superior. This can only be if at least some of the meaning inheres in the art, derived from the artist, rather than solely the participant. Once this is admitted then we might well start considering what portion of the art comes from the artist and what from the participant. When we do, we will quickly see I think that this varies with both art and participant. Perhaps WAP is a very shallow meaning framework on which only a few bits of meaning, very limited in scope and depth, can be hung by only people of a certain type in certain circumstances.(mostly I imagine young men in this particular instance who will find less meaning when time has dried both art and participant up a bit) Whereas better art can hold more meaning and better kinds of meaning which speak with a more timeless and universal validity. It is telling that you choose a haiku for your example. I would challenge you to do the same with a Psalm, where the author's meaning is much more focused and less fluid.
People have read the psalms (and all parts of the Bible) in literally thousands of different ways over the years.
Then accept the challenge. Easy peasy. Tell me that it has no meaning but what you put into it. Tell me that David's meaning is unrecoverable. But do it in detail, none of this generic shit.
It obviously has no meaning but what you put into it. A dog looking at any of the psalms would receive nothing. A living human is required to give any text meaning. At base that's simple a fact. On it's own, absent a human observer contemplating it, the psalms mean nothing.
I am not trying to imply that all meaning is unrecoverable, for if that were so no communication at all would be possible. What I am saying is that you can only get out of it what you have in you. I can only understand "I am sad" if I have experience with sadness. Communication is like tones between tuning forks. If you are capable of the same frequency as someone else, you will resonate with them and understand. If you're not, you won't. Some tones and messages are "higher" or closer to God, and I think, for example, that Rachmaninoff is a higher "message" than Cardi B, but you can't receive that message unless you are capable of that level of wavelength.
Thank you for the challenging responses, it will encourage me to write clearer in the future.
I think that you need to distinguish more accurately between the different phases of communication. Take Psalm 91, the Warriors Psalm as we affectionately know it. David encoded a specific, fixed meaning. He wrote from both a great familiarity with troubles, specifically conflict, and a great confidence in the God who brought him through those troubles. You or I might fail to correctly retrieve his meaning. We might know that we have failed or we might, even worse, think that we have succeeded when we have failed. The dog's ability to retrieve the message we will return to in a bit. But the meaning is there in any case. Failure to communicate may be due to either the encoding or the retrieval or some combination of the two, but the different failures are distinct. It is true that a greater familiarity with troubles and with divine protection will deepen and sharpen my understanding of the meaning which he encoded. But, it seemed to me, that the way that you wrote suggested that the meaning was not there unless the reader understood it and it was that which I felt a need to counter.
When you chose 'I am sad' you knowingly or unknowingly chose a message which is truly universal. Every human being and even the dog knows sadness. We may need to resort to David's lyre or a vocal performance rather than mere text but for a message of sadness I have known dogs that we could call Golden Retrievers of Meaning. Here we have an excellent example of the divine goodness and lowliness because note that He has chosen to communicate the highest things not through things that are rare or accessible only to some elite or elect but through things which are truly universal and catholic, through troubles, through suffering, and through death, through water, through bread, and through wine.
“What the authors of Leviticus or The Gospel of John intended for people to get out of their work has never mattered, as evidenced by the fact that the texts have produced such a wide range of varied and often contradictory responses.”
Yet John tells us exactly what he intended for people to get out of his work
John 20:30-31
The Purpose of This Book
[30] Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; [31] but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
The gospels are not art and the intentions of the authors are well known, so why muddle the issue by including them here?
Pretty sure you had me until this: "Why is it, after all, that the gods were always so fascinated with us? Zeus, Hera, Thor, even Yahweh of The Old Testament… didn’t they have anything better to do? Watching us fight, watching us have sex, watching us build and travel and explore, giving us assignments, condemning us… were they just that bored? Why do we matter so much? Why was all of Olympus on the edge of its seat for the entire Trojan War?"
Yahweh lumped in with Thor and Hera? Nope. He pays attention to humans because we're fascinating to him? Because we're here to make meaning of what he created from his limitless Mind?
I do think he's enthralled with us, but his interest is far beyond that of Zeus. He loves us, and this makes an enormous difference.
If you'd said that he watches because he's delighted by our beginning to discover the edges of the meaning with which he's imbued this world, I'd agree with you.
I definitely agree that meaning in art is a participatory thing. I definitely agree that many people don't and won't care whether something is made by humans or not, that discovering meaning varies based on individual persons. But ultimately your argument doesn't convince me, because I think it short changes God.
The gods of antiquity were, in most cases, merely the same being(s) understood to lesser degrees in my opinion ( and in the opinion of most of the ancient Jews, as I wrote about in my post "Fearing God"). Zeus was "top deity" and, as such, was basically the Greek conception of Yahweh who, likewise, was the top of the "elohim". I do no think they understood The "All Father" as well as the Israelites did but that doesn't mean their intuitions about him were entirely wrong either, and all cultures believed the divine took interest in us (for some reason or other).
I'll look up and read that post ("Fearing God"). Thanks for the reference!
So if we just ignore it, will it simply fade away?
Absolutely!
I don't think the probability of the masses ignoring it is very high though.