Negative capability

[Nearly Sane]

I was making a joke in another house using negative capability and remembered that I have always struggled with whether it actually has meaning, thoughts?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_capability

[wigginhall]

I was making a joke in another house using negative capability and remembered that I have always struggled with whether it actually has meaning, thoughts?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_capability

It is very vague, although I suppose Keats meant a kind of creative uncertainty.   It's strange, that two areas that I have been interested in, both use it - psychoanalysis and Zen.   In both of them, it seems to mean not knowing, seen positively.   I think it can be discerned in some postmodern movements as well, e.g. in art criticism. 

[Nearly Sane]

It is very vague, although I suppose Keats meant a kind of creative uncertainty.   It's strange, that two areas that I have been interested in, both use it - psychoanalysis and Zen.   In both of them, it seems to mean not knowing, seen positively.   I think it can be discerned in some postmodern movements as well, e.g. in art criticism.

Ah, yes , I can see that, Keats as a prepostmodernist. I suppose part of my struggle with it is that it seems so uncontroversial. It seems hard to think of poetry as having an objective side but there is certainly a strain of rationalism in the arts prior to Keats that runs through a lot of Victorian poetry as well.

[wigginhall]

Ah, yes , I can see that, Keats as a prepostmodernist. I suppose part of my struggle with it is that it seems so uncontroversial. It seems hard to think of poetry as having an objective side but there is certainly a strain of rationalism in the arts prior to Keats that runs through a lot of Victorian poetry as well.

It made me think of Blake as well, who ranted about Newtonian rationalism, which he seemed to think made people blind to aesthetic stuff.   Not necessarily true.

A nice example in art is Pollock, whose drip paintings seem to exploit the unconscious, although I don't really know much about him.   I guess that's an advantage!

[Nearly Sane]

It made me think of Blake as well, who ranted about Newtonian rationalism, which he seemed to think made people blind to aesthetic stuff.   Not necessarily true.

A nice example in art is Pollock, whose drip paintings seem to exploit the unconscious, although I don't really know much about him.   I guess that's an advantage!

I sometimes think there are echoes on here with Vlad's emphasis on experience and existentialism. Many theists go down the this is true because I can (or so they believe) make a rational argument for god. It seems like a disjunct to me as you end up with a god based on small things. Perhaps my worshipping the great god, uncertainty is merely me being a Keatsian.

[wigginhall]

I sometimes think there are echoes on here with Vlad's emphasis on experience and existentialism. Many theists go down the this is true because I can (or so they believe) make a rational argument for god. It seems like a disjunct to me as you end up with a god based on small things. Perhaps my worshipping the great god, uncertainty is merely me being a Keatsian.

Well, there is that whole tradition of negative theology, which seems to have got lost today, for some reason.   Well, Zen goes down the route of not knowing, if that can be called a route.  If you keep going with Zen, you often end up in a kind of barren place, without a clue.   OK, your teacher will be full of praise!  But Christianity seemed to end up disliking this, as if it had absorbed positivism into its blood stream.   (That's a guess).

Nice not to talk about Brexit!

[Nearly Sane]

Well, there is that whole tradition of negative theology, which seems to have got lost today, for some reason.   Well, Zen goes down the route of not knowing, if that can be called a route.  If you keep going with Zen, you often end up in a kind of barren place, without a clue.   OK, your teacher will be full of praise!  But Christianity seemed to end up disliking this, as if it had absorbed positivism into its blood stream.   (That's a guess).

Nice not to talk about Brexit!

I suppose a god of objectivity will always be an agent against any form of relativism. Oddly though you often see some theists going down the routes of objectivity and relativism at the same time. The whole use of 'quantum' not so much ad an argument more a cri de coeur that if no one knows anything then my thing might be true and therefore is true.

Weirdly this often appears in claims that science is not about truth and yet words and writing only have single decipherable meanings that are true for all time. They take the area where postmodernism is weakest and proclaim its victory, and where it is strongest act like it does not exist. Keats' negative capability is surely a better place for them to move to rather than the bizarre Platonic ideal language that they pursue.

[wigginhall]

I suppose a god of objectivity will always be an agent against any form of relativism. Oddly though you often see some theists going down the routes of objectivity and relativism at the same time. The whole use of 'quantum' not so much ad an argument more a cri de coeur that if no one knows anything then my thing might be true and therefore is true.

Weirdly this often appears in claims that science is not about truth and yet words and writing only have single decipherable meanings that are true for all time. They take the area where postmodernism is weakest and proclaim its victory, and where it is strongest act like it does not exist. Keats' negative capability is surely a better place for them to move to rather than the bizarre Platonic ideal language that they pursue.

Bloody hell, mate, there's a Ph. D. in that for somebody.   Any offers?

[Nearly Sane]

Bloody hell, mate, there's a Ph. D. in that for somebody.   Any offers?

To an extent, but only an extent they are matched by the whole 'prove the supernatural schtick' that some come out with, say for example the Randi challenge, which is merely a challenge to be fooled. To win the putative million dollars, one needs only to be as Arthur C Clarke's sufficiently advanced race.


It's why so much of what I have pursued on the board in last few years has been about the methodology of the claim. To be honest, I've stopped participating in such arguments because I don't think the point is ever properly addressed, but also because too many on the 'isn't science wonderful' position cite the various studies on interventionary prayer as if a naturally method could tell you anything about claims of the supernatural. You can prove specific measurable claims on numbers by supernaturalists as wrong but not the supernatural itself because the method assumes naturalism.

[Dicky Underpants]

It is very vague, although I suppose Keats meant a kind of creative uncertainty.   It's strange, that two areas that I have been interested in, both use it - psychoanalysis and Zen.   In both of them, it seems to mean not knowing, seen positively.   I think it can be discerned in some postmodern movements as well, e.g. in art criticism.

I wonder, was it ever used before Keats? I think Philip Pullman alludes to the concept in 'His Dark Materials' - where it seems to refer to achieving a very subtle result by not sweatily striving for it with all muscles and sharp focussed consciousness at their maximum intensity, but by relaxing one's awareness, pulling back and allowing one's intuitions to work, whilst still allowing a point of focus (Pullman elaborates on this in 'The Subtle Knife' part, I think)

[Dicky Underpants]

Well, there is that whole tradition of negative theology, which seems to have got lost today, for some reason.   Well, Zen goes down the route of not knowing, if that can be called a route.  If you keep going with Zen, you often end up in a kind of barren place, without a clue.   OK, your teacher will be full of praise!  But Christianity seemed to end up disliking this, as if it had absorbed positivism into its blood stream.   (That's a guess).

Nice not to talk about Brexit!

wiggi

With reference to Zen, Z Archery would seem to be a demonstration of the N.C. thing. Old Eugen Herrigel struggled for years to get to the point where he could say of his arrow "It shot". He ended up a convinced Nazi, so perhaps one should beware.
Anyway, Koestler demolished the psycho-physiological aspects of all this. He said such matters were more simply explained by the idea of continually training the 'robotic' part of consciousness, until it does all the work for you, except the final moment of focussing. A more everyday example would be learning to touch-type. A more sophisticated example would be practising the piano to concert standard. The pianist learns the 'mechanics' until they are automatic, and then, at the performance, can allow his mind to expand into areas of emotion and interpretation in general.

[Dicky Underpants]

It made me think of Blake as well, who ranted about Newtonian rationalism, which he seemed to think made people blind to aesthetic stuff.   Not necessarily true.

A nice example in art is Pollock, whose drip paintings seem to exploit the unconscious, although I don't really know much about him.   I guess that's an advantage!

I wonder just how anti-Urizen Blake was, though. He may have thought that Newtonian rationalism was destructive because of its dominance in Enlightenment thought (or European thought in general). But I get the feeling he acknowledged that old Urizen still had to be granted his place. After all, his use of chemicals in his engraving required a fair degree of rationalist thinking (albeit his writing of such processes in extravagantly romantic ways).
Would that Jackson Bollocks had employed a bit more Urizen and a little less urine.

[wigginhall]

Good examples, Dicky.   Sport used to fascinate me in this regard, since one can train like mad, yet that moment of improvisation seems to spring from a part of oneself that is somehow unknown.    You see footballers do something surprising, and often say they don't know how they did it.   I was the same with darts, after about 6 pints, I could hit any part of the board, I think that's relaxation.   We used to call it Inner Getting Pissed. 

[Dicky Underpants]

I sometimes think there are echoes on here with Vlad's emphasis on experience and existentialism. Many theists go down the this is true because I can (or so they believe) make a rational argument for god. It seems like a disjunct to me as you end up with a god based on small things. Perhaps my worshipping the great god, uncertainty is merely me being a Keatsian.

The trouble with Vlad's emphasis on experience and existentialism is that it seems to me pathetically limited (don't want to go on too much about the latter, but it seems to me that his mind was experiencing the 'locked microscope effect' as a result of a too rationalistic approach to life, and that when he 'let go' he suddenly had an immense sense of relief, as his unconscious mind was allowed a little freedom). That's a very binary approach (if this hypothesis has anything going for it), but it may go some say to explain things like St Paul's conversion, when he realised that there was a way to be free of the restrictions of Jewish law.
However, there are many "Varieties of Religious Experience" (good book), and though all of them may be a wild goose chase, it does help to have investigated a few other religious traditions before you start sounding off about ultimate truth (good on yer, wiggi - the board's best phenomenologist, along with NS).

[Dicky Underpants]

Weirdly this often appears in claims that science is not about truth and yet words and writing only have single decipherable meanings that are true for all time. They take the area where postmodernism is weakest and proclaim its victory, and where it is strongest act like it does not exist. Keats' negative capability is surely a better place for them to move to rather than the bizarre Platonic ideal language that they pursue.

I've been pondering this, and trying to identify the main culprits. I certainly accept that quite a few of the evangelical/fundamentalist persuasion try to reduce the whole of scientific paradigms and its corpus of knowledge to the realm of 'hypothesis', as if the scientific method were non-existent. Where words and writing are concerned, the approach seems to me more varied: the fundamentalists will stick by single decipherable meanings until they find an example of inexplicable contradiction in the 'inerrant' text, in which case the whole apparatus of their variety of Biblical exegesis will be brought into operation to explain away the contradiction. Others take a half-way house, accepting certain aspects of scientific findings as now irrefutably proven (such as the age if the earth, and the idea of vast periods of geological time), whilst utterly refusing to accept the idea of continual evolutionary change, and insisting on the absolute distinction of mankind from the rest of natural species.

Then there's the approach of such as Hope*, who will attempt to justify the idea of an 'Inspired Bible' by urging us to consider how certain ideas and concepts were employed in the time of the ancient Hebrews etc - this allows a little more wiggle room. Indeed it seems quite a laudable approach, except of course we can never know for certain quite how the ancient Hebrews viewed certain ideas and concepts or what they may have meant by a number of inscrutable words, and many interpretations are possible. Added to which, each particular prophet may have used certain words in a somewhat different way to another, and the redactors of the most ancient texts may have given a different gloss to many passages etc etc.

*No names, no pack drill, guv'nor.

[Dicky Underpants]

Good examples, Dicky.   Sport used to fascinate me in this regard, since one can train like mad, yet that moment of improvisation seems to spring from a part of oneself that is somehow unknown.    You see footballers do something surprising, and often say they don't know how they did it.   I was the same with darts, after about 6 pints, I could hit any part of the board, I think that's relaxation.   We used to call it Inner Getting Pissed.

In the past I've occasionally tried to analyse the various processes which might be involved in all this. I think the training of Koestler's 'robot' is important, along with a degree of conscious focussing. But the third element is, as you say, that 'something else'. I think Koestler's beef with Zen is that the pundits were continually confusing two things - trying to pretend that the training of the 'robot' was of no consequence, and trying to leave everything to that mystical 'something else'.

[Steve H]

I wonder, was it ever used before Keats? I think Philip Pullman alludes to the concept in 'His Dark Materials' - where it seems to refer to achieving a very subtle result by not sweatily striving for it with all muscles and sharp focussed consciousness at their maximum intensity, but by relaxing one's awareness, pulling back and allowing one's intuitions to work, whilst still allowing a point of focus (Pullman elaborates on this in 'The Subtle Knife' part, I think)

Keats coined the phrase "negative capability", but I'm sure the idea existed before him.  I think it's part of romanticism: the Augustans would be the rationalists, always striving after certainty.