We speak of the conversion of water into wine, at the wedding of Cana, as a miracle. But this conversion is done daily by the goodness of God before our eyes. This is the water that falls from the heavens on our vineyards; there it enters the roots of the vines to be changed into wine; constant proof that God loves us, and that he loves to see us happy.
— Benjamin Franklin
Der Bingle,
Since we keep talking about Freud, please feel at liberty to recline on the psychoanalysis couch while I take a stab at your psyche with the scalpel of speculation — Freud’s favorite toy. Something about your last letter rang in my ears as a distinction between postmodernism as an aesthetic and as a philosophy — a distinction you don’t seem to have much trouble making. I must admit, your appeal to the mixed nature of the Petersonian walled garden of Eden seems apropos, as even Solomon himself said, “Do not make yourself too wise.” But, in view of the distinction, how much can we separate an aesthetic from its philosophy?
For me, jazz very much expresses the walled garden motif. Some free jazz is repulsive in its excesses, but jazz should also stretch the strictures of theory enough to make room for the soul of the musician to express itself. There’s some vestige of this in one of the biblical paradoxes most important to Protestantism: the law of liberty. James calls this law perfect. The perfect law does not restrict, but liberates. What the aesthetic of the theory-soul dichotomy in jazz reminds me of is the philosophical dichotomy in the New Testament between Law and Spirit. It seems clear in the gospels that the sending of the Spirit, the writing of God’s Law on the people’s hearts is the fulfillment of the Law that Christ promised. And, if the Talmud proves anything about this fact it’s that a law without the Spirit is a law unperfected and promise unfulfilled.
Perhaps some Protestants in particular stumble here in raising the written Word above the incarnate Word it is meant to magnify. The letter of the Scriptures is breathed out by God, but is not God. Though I’m wary of the hazard of sounding neo-orthodox, I think the danger in asserting that the Bible is truth is in losing that it more fundamentally contains and refers to the Truth, which is Christ. Jesus is not the Bible, but His same Spirit did inspire and does illuminate it. As Paul tells the Corinthian faithful, all gifts are passing away except love, because God is love. The Word as Christ is therefore also never passing away, because He is God’s love made manifest to mankind. But when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. The Scriptures will presumably be unhelpful to those who see God face-to-face.
Then again, this can’t become an excuse to neglect the Scriptures. If the Spirit is eternal, then His Word is of utmost importance for those who still see dimly. We still await the perfect. All this is to say that the Spirit and the Word are distinct just like their respective Personal embodiments, or rather essences, in the Trinity and are likewise nonetheless inseparable. Considering spiritus or pneuma as breath makes the connection even clearer. Breath and spoken word are distinct but not independent.
Here, I think we shall find adequate terra firma for discussing the aesthetic-philosophic divide. Let’s suppose (since this analogy could likely be as easily reversed) that “word” is most like aesthetic in that both are the expressive component of the “spirit” or philosophy that produces it. The two are surely distinct, else, being conceptual, they could not be held as distinct in the mind. But they cannot be separated any more than the true can be from the beautiful.
Therefore, I think that aesthetic judgement is inherently philosophical. Why else would it be called a judgement? It may not be a judgement that is rational, stable, dispassionate or even explicit, but it is a judgement nonetheless. To fall again on Peterson, especially via Jonathan Pageau, who is an aestheticist first and a philosopher second in my opinion, the attention of consciousness is itself an assertion of value. That we look at things that please us aesthetically insists that such things are indeed worth looking at, to the exclusion of all else for whatever duration the looking lasts. Our aesthetic preferences betray our values. One’s treasure is where one’s heart is, and one’s eyes fixate on one’s treasure, at least in the case of aesthetic experience.
What I’m saying is that what we treat as beautiful with our eyes we imply is also good and true. And yet, the conundrum is that this is not how we often assess our own individual experiences. For example, it is somehow so easy to say one likes a musician without approving of his or her lifestyle, and yet do not both reflect the whole of their perspective? Are their beliefs not present in both? Does artwork not count generally as another part of lifestyle, like any other word or deed? It certainly doesn’t always feel that way. Although, sometimes it is not so easy, as the collapse of the art-artist divide is manifest in the politicization of everything.
Maybe it is a part of human nature that it is easy to ignore what we want to ignore and pay attention to what we want to pay attention to. Again, this is a fundamental expression of value. By way of another example (and continuing on the subject of things that sucker us in), I’m a sucker for Hostess cupcakes, even though I will readily admit that they are far from nutritious. My willingness to eat them, despite what I may say, betrays even a momentary valuing of sweetness — the aesthetic experience of the senses taste and smell — over the nourishment and fitness of my body — the substantive significance of food. I like cupcakes because sometimes I value enjoying food more than physiologically benefiting from it.
I suppose then that the real question remaining is, is this so wrong? Can’t a guy have a cupcake every now and then? After all, wouldn’t it be even more disordered to totally value nutrition without valuing at all the aesthetics of gastronomy and culinary art, inevitably eating only condensed nutrition capsules like the Jetsons? I think that our age of scientism has shown that doing only what is pragmatically best is not actually pragmatic or beneficial, therefore defeating itself. Beauty and aesthetic experience are not optional, as you yourself have articulated. We literally need them for our wellbeing, not unlike simple eating and drinking. The popularization of the “mental health” category is, after all, a sort of modern attempt to realize this fact that in order to be truly healthy you mustn’t only consider what you do, but consider what you think. Body and mind are neither identical nor isolated, but, once again, they are inseparable.
Am I saying that postmodern aesthetics are junk food? If we’re still talking about Tarantino, then yes. But I don’t think that consuming junk food has to necessarily be a vice. Perhaps the moniker of “junk food” is itself the product of an inordinately pragmatic focus. I think Psalm 104 and Song of Solomon are pretty good evidence that the salvation and providence of God are not strictly pragmatic accomplishments, but ecstatic ones. Perhaps God is not moved by His passions, but neither do I think He is dispassionate or disinterested in human happiness as much as He is interested in our survival. He doesn’t save us to life as somehow opposed to goodness, beauty and joy. These things are all energies of one essence. Our glorification of God in eternity naturally and necessarily entails enjoying Him forever.
So, maybe this can help remedy the pharisaic tendency you’ve identified in yourself — a tendency I think the gospels present as fundamental in our sinful natures, and therefore common to all of us. Although you may still not know what a pooka is, I think we can agree that Harvey’s lesson rings true: it is better to be pleasant than to be smart. More deeply, as I’ve written, goodness is superior to correctness. Correctness on its own is like the introduction of a book or the bow on top of a present. It’s only really beautiful because of the complete package.
I don’t know what all this means for how we ought to relate to aesthetics, but maybe we don’t have to separate philosophy and aesthetics any more than we have to separate the Word from the Spirit or sugar from its calories. But that doesn’t make counting calories a useless effort. As long as we read the label, we can stay aware of what our aesthetic tendencies reveal about our philosophic dispositions — including our deficiencies. This means we also don’t have to choose between valuing aesthetics or philosophy at the expense of the other. Value isn’t just an either-or, it’s more like a list with God residing at the top and determining all the either-or’s beneath. First, we value God and God alone, seek first the Kingdom, and all the rest is added unto us.
Die Wahrheit ist untödlich,
Dein Bruder,
Garrett L. White
Being Kindled 
Leave a comment