MichaelEmeryArt

David Sloan Wilson - American evolutionary biologist

                 How does the Artist need the Group, and the Group need the Artist

                                                                ( if creation of a work of art is a individual endeavor )

excerpt from ; ART AND SPIRITUALITY,...……

             Art is a result of inspiration, and inspiration has a spiritual nature. So art is in its base spiritual activity. If we would like to define art in short we could say that it is the communication of the human with the sense of existence, the discovering of deep secrets, penetrating to the source of things. The artist is, in this case, a mediator between that source and the receiver.
The theme of the art work, technique, style, are just the means for communication with the audience. They have been changing throughout history from epoch to epoch, from artist to artist. The artist's only true problem through history was to chose the form of mediation, but most often that form, together with the content, was imposed by the society in which he used to live. Since primitive society it was religion and its institutions, and from the l7th century secular authorities, their philosophy of life and science. But gradually the artist was increasing the space for implementation of his individuality into creation. 


Still, religion, as an eminently spiritual sphere, has made the deepest impact on art. Namely, since man is in existence he is followed equally by art and religion, which are interwoven till our times, dominating alternately the human conscience in most historical epochs. 


In primitive society the two fields were unbreakably linked with everyday life, with the hunters' activities, agriculture, fertility, healing etc. In the personality of the tribe-magician, the priest and the artist were joined and had direct relations with natural forces and daily or seasonal events.
  

In the later epochs, from Ancient Egypt to Renaissance, art has served as the visualization of ruling ideologies. In this pre-modern time, the artist was illustrating what the ruling class wanted to transmit to other society members, through artwork whose themes and styles were determined and canonized. In that phase, the artist was communicating with nature and society always with some ruling ideology on his mind. In that period art was treated mostly as handicraft which should be learnt for better service. The main characteristics of those artists was their modesty, anonymity and serving to the system. The early cultures had temples in which they presented worshipped beings, and in  the Middle Ages canonized religious themes.

Since Renaissance, when painted image became independent from architecture, as an object for itself, the artist gradually moved away from the state's ideologies and becomes more and more individual, what we can see mostly in Romanticism.

In the 20th century Modern art the artist is completely independent, and the artwork reaches such autonomy towards reality that it became an object for itself. Now the artist is not communicating with reality through the artwork, but is communicating WITH his artwork which is a sum of visual and other elements. The artist removes from the reality, so we have directions such as abstract painting, enformel, constructivism, concretism. The Modern art is characterized by formal and technological researches, which makes the artwork - reality for itself, more complex and independent. In this historical period spirituality was pushed into the background by formalism. The typical for that time is occurrence of collage and assemblage techniques where the trace of the human hand is irrelevant and everything is depersonalized.

Finally we come to the new phase, to the so called mental and spiritual art. In the 60's we witnessed the phase when the creative act prominently retires into the creator's mental sphere. He do not communicate with his own artwork neither, but he is developing relations in the sphere of ideas. The so called dematerialization of the art object occurs. The conceptual art has a prominent role, and its embryo can be found in the beginning of the 20th century, in the art of Marcel Duchamp. The artist's idea becomes relevant, and not its materialization, craft, or virtue. In that way the very harmful commodity relation in the art market is also surmounted. The mental art has initiated and sharpened the question of art's sense and place in the society.

In the mental art, where spirituality is getting a more significant place, the artist is communicating with his own concepts, and is expressing himself more often using schemes, texts, diagrams or arranging found objects, ready-mades. Craftsmanship is completely neglected, all the more so because the modern technology: computers, video systems, photography, means of telecommunication enables easy expression by just pressing the button. What comes into the front plan is the human being, its mental structure, suggestiveness, behaviour, affecting the environment. New art forms are coming into being which are neglecting aesthetics and are approaching THE ETHICS. They are more and more resembling the manifestations of everyday life, and they are transforming life into a form of art. Happenings, performances, body-art, video-art, mail-art, eco-art are just a few forms of the mental art of our time. They are leading the spectator towards more complex and intensive experiences of his own existence, orienting him towards essential laws of existence, in a direct and vivid manner.

Since the artistic inspiration, for which we said in the beginning that it is the base of every art work, has a spiritual nature, the ideal form of art is the direct transmission of the inspiration or enlightenment into the spectator. By a mental resonance the spectator is led to a state of fascination, the same as the artist, and he experiences the same passion of unity with the source and essence of existence - what is by definition the origin of art. Such experiences, where the artist is directly transmitting his inspiration, can rightfully be named spiritual art.

The spiritual art generates from ancient experiences of meditation, magic, telepathy which today's science is dealing with, and is induced by knowledge in contemporary biology (the theory of Morphogenetic fields) and physics (holographic paradigm). The spiritual art is performed by spiritually purified persons which function as mediator between the laws of existence and the recipient. The artwork is manifested in the spheres of spiritual interchange, of resonance between people. In this form of creativity, the artist is communicating with the collectively unconscious, with spiritual potentials of the whole universe. He is radiating inspiration to the surroundings, changing the state of minds of recipients and the entire spiritual milieu. The spiritual artist is inspiring the sense of existence by his activities, changing the everyday life into an unlimited and eternal work of art.

In this phase of development of art and spirituality, these two fields are merging, enabling artist and priest to exist in one person again, as in prehistoric times. The humankind has made a huge circle, thousands of years long and has approach to the innocent state, when the genuine nature is given back to men, and when the spirituality is fertilizing every moment of existence. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          by Andrej Tisma
 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                      What is a True Evolutionary Adaptation ?

                                                        David Sloan Wilson explains; True Evolutionary Adaptation

Darwin also made the first suggestion of group selection in The Descent of Man that the evolution of groups could affect the survival of individuals. He wrote, "If one man in a tribe... invented a new snare or weapon, the tribe would increase in number, spread, and supplant other tribes. In a tribe thus rendered more numerous there would always be a rather better chance of the birth of other superior and inventive members."[


Social behaviors such as altruism and group relationships can impact many aspects of population dynamics, such as intraspecific competition and interspecific interactions. In 1871, Darwin argued that group selection occurs when the benefits of cooperation or altruism between subpopulations are greater than the individual benefits of egotism within a subpopulation.[6] This supports the idea of multilevel selection, but kinship also plays an integral role because many subpopulations are composed of closely related individuals. An example of this can be found in lions, which are simultaneously cooperative and territorial.[45] Within a pride, males protect the pride from outside males, and females, who are commonly sisters, communally raise cubs and hunt. However, this cooperation seems to be density dependent. When resources are limited, group selection favors prides that work together to hunt. When prey is abundant, cooperation is no longer beneficial enough to outweigh the disadvantages of altruism, and hunting is no longer cooperative.


          First thing we got to study Humans more,and not just other animals, as we are much more adaptable,simple due to ability to                                                                       exchange thoughts and ideas if nothing else.

I think we might be forgetting " A parent can be fully able to give their own life up for a child "- altruism, thus Altruism is always in a group most likely.

Any true "love" bond,there is likely the element of;    " one is there to give their life for another."

Evolutionary (ultimate) explanations

1 Function (adaptation)

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is the only scientific explanation for why an animal's behaviour is usually well adapted for survival and reproduction in its environment. However, claiming that a particular mechanism is well suited to the present environment is different from claiming that this mechanism was selected for in the past due to its history of being adaptive.[5] The literature conceptualizes the relationship between function and evolution in two ways. On the one hand, function and evolution are often presented as separate and distinct explanations of behaviour.[6]

On the other hand, the common definition of adaptation, a central concept in evolution, is a trait that was functional to the reproductive success of the organism and that is thus now present due to being selected for; that is, function and evolution are inseparable. However a trait can have a current function that is adaptive without being an adaptation in this sense, if for instance the environment has changed. Imagine an environment in which having a small body suddenly conferred benefit on an organism when previously body size had had no effect on survival.[7]

A small body's function in the environment would then be adaptive, but it wouldn't become an adaptation until enough generations had passed in which small bodies were advantageous to reproduction for small bodies to be selected for. Given this, it is best to understand that presently functional traits might not all have been produced by natural selection.[8] The term "function" is preferable to "adaptation", because adaptation is often construed as implying that it was selected for due to past function.

It corresponds to Aristotle's final cause.[3]


2 Phylogeny (evolution)

Evolution captures both the history of an organism via its phylogeny, and the history of natural selection working on function to produce adaptations.[9] There are several reasons why natural selection may fail to achieve optimal design (Mayr 2001:140–143; Buss et al. 1998). One entails random processes such as mutation and environmental events acting on small populations. Another entails the constraints resulting from early evolutionary development. Each organism harbors traits, both anatomical and behavioural, of previous phylogenetic stages, since many traits are retained as species evolve.

Reconstructing the phylogeny of a species often makes it possible to understand the "uniqueness" of recent characteristics: Earlier phylogenetic stages and (pre-) conditions which persist often also determine the form of more modern characteristics. For instance, the vertebrate eye (including the human eye) has a blind spot, whereas octopus eyes do not. In those two lineages, the eye was originally constructed one way or the other. Once the vertebrate eye was constructed, there were no intermediate forms that were both adaptive and would have enabled it to evolve without a blind spot.

It corresponds to Aristotle's formal cause.[3]


Proximate explanations

3 Mechanism (causation)

Some prominent classes of Proximate causal mechanisms include:

  • The brain: For example, Broca's area, a small section of the human brain, has a critical role in linguistic capability.
  • Hormones: Chemicals used to communicate among cells of an individual organism. Testosterone, for instance, stimulates aggressive behaviour in a number of species.
  • Pheromones: Chemicals used to communicate among members of the same species. Some species (e.g., dogs and some moths) use pheromones to attract mates.

In examining living organisms, biologists are confronted with diverse levels of complexity (e.g. chemical, physiological, psychological, social). They therefore investigate causal and functional relations within and between these levels. A biochemist might examine, for instance, the influence of social and ecological conditions on the release of certain neurotransmitters and hormones, and the effects of such releases on behaviour, e.g. stress during birth has a tocolytic (contraction-suppressing) effect.

However, awareness of neurotransmitters and the structure of neurons is not by itself enough to understand higher levels of neuroanatomic structure or behaviour: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts." All levels must be considered as being equally important: cf. transdisciplinarity, Nicolai Hartmann's "Laws about the Levels of Complexity."

It corresponds to Aristotle's efficient cause.[3]


4 Ontogeny (development)[

In the latter half of the twentieth century, social scientists debated whether human behaviour was the product of nature (genes) or nurture (environment in the developmental period, including culture).

An example of interaction (as distinct from the sum of the components) involves familiarity from childhood. In a number of species, individuals prefer to associate with familiar individuals but prefer to mate with unfamiliar ones (Alcock 2001:85–89, Incest taboo, Incest). By inference, genes affecting living together interact with the environment differently from genes affecting mating behaviour. A homely example of interaction involves plants: Some plants grow toward the light (phototropism) and some away from gravity (gravitropism).

Many forms of developmental learning have a critical period, for instance, for imprinting among geese and language acquisition among humans. In such cases, genes determine the timing of the environmental impact.

A related concept is labeled "biased learning" (Alcock 2001:101–103) and "prepared learning" (Wilson, 1998:86–87). For instance, after eating food that subsequently made them sick, rats are predisposed to associate that food with smell, not sound (Alcock 2001:101–103). Many primate species learn to fear snakes with little experience (Wilson, 1998:86–87).[10]

See developmental biology and developmental psychology.

Explanations of Animal Behaviour: Causal Relationships; Adopted from Tinbergen (1963).

It corresponds to Aristotle's material cause.[3]





At about 1:24:00 Wilson talks about the male aggression towards the females; 


                                    "Berdache's role to protect / help the females in many ways"

                                       

                                Had to be reason the Berdache tradition was maintained commonly in so many tribes

                                  And like myself, the males knew I would not be interested in the Females sexually

                                      because I be having sex with them as -passive partner- since puberty

                        Which in reality.if the culture I grew up in, had a accepted berdache like tradition, I personal know,

                                                              I would of never desired to have sex with a female,

                                               due to fact that I was so highly emasculated pyschosexually as female,

                                              After only few months of being sexually passive with my two male friends.

                                                  If not for being shamed out of being a "girly-boyfriend" for the two,

                                                  This by no means "halted" my want/need to be a "girly-boyfriend"..

               And my remaining childhood,I very much keep myself from being influenced by culture / society as a whole,

                            isolated my self in ways (spent much time alone just with Nature),which my style to this day.

                                   One reason, I can clearly see that Current Society is headed in a very wrong direction.


"As early as 1687 we find the "chef des femmes" of the Natchez accompanying the warriors on campaign, dressed as a woman and "doing the things women do." (56) Exactly the same role--as sexual providers inter alia, was encountered among the tribes of Texas in the eighteenth century, and so on deep into Zacarecas and beyond. (57) Naturally, this sexual service did not rule out other types of service for the warriors, including not only cooking and cleaning and the like, but, at least in the area of the Plains berdaches serving at times as trusted purveyors of information between tribes. (58)
The author describes the situation as follows. Illinois men were not satisfied by their women, who were not sufficiently forthcoming sexually. To correct this situation, so says de Liette, groups of boys were trained from childhood as passives to satisfy the needs of these braves. Clearly, the threat of the rape of Illinois girls was here just as present as it had been among the Yumas d'Alarcon encountered a century and a half earlier."

                               Yet, clearly under the guidiance of religious beliefs, the berdache were hunted and killed, 

                                        at same time nearly destroying a important aspects of human evolution.


                                                                                 If one wishs to read of Say "Zuni", history

                                                                            Murder and rape, was basically Un-Heard of !