Creation, by Nature and by Humans. Why?

[-=SS=-]

It's interesting that OP finds a lot of human creations repulsive whilst under a psychedelic influence, but creations of the natural world to be acceptable or sublime even. I think there's a parallel aspect in there to this idea of hating art or the artistic process when it is done for money or at any point is simply a contrivance. I know from my experiences that I simply can not stand to be around human creations either whilst on psychedelics, it's why I haven't done them in years; TV is like sandpaper to my mind, the rigid and plain geometry of buildings to be claustrophobic, the very banal utterances of people grate on me even if they're high and trying to be expressive. It all turns me right off.

Is this disdain a projection of our minds, an internal conflict, or is there an objectivity to beauty or art? Personally I have always believed there is an objectivity to it, one strand of it very evident in all classical arts, music, architecture, and it's everywhere throughout nature - what's called sacred geometry, but basically ratio and proportion. The other strand is more subtle and ethereal, and not easy to grasp or pin down to the material world.. but I believe it is there and it is like an essence, a point, mystery, je ne sais quoi. Nature exudes both components confidently without hesitation, whereas our creative products can be unbalanced between the two strands.. but if it is lacking the second strand it can be the most proportioned piece of art imaginable but feel hollow and grating to some internal part of us. The best art is proportioned and communicates mystery or a point, and not just to yourself. Nature is the best at it of course, as close to perfection as we'll ever see in this dimension.

 

[Xorkoth]

Honestly I see human works as natural too. I mean, we're a part of nature. Spiders create webs that are beautiful. Other animals create too, so why are the things we create somehow set apart? Why are they ugly when things other life creates are not? To me, the attempt to imitate nature in art is beautiful in itself, and sometimes it brings out something new, especially in the case of abstract art. The sum total of what all life brings to the table is what nature is. I know you probably don't mean it this way, but I think it's maybe not the best thing when people refer to "us vs nature", because we ARE part of nature, there is no distinction. It makes sense to talk about it using that language though, since our culture and others have had a very long history of trying to set ourselves apart from nature, as if we can be greater than nature. The roots of that attitude are in survival, so it makes sense if you think about it why it developed, but it's still a shame and it leads to cognitive dissonance in my opinion.

Personally, on psychedelics I generally prefer to be in nature and I don't like to be around many people, but this is just because I need to have my own space more while I'm tripping. I love looking at art while tripping, maybe not as much as I look staring at a tree or something, but both are worthwhile to me.

Question Volsam - If you hate human creations, especially your own, while tripping, do you also hate humans? Do you hate yourself? if not, what is the distinction then?

 

[-=SS=-]

I think the difference is the contrived aspect, though you could argue nature is a sort of contrivance too and that we just can't see it because it's magnificence is imposed on us. The accounts of individuals who've experienced enlightenment lends credence to that argument I believe - once you go beyond and see the clockwork mechanics in its totality it sort of loses its magic and magnificence. As humans I think it's easy to see human thinking and action in human creative pieces, obviously, which diminishes things somewhat whereas what nature produces seems to remain largely a mystery to us in terms of that je ne sais quai. Even with the great human works of art you can still intuit the hidden aspect, whereas with nature its largely unknowable and we can't dialogue with it.

We are a part of nature of course, but somewhere along the line we cut ourselves loose somehow (or maybe were cut loose). Halfway loose at least. We have the root of the creative impulse inherent in our biological mechanism, but there's something else going on too I think. Maybe its related to the brain, the heart, or something else or a combination of those things. Maybe nature desired some finger painting, couldn't do it on its own, so here we are

 

[Volsam]

When you listen to your music after creation, what is it you hate about it? Is it you feel it could be your technique was poor or the whole thing is creatively poor? Many musicians are hard on themselves for poor musicianship but that can be fixed.

^^^I think what makes me hate it is the realisation that the excatic great feeling I had experienced while in the process of making it, is not being evoked by what I've done and something is missing no matter how hard I try. I agree that improving the skill would in some way provide more satisfaction at the end but what I'm talking about is rather deeper...

The same force which promotes the single celled organism to grope around and move into new spaces is the same thing at the heart of our creativity. Curiosity and desire. Inherently programmed into all biological life.

Our creativity appears to be very complex and dynamic to us, and we love to take credit for it of course. But we're not all that dissimilar from the single celled organism in reality.

^^^I greatly agree with that statement - it feels that the Universe simply wants to express itself as it's the only way of being of everything, but I also get curious thinking that as species we, humans, have gotten some incredible abilities to do that.

For me, the creation of it is the best part (I'm talking about music here mostly), but I LOVE a good recording of me and/or my band. Having some of those recordings is almost the best part because now it's this idea that is fixed into permanence, and by re-listening I can re-experience that moment to some extent, and have new moments where the feelings of that moment are transposed over the new feelings of the new moment.

^^^Don't get me wrong - I really enjoy making music and painting and that's why I started doing it - provides the best relief from feeling of reality imbalance that pushes you to express and flow out sometimes.
And yes, creating something alongside with others could be very amazing! :D As a matter of fact by this day, some of the most incredible times of my life were taking acid (again...) with two of my friends and playing music and painting together. The level of honesty, understanding, openness and life's fulfillment were over the top! 8) Unfortunately these moments are rare in life.

That’s why I love studying psychedelics. It’s proof to me that the route to deeper connection with God isn’t more prayers or in a monastery or in rituals, but it’s already there inside of me.

^^^I come to realize that we can make a "portal to God" anytime anywhere and we dont even need a concept of a ritual, religion, belief system or even God itself - it IS already inside all of us. IME it takes a lot of effort to break through the illusion spell that we ourselves put on, but psychedelics allow us to "cut to the chase" effectively and have a glimpse of satori sometimes.

A three year old will make a drawing to express an idea--usually for him or her self alone--they don't even care if anyone else sees it or not; nor are they usually even interested in it themselves once its done. They are critical only when it does not express what they had envisioned but rather than being discouraged, they just try again. And again and again. There is no cataloguing of failure going on in their minds--it is pure process, pure learning. The minute kids come to school all that changes and the critical voice goes from being a motivator to shutting down the whole creative process by introducing the fear of "failure" and the shame of "failure". A word that I tried to get the kids to substitute for failure when it came to art was 'practice'.

^^^That is a beautiful observation, herbavore!
Perhaps the overly critical look at your own creation originates in ability to construct positive reinforcing connection and feedback to others while maintaining a healthy ego...

Creating for me is all about achieving the flow state. When this happens and it is pure engagement, just like for my long-ago three year old self, there is no final product to love or hate.

^^^Yes, that is the time of the most honesty and the deepest levels of expression possible, the time that allows us everything.

I feel that way a lot, without tripping. It’s probably my biggest struggle is not become a contemplative hermit and because I have a wife and kids feeling trapped in the world. I take some comfort that monks and hermits themselves say it doesn’t make it easier. They still worry and are driven by their egos of who can pray the longest or who gets to clean the holy vases, and on and on.

It's interesting that OP finds a lot of human creations repulsive whilst under a psychedelic influence, but creations of the natural world to be acceptable or sublime even. I think there's a parallel aspect in there to this idea of hating art or the artistic process when it is done for money or at any point is simply a contrivance. I know from my experiences that I simply can not stand to be around human creations either whilst on psychedelics, it's why I haven't done them in years; TV is like sandpaper to my mind, the rigid and plain geometry of buildings to be claustrophobic, the very banal utterances of people grate on me even if they're high and trying to be expressive. It all turns me right off.

^^^I'm glad to hear I'm not alone in my world's perception!

Is this disdain a projection of our minds, an internal conflict, or is there an objectivity to beauty or art? Personally I have always believed there is an objectivity to it, one strand of it very evident in all classical arts, music, architecture, and it's everywhere throughout nature - what's called sacred geometry, but basically ratio and proportion. The other strand is more subtle and ethereal, and not easy to grasp or pin down to the material world.. but I believe it is there and it is like an essence, a point, mystery, je ne sais quoi. Nature exudes both components confidently without hesitation, whereas our creative products can be unbalanced between the two strands.. but if it is lacking the second strand it can be the most proportioned piece of art imaginable but feel hollow and grating to some internal part of us. The best art is proportioned and communicates mystery or a point, and not just to yourself. Nature is the best at it of course, as close to perfection as we'll ever see in this dimension.

As humans I think it's easy to see human thinking and action in human creative pieces, obviously, which diminishes things somewhat whereas what nature produces seems to remain largely a mystery to us in terms of that je ne sais quai. Even with the great human works of art you can still intuit the hidden aspect, whereas with nature its largely unknowable and we can't dialogue with it.

^^^ O! :D That is precisely what I meant to say!..
The mystery, that unseen part of art that just makes you immediately present and filled with understanding and meaning - there sure are some works of art capable of doing that and I'd say most of it is well-known and respected for that reason. Just like A. Huxley drew parallels between precious stones and metals seen within the mind's eye and our crude imitation of it as a form of art manipulating gold, silver, diamonds, e.t.c and giving them such high value - because they are the closest to the divine visions embedded in us and they are able to invoke those deep feelings of awe while looking at them.

Honestly I see human works as natural too. I mean, we're a part of nature. Spiders create webs that are beautiful. Other animals create too, so why are the things we create somehow set apart? Why are they ugly when things other life creates are not? To me, the attempt to imitate nature in art is beautiful in itself, and sometimes it brings out something new, especially in the case of abstract art. The sum total of what all life brings to the table is what nature is. I know you probably don't mean it this way, but I think it's maybe not the best thing when people refer to "us vs nature", because we ARE part of nature, there is no distinction. It makes sense to talk about it using that language though, since our culture and others have had a very long history of trying to set ourselves apart from nature, as if we can be greater than nature. The roots of that attitude are in survival, so it makes sense if you think about it why it developed, but it's still a shame and it leads to cognitive dissonance in my opinion.

^^^I'm sorry for not being perfectly clear. By human creation in this context I assume more of a conscious design, rather than automatically flowed, "natural" patterned behavior (like spider and spiderwebs). There's something unique to humans that makes our creations to stand out both with extreme ugliness and emptiness and with God-like beauty.

I love looking at art while tripping, maybe not as much as I look staring at a tree or something, but both are worthwhile to me.

^^^When I'm into +++ and higher territory, I sometimes find all art to be somewhat abrasive, annoying and messy (sometimes it makes me feel like it's too much) - while turning to simple patterns found in nature never exhaust itself in that way for me.

Question Volsam - If you hate human creations, especially your own, while tripping, do you also hate humans? Do you hate yourself? if not, what is the distinction then?

^^^Come to think of that, I think I do hate humans in a way, myself included...
And not necessarily while tripping, although it provides for the most intense experiences of these kind - at times I would feel the heaviness and pain of the whole world.

I also have the feeling sometimes that there is something broken inside of me and all the people around, and we just cant do anything about it but to observe and try to capture the "drama". I guess it's a "side-effect" of our ability to internalize all experience.

 

[Foreigner]

While being very unwell, the only place I experience true solace and emotional release of all my burdens is in nature. The shapes, colours, textures and movements are all soothing to my senses. My creative centre opens and there are more possibilities again. It feels like it's in my chest, in my heart. The sad irony is that I forget I need it until I'm in it. Once I'm in it I can't believe I ever tried living without it. Then when I'm outside of it, I forget it matters again.

Our modern society is built by A-type people who use the creative class to achieve their ends, but it's still an A-type world. Nature is only beginning to be integrated into our way of life because of what's happening to the planet. It's utilitarian. It saddens me to imagine a future when the only place nature can be found is in a curated space by humans. I would not want to be alive if that were the case.

This subject makes me very melancholy and I can't pinpoint why. Something to do with... the futility of systems that are trying to thrive off of lost human potential. It kind of breaks my heart. We shouldn't be this dull.

 

[Volsam]

Our modern society is built by A-type people who use the creative class to achieve their ends, but it's still an A-type world. Nature is only beginning to be integrated into our way of life because of what's happening to the planet. It's utilitarian. It saddens me to imagine a future when the only place nature can be found is in a curated space by humans. I would not want to be alive if that were the case.

This subject makes me very melancholy and I can't pinpoint why. Something to do with... the futility of systems that are trying to thrive off of lost human potential. It kind of breaks my heart. We shouldn't be this dull.

Very interesting point.
I personally think there are two types of entities in the Universe - hot and cold bodies, just like in physics, absolutely cold body will not give off anything but will accumulate all the energy it can, while the absolutely hot body, on the opposite, is devoid of the ability to save and conserve but is able to constantly produce and give out energy. I say "absolutely" because in reality I think all creatures have both abilities with an accent towards one of them.

So the cold bodies would be that A-type of people, accumulating and manipulating all the energy, produced by the creative class - hot bodies, giving out all they have, being unable to save and thus fit into the model of a "successful modern man", falling into personality issues, depression, endless counseling and drugs.

I think it is a type of Ying and Yang situation, where one side is necessary for the other to exist. The only problem with humanity remains that we are extremely rigid with our understanding models and move super slow on our Way, not helping each other but consciously trying to take over all the time, mistakenly thinking that there is a way to "win" anything.


I wholeheartedly agree - we should not be that dull.

 

[Xorkoth]

I like your idea "hot and cold bodies". I certainly notice that it is possible for a person's energy to manifest in a spectrum between those two states you describe. Some people are more of the vampire types, I don't think it's just type-A personalities though, and I even know some of those who radiate energy for others and are not energy vampires at all. I think people can become energy sinks because of need, too. My friend who died recently went from one end to the other, her mental issues brought on by a deep childhood-based need for affection and affirmation of her mother spiralled, in the last few years of her life, out of control, due to drugs and neglect, into a serious energy vampire. Every single interaction with her consisted of her acting out in ways where she hoped to get us to be like, yes, you're right, you're wonderful, nothing about what's going on here is your fault and all of your actions are noble. It was take, take, take, utterly exhausting and taxing and tragic to behold, especially since when she was younger she was a wonderful, positive, glowing person who really brought others up.

At the other end of the spectrum, energy emitters, like you said, give it all away. These people are wonderful and bring a lot to others, but they are also often taken advantage of by people looking to suck someone's energy (of course they are not thinking about it like that, but they are subconsciously or consciously seeking someone to give them what they need). Being 100% on this end is not healthy, either. I feel like the idea is to try to strive for something like an 75/25 split (75 on the giving to others side). You could give a lot to others and output a lot of positive energy into the world. But you could still use others for support, perhaps you have wonderful friends and loved ones who give a lot back in return, so it is only taking the energy offered, and energy exchange really. But when needed, you could generate your own energy for yourself too and avoid an unhealthy slide to one extreme or the other when external sources don't suffice for you.

 

[Foreigner]

I think the only way to know the difference between the two and when it's appropriate to do one or the other, is through self-love. Something that a lot of people lack.

If you don't know what you're worth then how do you know what you're giving or taking.

It seems like our whole material paradigm is currently based upon filling the void that would otherwise be satiated by this self-love. That's what the baby boomers brought us.

I've spent most of my life giving everything to people who didn't deserve it even though ultimately they would not be helped by it, all because I thought I wasn't a good person if I didn't do it. What's the point of living in a wealthy economy or even a creative society when you don't even know what you're worth.

 

[herbavore]

This subject makes me very melancholy and I can't pinpoint why. Something to do with... the futility of systems that are trying to thrive off of lost human potential. It kind of breaks my heart.

This describes the source of the deepest, most pervasive sadness I have ever experienced. There is no 'kinda' for me. It is breaking my heart.

 

[JessFR]

I see it all as the same. Most people see a birds nest as part of nature and a house as artificial. I don't.

To me it is ALL nature. Absolutely nothing is unnatural in a meaningful sense. To me anyway.

I'm natural, you're natural, this forum... natural, no less so than a bird chirping or a dog barking. Just further along the evolutionary path. That's all.

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

A lot of times, especially when tripping introspectively or meditating deeply, I would find all human creations repulsive, ugly, scary and laughable at best, whereas creations of nature and cosmos (God if you like) appear majestic, beautiful and full of meaning.

Being a man of arts (music and some visual), I stumble to think why do we strive so much to create or even more recreate (something naturally existing) when the end result is a lot of times so disappointing and only can be loved on a personal, ego level?

If you look at the animal kingdom, their creative models are limited to what is necessary to the immediate survival, what makes humans make things differently?

What is driving us humans to create, evolution? The deep feeling of need to give our "fire" to the next generation of life forms? Are we trying to "create" a God while creating things (art including)? Are we trying to feel that we are "Creators"?..8)

Thoughts and rambles are welcome! :D

I think about this all the time. Next to most other animal bodies the primate is an ugly scary guy and then take the hair off and you got the human that generally is a gauky lanky or fat dumpy thing that really is not strong or built to survive in nature easily like most other animals. Not too pretty except for a short time in youth. And if you can step back from sexual excitement genitals aren't really that pretty either. Meat bodies are the bottom of the barrel of attractive and that includes a lot of insects. We try to make up for this by creating beautiful things I guess. It's interesting what we are. Why this way? No answers.

 

[Xorkoth]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It's funny to put yourself in the perspective of something else... but here's a question: do you find dogs sexy? I don't. But nearly hairless, fleshy female human forms... that does it for me. It wouldn't if I was a dog. It's just what we were built to find attractive. It's a hormonal thing, that we turn into something that interacts with our conscious thought because that's what humans do.

We are pretty funny looking if you look at it objectively though. I can't think of any other mammals that have so little hair. I bet the rest of them are like, haha, look at those silly motherfuckers.

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

Not sexy but a more beautiful and graceful body and face on dogs for sure. And how they move and their physical skills and the look in their eyes are all way more intense and beautiful to me as with many other animals like the cats. We are bound by sexual urges so you have to account for that because people will fuck just about anything at times and dogs will certainly try to hump a human. But just on natural grace and beauty, with all the sagging skin which on other animals is covered with beautiful interesting hair and so they look sleek and refined they win hands down IMO. Most humans are dumpy if you just step back and look which is the same for most primates except the smaller monkeys. Why would nature make only us mostly hairless? Ever wonder about that?

 

[Volsam]

..Why would nature make only us mostly hairless? Ever wonder about that?

I like to hypothesize that we humans, as species, had contracted some kind of a weird virus and / or mutation and our evolutionary path had taken a new direction than the rest of the living world on our planet...

The virus / mutation might have had given us the mental capacity for internalization and made us very fragile susceptible to all kinds of damage.
But this may be viewed as a point in time when the concept of "God" and creativity was also implemented in us, unless it was already inside the simplest life forms as they started developing - then God appears as the unique pattern and "initial code" for creating proteins and arranging them to build a complex system, making life forms to be kind of like a God's fractals. 8)

 

[protovack]

Nothing we create will ever be as grand as the universe we live in. But I find it very interesting that we are able to try