Replies

Yes! You’ve got it perfectly, Ted. Novelty (Whitehead’s term), aka innovation, adds intensity, moving us toward ever-evolving forms of Beauty.

I now have a copy of the article “The S-I-Z-E of God” by Bernard Loomer, with thanks to Terry Goddard! I can pass it on to any or all of you via e-mail.

This article (from you link above) on the death and resurrection of tonality and beauty in music is enlightening! I can certainly see atonal music and the “death of God” as cultural partners. I am happy to see beauty resurrected against the grain–and with spiritual impetus. It seems to be that beauty was out of fashion in the visual arts as well during this same time. Beauty has really made a comeback in the post-modern world in all the arts. Process thought is also termed constructive post-modernism, offering more than mere deconstruction. It seems from this article that music, too, is–at least in part–moving toward a more “intense harmony” rather than just “intense.” Thank you for this discussion thread, Ted. Feel free to bring up this fascinating subject when we get to the arts–a week from tomorrow.

Exactly, Meijun! That is the right word–static harmony. You certainly know your Whitehead, and I’m glad you mentioned that term. I so happy you are in this class and I thank you for contributing to the conversation and enriching all of us.

Thank you, Meijun, for your excellent response and question. If we think of beauty as intense harmony, then we could identify “ugliness” in the worst sense as:
Harmony without intensity–that is, without enrichment of contrasting elements–using examples of fundamentalism, exclusion of the “other.” In the social realm, white supremacy would be a good example of this desire for harmony without contrasts or differences. That is ugly, indeed.

Intensity without harmony could lead to chaos, violence, war. All of that is certainly ugly. But, of course, this is a simplification, since sometimes ugliness is necessary–or it could be argued to be, as in going to war against Hitler, etc. But that gets into the realm of ethics and the “lesser of two evils,” etc.

On a broader, spiritual landscape, or using different language, we could say that ugliness is the absence of love–love being the highest form of Beauty. These are just some ideas to play with in the social and spiritual sphere.

In the arts it would look a bit different, of course. There is the “eye of the beholder” which is part of diversity. (I may think rap music is ugly, but others think it is beautiful!) It would be interesting to hear your own thoughts, and those of others, as we work on this together!

Great question from Nita and insightful responses from Roger and Rolla. This is the most challenging of topics, no doubt, so I am glad Nita started the conversation. We will touch on this very topic in the next live session as it falls under the topic of Tragic Beauty. In the meantime, I look forward to reading more responses.

Thanks to all of you who have introduced yourself! What an incredible group of thinkers, poets, writers, musicians, spiritual leaders, scientists, and lovers of Beauty (with a capital B).I enjoyed hearing from several of you during our live session, too. You have a great deal to offer the rest of us and I hope for even more discussion in the days to come. If you haven’t introduced yourselves yet, please do. And thank you all for being a part of this class. P.S. If you missed our first live session, I encourage you to listen to the recording on the course site. See you on Thursday! Patricia

Hello, Jay! Welcome to the Class.
I’m so glad you mentioned Loomer’s S-I-Z-E. Yes, that will be covered in Session 2 under “Soul Beauty.”