Excerpt from “Prologue–Nature, Culture and Imagination: A New Paradigm of Art and Science” in A Realm of Knowledge: Principles of Creative Process in the Arts by Philip D. Portoghese [Unpublished Manuscript]

     One of the unfortunate characteristics of our current paradigm is that it has broken apart and separated various domains of human interest and endeavor into artificial and narrow categories whose representatives often seem to be unaware or unwilling to embrace a consciousness of their connections or relevancies to others and to a life in the world. Overspecialization is a part of the problem here. But it is more than this. In addition to our conceptually isolated fields of interest, we have also developed or in some cases adopted a dominant paradigm that has effectively left out large portions of essential concepts important to a total picture of life and existence. This fragmented state of our culture can be seen as a symptom of the condition of our minds and thinking for which certain essential aspects of our content as well as the world have been ignored, depreciated or, in the worst cases, denied while other interests have taken a top priority. It is actually on account of our historical circumstances that such a condition has arisen: at various points of the development of our current paradigm, concepts and spheres of human interest that had been together in some form, viewed as different aspects of a single culture manifestation, lost their common associations and grew apart, so that eventually they became varyingly self-contained areas, each of which apparently had little to do with the others. For example, by the seventeenth century in the development of philosophy in the West, the study and knowledge of the world broke into separate areas from what had been a more unified perspective. At this point the sciences as the “philosophy of nature” became the exclusive study of the material world while the Church and its art forms retained the domain of the spiritual and the metaphysical. This change, however, was not an indication of a break from an earlier and closer relationship to nature. In our case, it was actually an inevitable consequence of a dualistic world view for which nature had never been an integral aspect, and where matter and spirit were conceived as utterly different and irreconcilable substances. So in a way, this break was the development of a new direction for the West, the revolution of a paradigm which would begin to bring us back to nature rather than away from it. However, in this process, the arts and the spiritual remained a completely separate and, to many, inferior domain from the world of the sciences as we know them, a situation that persists to this day. And as we all can see, the most prestigious of these categories are what we call the “hard sciences” such as biology, chemistry and physics which are able to demonstrate their superiority on a daily basis through their wondrous discoveries that continue to lead us to the edge of a metaphysical aspect with the most stunning advances and technologies imaginable. Whereas the social or “soft” sciences such as psychology, sociology and anthropology are by comparison commonly regarded as less prestigious and, by some, even “pseudo” departments of knowledge. And in the case of the arts, they are not even included in our paradigm as they are not considered a science or a form that similarly possesses qualities of a world or cosmic exploration.
     One reason we generally do not and cannot conceive the arts to be in the same paradigm as the sciences is because we do not regard them as a more profound knowledge-form or as a revealer of mysteries and the metaphysical. In our popular culture the arts are typically categorized as “leisure” or “entertainment”; or in a more serious and prestigious ranking of their own, as “Culture” (with a capital “C”). Or they may also become a form of propaganda. But rarely if ever do we think of them as knowledge in a higher sense. The most we might say of them in this respect is that they are a kind of “information” that may be designed for our appreciation, satisfaction or consumption with any number of purposes in mind. All this may actually be true. But what we must recognize here is that these are our art forms as they have developed in our culture since the critical split of matter and spirit in our paradigm, and the subsequent casting off of spirit from our whole conception of knowledge and experience. In this respect we have effectively disembodied ourselves so that culture and nature are completely separate, and spirit or psyche along with the imagination has become a mere hallucination that distracts us from the “real” world. Consequently, with the decline of traditional culture, Christianity and its art forms, our hard sciences have more or less exclusively held the keys to the mysteries of life and existence and to a knowledge of their essence. And in most cases they will not accede to a conception of a larger dimension beyond their purely rational, mechanical and measurable one. In such a paradigm of knowledge and experience there is no place for the arts let alone psyche or spirit. And there is little wonder why this should be the case: on a societal level the arts for us, no longer a dominant and influential domain of spiritual imagery evoking a metaphysical aspect, remain in a category of “less serious” interests and concerns; forms and events of a world that often seem to have more to do with contemporary issues, sensations or biographical details and less to do with a knowledge of the more profound aspects of life and existence. And while it certainly may be true that some of our contemporary art forms can excite the kind of profound curiosity or inspire the kinds of awe and wonder for us about life and existence in the ways the sciences often do, this does not seem to be the rule.
     Hence the question arises, could there be a dominant class of evocative art expressions that we could regard as important and awe-inspiring knowledge-forms for life in ways analogous to those of our sciences? And more specifically, could more of us be receptive to such expressions as profound revealers of the mysteries of life and existence? Here it may be pointed out that for cultures rooted in nature and imagination, and even for the many older pre-Protestant traditional Christian cultures, art forms of various kinds indeed functioned in this manner, as they apparently always have since the beginnings of human culture. Historically the evocative arts—that is, the whole realm of music, dance, ritual, poetry, literature and the pictorial-plastic forms that function as more than decoration, commemoration, didactic or entertainment—are the revealers of mysteries that lie behind the visible world, the inspired expressions of a metaphysical aspect in which every member of a culture may participate. They are a science in a larger sense—they are knowledge-forms that in their more ancient and primitive manifestations made no great distinction between apparently opposing or divergent essential principles like matter and spirit. What art expressions of this kind can do is inspire through aesthetic experiences evoked by their rhythmic forms and images as well as by the contexts in which they are presented a revelation of an identity with the powers or energies behind the visible plane of existence in ourselves and the world. But of course for us the situation is different: as a society we firmly believe that the sciences, not the arts, are the revealers of these deeper aspects of life and existence. Contributing to this perception is the fact that a majority of our art forms apparently do not possess qualities conducive to this end—nor is there generally in our society very much receptiveness to such art forms—at least not in our present condition. This should in no way suggest, however, that there are no art forms made by our creative artists that could evoke a sense of a metaphysical aspect in the world and in ourselves; undoubtedly there are. But many of us do not see it—and our society today probably could not see this any other way. Nevertheless, it would be rather disingenuous and arrogant to presume that our sciences should exclusively possess this capacity, and that they should ultimately replace the evocative arts as revealers of the mysteries of life and existence. This would only reflect the limitations of our current paradigm that define what the sciences and the arts each separately are. Such an assessment actually involves a whole constellation of aspects that begins with our values and conceptions, and ends with the concrete manifestations of each category that are products of our paradigm thinking. This is to say, the whole paradigm of our thinking and striving shapes the ends as well as the means; the forms and content as well as the relationships and identities; our expectations and intentions as well as our responses; and the very essence of how and why something works for us and what it should achieve. A significant change in our paradigm, however, would likely cause many of these factors to shift, and with such a shift would presumably come a whole new or different set of qualities, forms, relationships and functions—in fact a whole different perspective even going the heart of our identities. In this regard, a new paradigm that includes an important class of art expression and content inspired by the dream-like imagination could also emerge; but in this case our core values and conceptions would have to correspond to the content and experiences inspired by the arts as knowledge-forms of a higher or more inward order. In such a new paradigm, along with a value for more profound aesthetic experiences, a class of new forms and expressions that evoke the life and psychic potential of today and into the future would be developed. As true revealers of the deeper mysteries of life and existence, visual artists, writers, dancers and musicians in this class of art forms would appeal to experiences that could stir the imagination, not as an intellectual exercise or a descriptive concept but as an inspiring event that could open the psyche to such an identity. In this manner one would expect a genuine and more substantial interest in art forms that could aesthetically and ideationally evoke the spirit and content of this realm of knowledge both within and without. In other words, a common mindset deriving from such an interest which might be more sensitive and receptive to the presence of their content on an emotional level and not just as a concept. Only then would evocative art expressions be able to achieve the status of a knowledge form that puts human beings in touch with the ideas and energies of nature and her most profound revelations. And in this manner, the arts and sciences for a future culture could stand together side by side as the “twin” revealers of the mysteries of life and existence, the realm of evocative art forms appealing to the dream-like imagination for experiences of the transcendent order, the essence of the world and our being, and the sciences employing the forms of the imagination as a rational basis of knowledge for the discovery and demonstration of nature’s awe inspiring structures and workings as well as the practical material applications of the measurable, quantifiable side of the cosmos and everything in it. In this unprecedented organization of human experience and endeavor these presently divergent aspects of life can come together, the evocative arts connecting us in the manner of an identity with nature; and the experimental sciences, as a relationship to nature—each side of a single culture manifestation equally inspired through a participation in the forms of nature and the imagination.

     In the meantime what has to be recognized in a consideration of our present condition is that, while our sciences have indeed brought us closer to nature and her most profound secrets in some very inspiring ways, as societies and as individuals a vast majority of us nevertheless remain uprooted and alienated—psychologically removed from the natural order, and unaware or in denial of an immanent and immeasurable metaphysical aspect both in ourselves and in the world—all of it on account of our inherited or adopted values and conceptions which are reflections of an incomplete and one-sided paradigm. We must come to realize that the vital, experiential content of the arts as a more profound evocative knowledge-form and revealer is the forgotten link in our whole conception of existence; the missing piece that could forge a more intimate and participatory connection to nature and imagination.  And until we can gain a larger sense of this, we will continue to welter in all sorts of misconceptions, illusions and insecurities about what life is, what existence is, what is possible and not possible for us, and everything that has to do with a deeper concept of reality. This we tend to take for granted: we would like to believe that everything is only as our senses and our measuring devices tell us. But when things do not quite add up—when we begin to have a faint sense of holes in our models and gaps in our conceptions—and the ways we think things should be by means of these faculties and tools do not quite pan out, we are bemused, bewildered and mystified. Indeed the recognition of significant immeasurable aspects of existence may hit our materialist sensibilities and pride like a swift blow to the head; and the idea that there might be aspects of existence we can know and experience that our rational tools and inductive methods cannot handle can become a bitter and unacceptable pill to swallow. But in the end it will be discovered that we have no choice: we must accept the reality of an important and mysterious dimension of life and nature that transcends rational analysis and research. Moreover, we have to rid ourselves of the idea that the imagination is merely an unimportant hallucination separate from our bodies. In this respect the forms and dynamics of psyche and imagination are no more separate from physical life and existence than the quantum field is from the visible world. If we can be honest with ourselves and open, we might just come to realize that they are in fact the whole basis of our perception and experience, and for this reason they deserve to be recognized as a reality and as an aspect of our physical bodies—verily a first principle of our life that is known and validated not by means of objectively verifiable scientific proofs but subjectively from experience. Thus through their reality in us we may open ourselves to the sorts of vitally important revelations that only the arts can achieve. This turns out to be attainable through living evocative culture forms that complete the total image of ourselves and the energies of the cosmos in their full depth, breadth and splendor. A new or adjusted paradigm is to be conceived as a necessary reconstitution of a multidimensional, multifaceted realm of knowledge and experience that reconnects us to the natural order in ourselves and the world in ways perhaps never before realized with a most intimate sense of awe, gratitude and reverence. But as long as we cling to the fragmentary conceptions and definitions of our inherited paradigm that marginalize the evocative arts and the dream-like imagination; as long as we insist on a purely rational, measurable and quantifiable existence; and as long as the majority of our artists and their promoters prefer a world dominated by spheres of the more social, economic, political, conceptually esoteric or entertainment content, our society will remain locked in its present insecure and unbalanced state, and we will probably not be able to achieve the most important lasting solutions to the biggest challenges of our existence and success as a species.
     On this point it would be no exaggeration to say that our current paradigm limits our chances, and that these kinds of changes are not an option if we are to succeed and live in a field of greater human possibilities and potentials. But, as stated earlier, such changes must emerge in a developmental fashion over time. And any attempts to create programs or plans designed to induce changes of this kind will probably not succeed in the end. What we speak of here is a highly complex process involving many apparently unrelated and disparate factors which can only come together to form a viable synthesis gradually, every critical realization occurring at a ripe and propitious moment. Hence the forms and events of history and human endeavors over what might turn out to be centuries of trials and realizations will probably be the course of our development along these lines. And here it might not be too much to speculate that there is every reason to believe we may very well be on that course of development towards a new paradigm already, and that a process is unfolding as we live and breathe, a growth and evolution whose full flowering as a culture manifestation none alive today will most likely live to see. But as individuals we each can experience a kind of “piece” of it, a sense of the gifts and rewards of what such a realization could be for a future culture rooted in nature and imagination: to live a fuller and more creatively inspired life through the deeper resources available in ourselves, and it is here that a consideration and consciousness of these principles become important and relevant in the most intimate and individual ways.
     Now more than ever it would be of tremendous benefit to many of us as individuals to recognize and place a high value on any culture forms that can awaken and stir the human imagination in creative ways.  For it is through such experiences and our grappling with the energies and ideas in ourselves that an authentic human relationship to nature and culture can emerge and grow into a new and larger existence for each and every individual who willingly participates. In the end it all comes down to a working attitude or philosophy of life that may be informed by an inspired and uplifting realm of content which may function as creative gateways to what each individual might consider life-supporting and potentially life-changing. In this respect it is an “art world” not necessarily as we typically know and see it today, but one consisting of creative experiences that can reveal anything and everything any of us might aspire to be beyond our familiar and existing examples—if we choose to embrace the types of forms and events that may evoke our living connections to nature and the imagination. Towards this end what is needed for our success on a most elementary level is a greater awareness of the psychologically degrading effects of some of our inherited values and conceptions, along with an appeal to the vast and varied resources of the imagination in its full breadth and depth. Here its variously ingenious approaches to the most difficult problems and challenging situations that are vital to a sound and healthy human existence may be appreciated and useful. And the value of some of the more profound forms it can realize or make visible can have enormous creative implications not only for culture manifestations of the arts and sciences, but also for individuals who seek more intimate and harmonious connections on the inside and a natural order of reality that lies hidden behind every culture form imaginable. In this manner what might be realized are relationships and identities that are able to completely resolve and eliminate anxieties and other psychological disturbances so common to individuals in our times, to restore a sense of inner integrity and wholeness. These aspects and orders of our biological and social functioning which we discover in nature, culture and imagination together form the basis of what could be called healthy, psychologically normal thinking, behavior and living. In any consideration of what we as individuals or as societies could become we may find it beneficial to not only hold in mind ideas of what might complete or enhance our life experiences of today, but to consider what important and vital resources we might be in possession of (and not necessarily aware of) that could be relevant and conducive to future openings and realizations of an inspired evocative realm of art. From this point we may then begin to get some sense of new and hidden potentials in ourselves for what art could be on an experiential level—that is, art as something more than a “museum curiosity”; more than a display for appreciation or criticism; and more than a reflection of the values of our society: in a word, what evocative art forms and perhaps no other product of human endeavor can achieve for a life within and without.