Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
there” is a noumenal world that is mechanical, rational and logical. Meaningful, ob-
jective and verifiable general explanation is possible. However such explanation is,
as a matter of principle, incomplete and statistical. Specific past events may elude
explanation, and future events may be unpredictable as a matter of principle even
though they are not irrational.
FN:
I think I have mentioned before, how much my admired teacher in philoso-
phy, Max Bense, was motivated in all his thinking and writing by his experience as
a thinking individual in Nazi Germany.
Nobody should allow him- or herself to let any emotions, anything non-rational
creep into their aesthetic (or other) judgement. Rationalism was the weapon in think-
ing against fascism and other totalitarian movements.
As young students we loved him for these messages. Radically I tried to follow
his traces. An exercise that helped me for a long time and occupied my thinking in
the most beautiful and satisfying way.
Why then did I later start deviating from this line? And why do I today no longer
believe that aesthetic judgement rationalism will get me very far?
It seems to me that, at this moment, I cannot pin down a specific event or insight
or influence that caused me to change in the way indicated. In very simple terms,
my position is: of course, we try to analyse a painting, a piece of music, a novel, etc.
in rationalist concepts and in a rationalist method; such an approach will give us a
lot of insight and a way to discuss and criticise without attacking us personally, but
only in issues of the subject matter; often, and for many, this is enough and nothing
more needs to be done; for others, however, the final judgement remains to be a
personal statement based on acquired feelings.
It has happened to me more than once that I enter a gallery room, take a look
around, and immediately (and unmediated) react in a positive, excited, interested,
attracted way to one of the paintings there. I move closer, study it carefully, think,
compare, visit the other paintings in the room, build up a judgement. Often, the
immediate impression survives a more careful consideration, and is enforced. Not
always though. At times, closer investigation leads to a revision of the first and
immediate impression.
I do know that everything I have learned and experienced about Artificial Intelli-
gence, everything I have read from Hubert Dreyfus, Joe Weizenbaum, the Scandina-
vians, David Noble, from Herbert Simon, Allen Newell, . . . all the heroes of AI—all
that built up in me, and reinforced again and again, a deep rejection of anything that
seems close to the separation of mind and body.
Cartesianism has had a great time, and has led to exciting results. But it has had
its time. The belief in “progress” has disappeared from me. Change, yes. Permanent
change.
Hannah Arendt refers to Kant as having said that aesthetic judgement relies on
examples, not on general concepts. This I believe. I say “believe”, not more.
After several weeks of silence, the discussion continues, this time initiated by
a report from Harold on his progress with AARON in creating new images for a
forthcoming exhibition. . .
