American Impressionism: Representing the Western Ideal

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

On the 10th of July, 2017, I had the pleasure of attending a talk on American Impressionism at the American Museum of Western Art in Denver, Colorado, and to view their impressive (pun intended) Anschutz Collection of works. The experience gave me much to think about, including but not limited to the differences between American and French Impressionism, both in terms of style and purpose, and how impressionism uniquely fulfills the purpose of art more generally. As a philosophizer with an interest in aesthetics, rather than as an artist, I naturally am more inclined to discuss purpose than I am style and technique, though those things are not mutually exclusive.

fffe1e42c2bf6c51c589541cca7f1303

On the Critique of Art

It is an interesting thing that philosophers do in discussing meaning and purpose of art. One symptom of this activity is that we often take for granted the technical skill of the artist in favor of a work’s meaning or lack thereof. We take for granted that the artist is satisfied with the degree to which he has shown what he intended to. We take art as a top-down process, while for the artist, it is a bottom-up process. For this reason, we hold art to a very high standard, and that puts pressure on the artist to show us something true, assuming, often falsely, that they are trying to show anything at all. Perhaps we should show more gratitude to the artist in this regard, for the technique is the necessary tool, usually cultivated over many a year, through which the artist expresses what is dear to us or, at the very least, to them. That is the disclaimer I would like to preface with before I go on philosophizing. I am not a visual artist myself, and I do admire those who are proficient in that medium, even if they do so with no or poor intention.

Anyway, and on that note, whether the artist says what he attempts to sufficiently is its own matter, so we should approach our critique gingerly, as to see through any such shortcomings. We simply want to understand the message that lies beneath. It is the same in music, where if one really listens, the technical quality of the recording doesn’t matter. The content’s form is what matters, for it inspires the function, and intentional functions merely serve the form, as Roger Scruton shows in his BBC documentary. Very often the artist is not able to communicate his ideas in any way other than through his brush or instrument. Clearly, though, he somehow understands what he is doing. He is like a scientist of meaning in this regard, as science is a bottom-up process for the scientist who hopes (naively) that truth will emerge from the compilation of facts, but it is also a top-down object of criticism for the philosopher.

Is this not fair, however? Does the purpose not precede the style of the work? I think any informed critic should agree that it does. To agree, one must understand what art does, generally speaking. That is to reveal something true about reality or human nature which is normally hidden, suppressed, or taken for granted. It shows us something that we as individuals or as a society need to pay more attention to. Even if that message is to show that beauty can exist in isolation and complexity, I think this point still stands.

There is also the purpose of much contemporary work which is to “be the best it can be for the sake of itself”. This purpose may, though not always, neglect the objective standard by which we might judge art (insofar as we might consider symbolic truths about reality and human nature to be objective), and it rather qualifies art according to the power of human creativity, even if the product of that creativity lacks an organized structure toward a higher purpose.

This approach to judging art is a postmodern one: here are no universal standards for anything, quality is merely relative, and meaning may be interpreted in an unlimited number of different, subjective ways with no one way being more accurate than any other. We take the human creation to be larger than the reality that gave birth to it and that permanently contains it. This is a mistake of the ego-mind. Postmodern pseudo-intellectuals (e.g. most French philosophers of the 20th century, the scientismists of today, such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris) make with human rationality. They worship rationality as their God and fall in love with its creations no matter how disorganized they may be, all at the expense of what the work might be trying to tell us. What postmodern art, literature, philosophy, and even science are trying to tell us, in the rare occasion that they are trying to tell us anything at all, is in fact false. Even when it does land on something true, it is by coincidence because truth was never the intention to begin with.

Does Impressionism Fulfill the Purpose of Art?

What I like about impressionism, whether French, American, or otherwise, is how subjectively true it is. One could say, in other words, that it is authentic. A good impressionist painter is skilled enough to get their message across, and it is one which only that particular artist can convey. Nevertheless, it tends to be digestible to anyone while maintaining its individuality.

Is this not the dream of the west? In its high form, western ideals, particularly in America, allow one to be one’s own authority for what is good. This can, of course, be taken too far — as to put the search for “my truth” ahead of what is the truth, but this is not the overall intention of genuine liberty. It is more a matter of not letting the how deter one from the what one decides will fulfill one — and more deeply, that the what is founded on a why that we all agree is for the good in a just society. We all have different stylistic expressions of doing what we do, but there is an underlying law of reason that maintains that our individual efforts have some universal truth and benefit.

Contemporary, abstract art has no distinct subject matter, and it therefore leaves us to question whether the overall viewpoint which represents it is valid. It is, rather, an abstract perspective on an equally or more abstract subject. If the picture which the art represents is not real, then what is the representation (the art itself) worth? This probably-not-real-and-definitely-not-meaningful style of art is the perfect accompaniment to the aforementioned political and cultural climate in the west, which opposes the ideals of free expression of ancient truth on which the United States Constitution is founded, for example (supporters of this type of art, unsurprisingly, claim that beauty is subjective and are actively trying to destroy traditional values in education and politics). It values “my truth” over the truth, and in convincing the collective ego that “my truth” is a worthwhile pursuit, it tears people further away from meaning, leaving them as weak, powerless, and confused as an otherwise perfectly rational person observing Duchamp’s “Fountain” (it’s just a urinal) would be. Contemporary art is a movement representing the fear of and disregard for beauty, ancient wisdom, and one’s own individual authority. Both nature per se and

1-fountain-feature

life-sustaining expressions of sexuality, as countless specific examples would show in the style’s erotic manifestations, are portrayed as unimportant or nonexistent. In this movement, nothing is sacred.

Impressionism, more gracefully, is the style of visual art, painting in particular, which contains infinitely variable impressions of things which we all know are of value beyond our selfish ends. The subject matter — nature and our relationship to it, from landscapes to lovers — maintains its sacredness and is

mtn

conveyed in a style that is especially unique. It is an abstract perspective on a concrete picture of reality, we could say. American impressionism, overall, is an easily-perceived yet highly creative expression of the many great, natural wonders of the American countryside and ways of life — i.e. the foundation on which freedom of expression itself is held as the paramount liberty, and where “trust in God (or truth itself)” is the default principle. In my travels outside of the United States, for example I have been complimented on my strong sense of self and belief that things will unfold as they should, which those people have attributed to my “American-ness”, rightly or wrongly.

Lovers

Conclusion: Is American Impressionism Superior?

…to other contemporary styles of art? It seems so. By a classical measure, American Impressionism is good because of its return to classical subjects such as nature and love, and its attempt to convey awe for their beauty, rather than to bastardize it. It holds weight by creative measures as well for its uniquely subjective approach in doing so. However, if you enjoy chaos for its own sake, you are well within your rights to prefer contemporary abstract and absurdist art forms (I’m not talking down on Eric Andre — comedy is a unique case. See my MA thesis). The difference between preference and goodness is another issue. In general, it is permitted in the west that we can have disagreements about these kinds of topics and still function, yet that the cream will still rise to the surface, and that in extreme cases, it is worth fighting for. I wouldn’t consider one impressionist seeing a landscape one way and another seeing it another way as a pressing disagreement, but rather that some people can accept what is true and good for one and for all in their own way, and others are free to reject it at their own peril, also in their own way (have fun with that).

All art movements represent something about the values of the culture from which they emerge, and it does seem that there are at least two art movements going on right now, corresponding to the two general views on life. There is the ilk of culture that glorifies what opposes traditional conceptions of beauty and, therefore, sustainable ways of life — both through art and by flaunting their mutilated bodies in the street — and these are the “progressive” folk who align their aesthetic preferences with the shock and hedonism of contemporary abstractism. Then there are those who see that we have indeed inherited some values and structures that are worth holding onto, and that true power of both individual and collective thriving requires that we agree on some foundation of abstract-yet-observable conceptions of what is true, good, and beautiful. American Impressionism, insofar as I can tell, is making a real effort to acknowledge this foundation while leaving more than enough room for individual expression. American Impressionism: universal good, subjectively understood — just like the us.

Debunking the “Free Will Illusion” Part 2: Three Levels of Self-Governance

Britton William Frost1 Comment

To continue from my previous post, self-governance is not as common as we’d like to think, but I intend to hold that it is still possible for everyone in certain cases and following a degree of conscious effort to understand the self. That said, it seems plausible that it is not a function of most of us, most of the time.

Although there are many, I want to focus on three sources of self-governance from which we can draw principles for living, as I mentioned at the end of the last section. They can be from morality (truth), from self-enforced boundaries (the self), or from external authority (others).

Appealing to external authority for the formulation of principles, regardless of how true they are or how good the results they produce, is a logical fallacy — i.e. an error in reasoning. Whether they are copy and pasted from your father, mentor, religion, or boss, nothing is true or good because of the person’s position of authority, and you give up your own inner authority by blindly following that of another. People have varying degrees of just authority, and such a degree may represent their ability to guide someone toward the truth if it is indeed the truth for which they live — this means that they have good intentions. Good intention is unconditional and does not seek money or control, and it is only from those with good intention that we can truly learn anything. Still, lead us they need not. Their wisdom should merely help us to guide ourselves. It could, on the other hand, be that the authority is merely self-serving (as is the case for leaders for whom pride is the driving force of their reign), and one’s ability or inability to distinguish between others’ true or ill intentions means that one is vulnerable to selling their soul’s autonomy to the ones who seek it. External authority is never the answer for principle-setting.

Self-enforced boundaries come merely from the self. They are often overcorrective, flight response limits to external stimuli and events. So, although one is the sole, conscious arbiter of these rules, they are at the willing hand of the world, and so boundaries are not set with clear consciousness. They draw a line in the sand and say “I will do that and not do this”, regardless of the circumstances, thereby, paradoxically, letting circumstances control their rigid minds. They shortcut the work one must do in order to adapt to external circumstances as to “do right” under any conditions, which requires cultivating a filter for what one will allow oneself to be influenced by. Boundaries, rather, build a wall against facing circumstances as they are. They mistake defensiveness for genuine protection, and they only delay the cultivation of character.

The human mind, much like the body, is anti-fragile. The more one is exposed to and observant of something, the more one understands its patterns, and the less one fears it. Boundaries do not seek to understand things in themselves, but rather, avoid those things from fear. However, this type of self-governance is a step in the right direction for someone who was previously guided more directly by external authority.

Genuine moral principles, in contrast, constantly, voluntarily take on the challenge of being tested. It is as if one’s belief system is in a constant state of exposure therapy. With every test, a principle gets stronger because it is both being exposed to its foe and making use of the wisdom gained from facing all of the tests from the past. Expose yourself to nothing, and you will go weak. Principle must come from self-awareness, but not arrogance, and understand that the external world is not within one’s control. Therefore, minor improvements occur in one’s principles over time. A principle-forming person knows that the only thing he can control is his responses to externals, based on his patterned understanding of those externals and how he is both a keen observer and a dutiful participant in all of reality. This type of person is a spiritual person who has gratitude for life and all of its struggles and joys, and they relish the duties of observation and self-improvement. This path implies a belief in some universal conception of truth and goodness, and self-improvement equates to the process of sharpening one’s perception as to orient them closer to that universal state with every thought, word, and action.

Self-governance from the cultivation of moral principles is a path rooted in unconditional acceptance — unlike boundaries which are seen as good under the condition that they don’t cause one pain, or external authority which has no intrinsic right to speak on others’ behalves to begin with — and they are the only governance pattern whose origin really is in truth and goodness for one and for all. “Truth and goodness for one and for all” is perhaps the core value from which any sustainable principles originate, for it is universal and non-polar in nature, which relinquishes the ego’s need to believe and prove things…

As it turns out, the ego rules most, and those people would rather take the easy path of outsourcing their own moral authority anyway.

Tolerance vs. Acceptance

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

The difference between tolerance and acceptance is essentially a difference between being morally negligent and spiritually connected.

Tolerance, as promoted by progressive political circles and cultural movements such as body positivity and pride, masks its negligence for what is true, good, and beautiful as false compassion, seeking to covertly destroy all standards and traditions, cultural and governmental, built and conserved in the name of God since the beginning of civilized culture. This does not result in the utopian clean slate that they dream of, not that they have the wisdom or manpower to build something better in its place anyway, but delves us back to the tribal, Arian hell that was the only form of conflict resolution between humans thousands of years ago.

What one tolerates, therefore, is directly rooted in ones own view of oneself. Tolerate falsehood of the misinterpretation of information, you devalue your own intellect. Tolerate incompetence by supporting diversity quotas, and you devalue the well-being of the structures enforcing them. Tolerate anything evil, including the proposition that morality per se is relative and therefore that there is not intrinsic order or goodness to the universe, and you devalue your own soul by replacing it with your ego and outsourcing your true inner authority, making it impossible to improve and live a fulfilling life.

Acceptance, on the other hand, shows that you can detach and at least desire to understand that things are as they are, and that you don’t have control over those externals, but only over how you respond to them. Acceptance is the first step for living a true life because it exemplifies mastery over the things that one doesn’t allow to possess them. Whereas tolerance is born out of guilt, shame, anger, or pride, acceptance is a prerequisite, though merely a prerequisite, of truth, goodness, and love.

Debunking the “Free Will Illusion”

Britton William Frost1 Comment

The other day, I read this PsyBlog article that attempts to explain a psychological study which, according to the author, seems to imply that humans are mechanical robots merely controlled by neuronal impulses in our brains, and that free will is an illusory conception that humans have constructed to cope with death. There have been numerous studies, including the one described in that article, which show that neurons in the brain begin to fire before the person can report being conscious of their decision to pick up a pencil or before they can predict exactly which one of five circles on a computer screen changes color, for examples (the latter example is the experiment referred to in the article). The article also mentions the term ‘unconscious’ several times, and the usages imply that ‘unconscious’ should be defined merely as ‘the mechanical workings of the brain’. My aims in this post are to explain why that is an oversimplified and unsophisticated definition of ‘unconscious’, and also to suggest, partly on that basis, why these studies not only do not imply that free will is an illusion, but that they have virtually no bearing on what constitutes free will to begin with.

A Less Trivial Definition of ‘Unconscious’

There is one thing that the article (and anyone who would agree with it) gets right: we are not in total control of what we see, understand, and believe. However, this truth cannot be maintained to every degree of analysis imaginable (the highest degree being the ontology of free will and morals, arguably). This raises a semantic problem. Everyone has their own definition of what constitutes “unconscious” and even “free will”. The level of analysis that the article attempts to operate on is one of moral ontology, but it fails. Instead, it maintains the assumption that all that exists in us are mechanistic processes, and those processes are “unconscious”. We are our brains, and our brains are computer processors that take in data and organize that data for output, and when we are faced with stimuli relevant to our experiences, we merely react in accordance with our pre-organized data. Eh, well, partially correct! We are more nature than nurture after all. But, how does this imply that we don’t have free will? Let’s step back first. What can we infer from this article’s usage of ‘unconscious’?

“Neural activity is unconscious”, materialists will hold. Yes, we know that to the same extent that we know that digestion in the intestines is unconscious, and it need not be overstated. It is merely a biological process per se. However, biological processes tell us very little about our conscious world — the reality that we actually experience. They presuppose that the origins of our behaviors and decisions are pre-programmed inside our brains, and the neuronal activity is the first step in activating those programs (which we call decisions). This is an assumption, albeit a rather interesting one. Those who believe that this process is the causal origin of our behavior commit the most basic fallacy in science: correlation without causation. Why do they assume that the brain is the beginning when the brain requires the world to gather information to begin with, and why would anyone assume that we are disconnected from objective reality to the extent that we are separate and not intimately connected to it in a way that our actions most likely have ancient origins. What is left over when we commit to this materialist view of perception?

A lot, I would say. In fact, one can control some aspects of even these biological processes. If I am lactose-intolerant, I can consciously avoid dairy so my digestion maintains a regular track. In the same way, I can somewhat control what my brain “processes”. If I am at a music festival, for example, and I have to decide whether I want to attend the concert of a band I have already seen or that of a new band I haven’t yet seen, my decision will affect what my brain processes. If I choose the familiar option, I will go into the show having certain expectations based on what I have already processed from previous shows of theirs. If I choose the unfamiliar band, (which is statistically less likely), then I am choosing a new path. My experience will not be dictated by any biases, and, in a way, the show will present a challenge — a challenge to what I already know and expect in music generally. It is not only those biological processes that are necessarily unconscious, but so are some of the decisions we make which come prior to those processes. We can, however, take control of those decisions if we think about learning and decision-making in the right way. So, let’s think about it like this: perhaps the origins of our behavior and decisions are in the world, but not in the minute-by-minute, stimuli-centric world that neuro-materialists would like to believe. If it were that way, then we would not even be able to inquire about how our minds work as we’re doing now (which requires temporarily stepping outside of them), much less to overcome social pressure to leave our friend group at a music festival to see the band we want to see, alone.

What I am dancing around now is the more nuanced meaning of ‘unconscious’ that we find in fringe psychology and spiritual circles.

“To know oneself is to make the unconscious conscious.” — C.G. Jung

We can observe, in my field of birth chart astrology, that people live out their charts until they seek knowledge about them. The birth chart represents one’s innate set of perceptions and predispositions for responding to different aspects of reality. Someone is likely even living out their transits when they come to me for consultation — i.e. there is something external compelling them to learn about themselves at a particular time — but free will is clearly expressed in how they make use of the information I give them. The better one knows oneself, the more opportunities they will have to express their free will. There is still no guarantee, however, that they will. As I always say, I don’t tell people what to do; I help them own what they choose to do.

There is a strong case that it is not when someone is acting from their proclivities, but rather only when someone acts against what is normal and comfortable for them, that they are expressing free will. This “opposition to the self” kind of behavior must be founded on moral principles, boundaries, or in the very least, external rules. These represent three different degrees of self-governance and the spectrum of our human relationship to that concept, and only one fully shows that free will can be expressed in any case. In the next post, I will describe these three levels and show the connection from free will to that one of them, perhaps revealing something about the origins of autonomous decision-making that evaded us in the beginning of this article.

What “Ought To Be” True?

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

For years, I was a race controller for motorsport events. As a race controller it was my job to be the central point of contact for all race officials and safety staff, to keep the event on schedule, and to coordinate incidents when they occurred. I had to be the one person at the event guaranteed to keep a cool heard when shit hit the fan.

One weekend, I was running control for a regional motorcycle race. There was a bad accident in which one of the riders could have died. After I coordinated the incident, sent the rider off in an ambulance, and got the racing back on schedule, a friend or crew member of the injured rider, who was left to pack up his rider’s things in the paddock, came into the control tower very upset. He said “this shouldn’t happen.”

“What shouldn’t happen?” I asked.

“Guys dying or getting injured like that out there?” he replied.

He was still hot and bothered, and I had to focus on the track in case of another incident, so there was no point in engaging him philosophically, so I ignored him and kept working… but my question to him would have simply been “why not?”.

Motorsport is inherently dangerous and always will be. The advances in safety over the years have been profound, especially since the horrid Grand Prix weekend at Imola in 1994 in which there were three major accidents resulting in the death of two drivers, Roland Ratzenberger and Ayrton Senna. We can make helmets of carbon fiber, race suits fireproof and have airbags in them (for motorcycle racing), and give cars and motorcycles GPS traction control systems that will keep racers out of the gravel traps, but the danger of racing, as with anything, is not a quality of the activity itself — rather, it is intrinsic only to a person’s willful decision to participate in it.

The degree of risk is equivalent to the degree of mindfulness with which one participates. A professional racer who pushes the limits of the machine is also pushing the limits of his own mind. The goal may be to win the race at any cost. This consequentialist approach would yield unlimited risk, and that is the racer’s choice. On the other hand, if the same racer were to go out for a casual Sunday ride for the pure enjoyment of it, rather than for competition’s sake, then the risk would be far less because he will take safety precautions, including driving well below his mental limits, that he wouldn’t in competitive circumstances.

Anyway, that it “ought to be true” that racers not get hurt while racing competitively is the foolish claim of an underdeveloped empath.

There are no two sides. There is only truth. You do not judge the truth of something against its opposite. If something exists, then it has an opposite — a shadow — which is equally real. The benchmark for truth is Truth, and the degree of something’s accuracy is its proximity to Truth. Nevertheless, it stands that if something exists, then it is true. If it does not exist, then it is not true.

We cannot speak of something that is not true. To use language is to apply a logical structure to something that exists. We can misapply that logic, making our statement about that subject untrue. But the concept toward which that logic is aimed exists independently of that application, and thus the truth of it is not contingent on our ability to make linguistic sense of it. We often learn new things that existed prior to our knowledge, do we not?

Well, we ought to.

If we can speak of something at all, then we are at the very least playing a game who’s goal is to be approximate to something true. To be unable to speak of it does not imply that it does not exist, however. An idea, for example, can be understood by one person and not another. This may either be a matter of intelligence or wisdom, depending on the nature of the idea and on where each individual is on their truth journey.

So, what ought to be true? Only that which is — no more, no less.

Why Venus is Exalted in Pisces

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

The planets in astrology represent different parts of our personality and perception, and none of them can stand alone. As the planet of structure, discipline, and conservatism, having too much focus on Saturn in a chart leaves one cold, rigid, and lacking in social tact. Too much emphasis on the sun makes one extremely egocentric. Likewise, when Venus is overemphasized, it makes one hedonistic, materialistic, and superficial. At its low manifestation, Venus is the wild woman who merely uses men and the world for her own pleasure and resources. She needs the sun and Saturn (a father and grandfather), for example, to maintain her sense of identity and to have discipline for what is sustainable, respectively.

The signs of the zodiac possess an intrinsic evolutionary quality. Each sign has something that the one before it lacks, but it overcompensates for that trait. For example, Aries is often too fast and impulsive, and Taurus over-corrects by being slow and stubborn. It follows, then, that by the time we get around to Pisces, the last sign of the zodiac, ultimate balance has been found. We are able to observe this in those with strong Pisces in their charts. There tends to be something spiritual about them. They’re typically patient, good at listening, creative, and unique. A conscious Pisces seems quite evolved, albeit otherworldly.

Although dominant or ruling signs are often heavily emphasized in descriptions of the planets, and having such placements catches one’s eye in observing a birth chart for the first time, the exalted signs of each planet indicate a more developed and well-rounded expression. Just because someone has Mars in the ruling sign of Aries, for example, doesn’t mean that they’ll maximize the potential of Mars. Rather, they’re more likely to naturally express the negative effects of it, and in many cases, it will take extra work to temper that planet’s energy. We think of Venus as being much softer than Mars, as it is the more feminine surface expression, but the ruling signs of Venus can produce difficulties of their own – ones which are much more covert, being as femininity per se is more covert in its expression than masculinity. For example, someone who’s natal Venus is in Libra will have a softer, more compromising social style as opposed to an Arian one that takes a deliberate, “me first” approach.

The darker sides of Venus are more difficult to detect than those of the sun, Mars, or Saturn. This would be the case, for one, because of the things that Venus represents – e.g. love nature, social style, likes and dislikes, etc. Paradoxically, they are exemplified most clearly in their two ruling signs of Taurus and Libra, even though the planet’s strengths are also exemplified by these same signs. They are so, however, in a way that is more narrowly focused, much like how Mars’ blunt, warrior energy is most clearly expressed in Aries.

We look to the qualities of each ruling sign of Venus to understand the scope of its strengths and weaknesses. Taurus is the fixed earth sign, and appropriately, we can observe that Taurus reveals the “mother nature” side of Venus, and the native’s connection to the physical, sensory realm. Nature is fixed in its ways of being as it will whether we like it or not. Changes come slowly and incrementally, through an evolutionary process of proving that they’ll serve the whole of nature over time. Taurus is cautious in matters of change, and while this can serve as a useful vetting process for new functions, it can also express itself as sloth, stubbornness, and refusal to change due to lack of foresight beyond the physical.

Libra has a very different set of qualities, showing the other spectrum of significations of Venus. As the cardinal air sign, it expresses itself through the mental realm. It initiates change more consciously from a need to achieve balance in its social environment through connection in relationships. They’re more likely to flow with fashion trends than to dress in a way that is simply comfortable as Taurus does. Both Venus rulers seek comfort: Libra seeks comfort through acceptance while Taurus seeks comfort through sensation. The danger of appealing to social acceptance is that Libra sacrifices its sense of self and becomes superficial in its expression.

As one of the traditional “feminine” elements, it seems fitting that Venus would be exalted – and therefore produce its most ideal form – in a water sign. Because the combination of Taurus and Libra express the things of Venus in rather specific ways, and neither shows the full potential of social, romantic, and value expression, it is imperative that Venus travel through the entire zodiac to prevent itself from becoming too pleasure-seeking, superficial, and in lack of sustainability. It needs to learn higher values through the lessons that each of the other signs provide. For example, fixed Leo shares the quality of stability with Taurus, but with its fire inspires Taurus to grow and be more creative. Cardinal Capricorn shares the quality of initiation and leadership with Libra, but it provides a framework of logic, practicality, and discipline to Libra. A water sign, however, offers a quality of being able to fill a container – not just any container, anytime, but the right container, in the right way. As a mutable sign, Pisces has that trait of adaptability in detailed tasks, but it is also big-picture focused enough to know when and how to adapt. Venus is about what we want, but without the broader framework within which to manage our desires, what we want lacks tact, purpose, and life.

It also seems fitting that the rawest expression of the masculine planet of Mars – i.e. Aries – is placed first in the zodiac, just before Taurus, the first ruling planet of Venus. Aries is, perhaps, the one sign that Venus does not need to integrate on its own – that it doesn’t “pass through” on its journey to Pisces – but it rather serves as a complement to the things that Venus provides. After all, women are from Venus, and men are from Mars. As it turns out, Mars does quite well in Pisces too, depending on its house placement.

By evolving into Pisces through the other signs, Venus is learning how to value and organize its desires in a more conscious way. It learns that neither Taurean sensation or Libran fairness can serve as the highest value in any realm, whether social, natural, aesthetic, or moral. Venus is enlightening itself with a sense that all of the signs offer value to its otherwise singular ones. Pisces’ being, in a way, the most evolved sign of the zodiac gives a home for Venus to seek comfort in the most important way of all – the way of higher truth, thanks to daddy, granddaddy, and the rest of the family.

Writegenstein #8: Examples Over Evidence

Britton William Frost2 Comments

A main cause of philosophical disease – a one-sided diet: one nourishes one’s thinking with only one kind of example.

-Ludwig Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations, 593)

We already know that sufficient proof is never in empirical observation, but perhaps it is not in the form of the argument either. Sure, logical form gives an argument structure so that it can sustain itself, and that is arguably what is most important (some of us can think in pure conceptual terms, and others simply cannot, we must accept) but proof is not exactly that sort of thing. Rather, proof shows how an argument which is true is true or how an argument which is false is false, and this is done through example.

One will not be very convincing if he can only apply the form of his argument to one kind of example – one category – in which he simply substitutes different objects for the variables contained within the argument form. Different examples are shown through different areas of reference. This requires sufficient nuanced knowledge of two or more areas, and perhaps that is hard to come by, for different areas of study have their own unique vocabularies and require some degree of subjective interest in order to learn. Regardless, if a concept is true, it should have some universal degree of truth to it so that the form of the argument transcends the material realm and therefore can be applied in any observable context. Therefore, there should be no limit to the number of examples one could come up with to show the thrust of the argument.

Different-Sign Conjunctions in Astrology: Niche-Friendly Neighbors

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

There is light in darkness. This is how we should think about the “adverse” aspects.

Oppositions are thought to be adverse, but they offer us clear opportunities for shadow work, so when we integrate those sides, ultimate power is achieved through balance.

Squares are clearly adverse, but when we learn to compartmentalize those planets rather than forcing them to work together, we learn to set firm and reasonable boundaries for ourselves as well as with others – a skill that we can and should apply to everything.

Inconjunctions are disconnected and lack a common language, but they challenge us to let go and to flow with the current of what is beyond our control, allowing greater reality to bring into harmony those parts of ourselves that seem not to be related at all.

There is always potential for congruence and growth in adverse aspects. Likewise, we cannot speak of the light of conjunctions without confronting the darkness that is present in them.

While thought of as a harmonious aspect, for two planets are brought together in the same style of expression, a conjunction brings a challenge to rise to a certain responsibility that is demanded from deep within the individual. While they do not struggle as much with knowing what their purpose is, there is tremendous pressure to fulfill that known purpose in sacrifice of many other things. It is not what the conjunction entails that causes difficulty, for in that is a natural flow. Rather, it is what the conjunction leaves out that causes anxiety. That could be… everything, if those conjuncted planets are also adversely or not at all aspected with others in the chart.

When in the same sign (as they most often are), conjuncted planets seem not to pose a problem. There is a strong sense of “this is just how I am” in whichever matters they combine to deal with. When in different signs, however, the true strength of the conjunction is revealed – one which can arise in any conjunction at any time. These placements can be seen as different but aimed toward the same goals. It is a best-of-both-worlds type of aspect. There are a few things about the different-sign conjunction that we must consider before we talk more about the overall affect that this unique aspect has.

Firstly, by being in different signs, it follows that one planet will be at the end of one sign (on or near the 29th degree), and the other will be at the beginning of the next (on or near the 0th degree). These placements on their own are significant.

The 29th degree planet has been through the entirety of its sign. It is tired and ready to move onto the next. Think of it as a senior in high school in the last few months of their last term. They have “senioritis”. They know everything there is to know about the high school phase of life and feel as though they are over it. It hasn’t actually been to college yet, however, so it is stuck in high school until it graduates. It may start mimicking college kid behavior (i.e. the personality style of the next sign), but this is hopeful, theoretical, and superficial. They would be best to use the knowledge that they have gained to finish strong. They should stay present, reflect, and be grateful for their experiences as to enhance their enjoyment of the remaining days.

The 0th degree is like a college freshman, just on the other side of graduation and into the next phase of life. They are green, enthusiastic, and ready to experience all things that the new sign has to offer. They are in sensory overload about their new environment and are not yet sure how to navigate it. They may take on too much at once, make many errors, and learn their lessons the hard way. In any case, assertiveness in this area tends not to be a problem. They just go for it, and they generally learn from that for the better. Thinking a bit before they act would benefit them, not as to have them miss out on too much, but to throw on some floaties as they jump into the deep end.

Another thing to consider, which is a consensus among many quality astrologers, is that when two planets are in a conjunction, the one that occurs at the lower degree is the one that tends to take the lead. For example, my Mercury occurs just before my Jupiter, so this conjunction, which gives me a strong ability to see the bigger picture and to communicate that to others, is expressed in a more rational, left-brained, Mecurial way rather than in a hopeful one that yields plenty of good luck. I tend to be more of a Mecurial writer than a spiritual guru. This happens under the condition that the planets are in the same sign.

The dynamic changes when we are dealing with one at 29 and the other at 0, or thereabouts. It seems fair to make a case for either planet’s taking the lead in this situation. On one hand, the fresh enthusiasm of the 0th degree planet is ready to take action, and the 29th degree planet’s desire for the things of the new sign may have it happily submit to that decisiveness. On the other hand, the 29th degree planet has a wisdom that the 0th degree planet doesn’t have, so its foresightful resistance to experiencing too many new things at once may overpower the 0th degree planet’s naivety by taking on a parental role. It depends on the planets and the signs they’re in, of course.

The third thing to consider is the progression of the signs. Each sign is an evolution of the sign before it, but it overcompensates for the specific thing that the sign before it lacks. For example, take the indoorsy Cancer hermit crab who probably needs to get out more. The Leo lion overcompensates for that by needing to be the king of the jungle. In this case, the Leo planet will likely take the lead since it has a more aggressive style, but it will still be important not to give into the Leo planet too often and exhaust oneself, for the Cancer planet will have a need for retreat. The Cancer planet is just as important to have at one’s disposal; it offers different value from that of the Leo planet, and balancing the two energies will be vital for gaining the most from the conjunction.

Remember, a sign is a style of expression – a swagger that is shown in the embodiment of the part of yourself that that planet represents. Usually, conjunctions occur in the same sign. That relationship is led by the younger planet’s energy. The planets know their roles, so to speak. The younger planet, having more vitality, clears the path while the older planet in some sense leads from the back. When a conjunction is in different signs, there are two different energies at work being expressed in a naturally fluid way. This can reveal the perfect embodiment of the congruence between side-by-side signs which, by any other measure, tend to be almost as different as inconjuncted signs. Instead of being standoffish neighbors, they are friendly neighbors who learn to work together for no reason other than that they are forced to because they live in such close proximity.

Through this is a forced relationship, conjuncted planets in different signs see very clearly that they each have something that the other lacks, and they are likely to find a very specific common niche, interest, or hobby that they can both engage in and treat as a basis for their relationship and direction (he same can happen between inconjuncted signs, but they much less often find that common ground because of the distance between them). In a natal chart, this equates to the individual finding a very specific outlet for this conjunction to shine through and be the best at.

As with all conjunctions, there is still a great need to be able to compartmentalize each other’s different perspectives and skillsets as to not get in each other’s way. This is a crucial realization that all conjunctions must come to, but when in the same sign, it is more difficult. When in different signs, the different styles of expression are clear, so the boundaries are self-determining and not questioned.

The False Dichotomy of Sex & Go-karts

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

I recently conducted a poll which turned out to be the largest in Instagram history with 26 million participants. The results, astonishingly, were split in dead-ass half at 13 million a piece!

The question? Only the deepest and longest-standing debate among the most serious philosophers since the beginning of speculative thought…

“Which is the funnest activity of human beings: sex or go-karts?”

They are, indeed, two sides of the same coin, for “pole position” is crucial in both activities. However, they serve reverse roles of what convention would have us believe. They also represent two different and crucial ways of thinking about how we connect to our vulnerable, inner-child selves. Before I get into that, however, I need to define these terms.

By ‘go-kart’, I don’t mean your two-seat, 10mph, Celebration Station woo-woo garbage karts. I mean real race karts at a real race track – the kind that make you shit the seat when you lose control. I mean the kind with no seat belts because if you get in an accident, it’s actually safer to be ejected. I mean the kind that, if you get it wrong, you’re fucking dead.

By ‘sex’, I don’t mean your mindless, drunken, incompetent college hookup that has you ending the night in the ER because a condom got stuck in the wrong hole. I mean the kind in which vulnerability is required and desired. I mean an intimate connection between two conscious and spiritual, sober adults who know what they want and know what they’re doing. I mean the kind where you can hold eye contact, feel things, and actually like it. I mean the kind that, if you get it wrong, you’re fucking dead.

Now, I’ll ask you again. What’s the funnest thing ever? Sex or go-karts?

No, not sex IN a go-kart. That doesn’t work. I’ve actually tried it.

I’m not favoring one over the other here (although go-karts is usually better), but they’re both crucial to our development as social individuals. Allow me to explain.

On one hand, there is go-karting. This is a child’s game, one might think, but it requires an adult’s disposition to do right. Any childish idiot can go out and play bumper cars, but the most successful professional racing drivers all got their start in karting and still do it for fun and conditioning throughout their career. It pushes the limits of the connection between their mind and machine more and more with every lap, even more so than their race cars do. Go-karting represents the solitary nature of man at his best, “running his own race” without concern for how others are running theirs, improving by milliseconds at a time, corner by corner, so that it adds up to victory in the end.

Go-karting reminds us that healthy competition is not overt – it is not the goal in itself, but rather the consequence of doing one’s best and achieving individual potential over time. Improvement happens incrementally such as in braking a bit later and accelerating a bit earlier through each corner over the course of a session. A good kart racer sees the others on track not as competitors, but as obstacles.

One’s ability to maintain control of a go-kart indicates good masculine qualities like patience, precision, and consistency. A man who steps into a go-kart and proceeds to play bumper cars and cause carnage is – make no mistake – a toxic human being. The connection between man and go-kart represents the masculine in us to focus on one thing while maintaining awareness of everything else, and to make that craft an art form which we express with our own unique style.

Go-karting is the ultimate test of solitary focus, spatial awareness, and consistency of mind-body connection. It is no wonder that Finland, one of the most introverted and happy countries in the world, has produced the most world champions per capita in all top-tier autosport categories. Their culture centers around a unique concept called “Sisu”. Sisu has no direct translation in English, but it has to do with stoic determination, cool-headedness, courage, and resilience. This concept is present in their personal mindsets and enhances individual and collective performance in any task. The Finns are hot because they’re so cool. They have those traits that make and keep panties soaking wet.

On the other hand, appropriately, there is sex. This is an adult’s game, but it requires a child’s disposition. It calls us to leave behind all responsibility just as children effortlessly do when they’re at play. Like go-karting, it does require some degree of technical skill, but it takes (at least) two, and improvement, also incremental, happens more deeply through connecting with your partner over time. To do sex well, one must let go of the ego and expectation that often traps us in a masturbatory frame of mind. Letting go of control during sex, regardless of the role, marks more feminine qualities like submission, sensuality, and presence.

Sex is supposed to be fun – and funny! A woman who is in her head during sex has a lot of baggage to work through, and that’s no fun. When she has worked through all of that, develops confidence, and gets sex right, she brings an abundance of supportive love and curious energy to a connection with another. This also requires the right man. When a man is tuned in with his partner, knows how to touch her, is technically competent, and has a soy-free diet, he can allow his dominant sexual energy to flow in a natural way that is sure to please because he has put in the work to earn her submission.

Sexual chemistry means that the participants are accommodating of and enthusiastic about satisfying each other’s needs. An abundance of trauma that prevented one from experiencing their childhood in a free and open way will affect one in mature years and prevent them from being as curious and emotionally vulnerable as one must be in order to properly enjoy sex. It will also affect one’s ability to communicate respectfully and effectively, which is the only responsibility that we should carry into the bedroom. Having worked on themselves individually while staying open to more collectively is essential.

A child can look you in the eyes without fear, ask genuine questions, and connect. When it comes to sex, we adults are terrible at this. In seeking another we are often overcompensating for abandoning our own needs, desires, and potential. The thought of improving this is terrifying, but it is equally crucial for our social and psychological development. Sex calls us to communicate in ways that a 5-year-old would understand – e.g. “I like this/don’t like that!” This is a strength. Talk more outside of the bedroom about what you like and want, and more inside it to spice it up!

Whether you prefer sex or go-karting, that may tell you something about what you need to work on or are consciously working on, depending on where you are in your journey of self-discovery. A large part of that journey involves integrating one’s optimal masculine and feminine potential. Likewise, our attitude toward children in general can reveal our attitudes about ourselves. The progressive, feminist social philosophy fashionable today lacks value for childbearing and/or for nurturing children in a healthy way that integrates the masculine and draws firm boundaries around the feminine (drawing boundaries is a masculine activity, by the way). This delusion is based on, and intended to spread, mass fear surrounding the deep spiritual value of raising children. Without facing that fear, a parent is certain to inflict their own damage onto their child, especially if single.

Remember, it is our inner-child that is triggered when we mirror each other. We are mostly turned off by others who mirror our own weaknesses and insecurities. This is exaggerated when we are mirrored by children, for they question our deepest assumptions with the utmost innocence. That simple word ‘why’ is not to be shrugged off, but should rather be taken as an opportunity to look inward as much as to inform. Regardless of what you have to work on, sex and go-karts are clearly the two funnest activities known to man when done right, so why not enjoy both? They are also deeply meditative and therapeutic, for they reveal some of our deepest weaknesses in real time.

It’s not about what you want, but about what you need. Are you slow on track? Get out there, work on your focus and discipline, and improve your craft little by little. Do you suck in bed (in a bad way)? Work on tuning in and connecting with people better, and deal with those things that their presence triggers in you. Mastering sex and go-karting is beautifully impossible, but together, they afford us unlimited opportunity for balance between our masculine and feminine and to improve giving our full attention to what is truly important, namely sex and go-karts.

Writegenstein #7: Disagreement as Misunderstanding

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

“611. Where two principles really do meet which cannot be reconciled with one another, then each man declares the other a fool and heretic.”

-Ludwig Wittgenstein (On Certainty)

Disagreements don’t exist — only misunderstandings do — if we take truth to exist. For a relativist, there is no difference between the two.

Furthermore for the relativist, definitions don’t exist at all.

Nor does anything exist for the relativist. To follow relativism through to its conclusion, one must be nihilistic and solipsistic, which are also unsustainable because it would follow that identity itself is impossible.

For one who accepts truth (in conscious thought, that is — for we all do in action), however, understanding is a prerequisite to opinion. An opinion is a sort of judgement. To understand is to have thought critically, and to think critically is to have observed impartially. Few who practice this method would consider their views to be mere opinions, worth just as much consideration as that of one who has no conscious basis.

Have well-reasoned perspectives, not opinions. Some “opinions” have a basis, and some do not, so we should not consider them to be of the same category. When they do, it is by coincidence. What serves as the intentional value determines which is which.

An opinion is never put forth with the intention of being true. It is either a nonsensical impulse or an attempt to be right. It will be fought for by way of rhetoric rather than reasoning. Any tools of reasoning that it employs will be inverted. For example, one might commit the appeal-to-pity fallacy in order to win the argument rather than avoid it as to not be fallacious in one’s reasoning. All well-reasoned perspectives have, at the very least, the intention of truth. Otherwise, the end is chosen at random by man, all means are justified, and logic is inverted to serve that end if it is used at all.

In summary: rhetoric is the art of debate — i.e. inverting logic to persuade someone to your side, for your ends.

Rhetoric, indeed, has a solipsistic aura to it. It is not motivated by what is good for one and for all, but rather for oneself alone. The gain can be of finances, power, status, or the appearance of virtue, all of which are superficial and, in the end, not good for oneself either. It leaves one alone, imprisoned, on one’s own island.

To reason well, by contrast, one’s only concern should be that which is true is revealed. One must be indifferent to the specifics of the outcome. To be virtuous in one’s faith is to believe that what is true is also good — to not allow one’s own motivations to intervene with that inquiry. To be naive in one’s faith is to put one’s trust in the motivations of man.

One should not even trust one’s own motivations if one cannot first observe them.

To be made in the image and likeness of God means that we have all the power we need within us — to discern deception and to speak and act in favor of what is good for good’s sake. To have the power of God within us is to have the power of Truth within us.

God, goodness, and Truth are the same concepts, dressed differently.

Logic itself is not good or true. It is a tool that we have been given with which we can choose good or evil, true or false. The human will is the only entity that possesses the power of good and evil. We have the conscious ability to use our tools for either at any point. To lack this ability is to be imprisoned.

It should be regarded as good that logic does allow us to follow a perspective or opinion through to its conclusion. In a disagreement between two people, no more than one participant is doing this. Disagreement happens when one person has a more tightly knitted sifter for information than the other, so he can see what is relevant and irrelevant more clearly, thus formulating a more solid basis for a perspective. The one who has not tightened the knitting of his filter jumps to conclusions, perhaps not from sifting at all, but from constructing a viewpoint on the basis of his data. This is the composition fallacy.

As we know, a philosophical argument has three parts: assumption, evidence, conclusion. For a reasonable discussion to occur, it treats the assumption(s) as a foundation for the evidence, and so all participants agree on that foundation. If this is not the case, then the discussion should be about that basis itself before moving forward with evidence. Otherwise, the participants will have different ideas about what constitutes evidence to begin with. This will leave the discussion at a stalemate.

It is that which is not being questioned in the argument that should first be understood.

A spiritual being is a truth-centered being. To be spiritual is to value truth and goodness above all and to have intended it even if one falls short of it in action.

To mull over a disagreement is to expect that the other understands what you understand. This is a mistake.

Even if you have put forth your position in clear, logical terms, it may not be the case that your message has been received as you intended. Do not expect anyone to understand. Speak simply and authentically, as if to allow your message to flow through you.

If your message is true, then it is not yours to begin with. You are merely the vessel for truth, so take no offense to how it is received. Anticipate that it will be met with great resistance. Surprise about this will cause you much unnecessary anguish, as will anything that you seek to control but cannot.

Understanding human perception more broadly will afford you forgiveness in particular cases.

Understanding that what is true is good will afford you the willingness to investigate assumptions before the evidence.

It is not your job to convert someone’s assumptive basis, for that might entail a deeper spiritual journey that they are yet to embark upon. One can only pursue that journey from their own will. They may have to experience hell before they enter into that darkness.

To disagree with someone may spark a volatile response. He will, as Wittgenstein implies in the quotation above, commit argumentum ad hominem. This is proof enough that there is something deeper that they misunderstand. They are frustrated neither with you nor your argument, but with themselves. If you engage them, you are showing the same incompetency in your own way, whether it be regarding your assumptions, evidence, or the reasons for their disagreeing and an inability to forgive them for that.

To show indifference toward what they say but concern for why they say it is to love them.

Similarly, to lack the ability to release yourself of their struggle reveals a struggle of your own that you must address. To simply present what you have concluded as true, and step away, is to love yourself.

The paths to both heaven and hell are dark. The latter is guided by one’s own senses, which is to say that one abandons oneself and others in an attempt to serve oneself. The former is guided by intuition — i.e. faith that the light at the end is already self-contained, is also something greater of which one is a part, and is therefore also best for all others involved.