Hyphenated Epistemologies

In this post I venture into tinkering with the Western cultural machine.

Western culture seems to me to be evenly divided between dualistic and hyphenated (non-dualistic) epistemologies. On one side of the coin-of-the-cultural-realm are intellectual and spiritual epistemologies: both of these ways of knowing seem invested in maintaining dualistic structures (mind/body, immaterial/material, etc.). The more Eastern (or non-dualistic or hyphenated) side of the Western coin features the aesthetic and scientific epistemologies. Both of these ways of knowing combine and intertwine physical and mental, material and immaterial, in various yet identifiable ways.

The Western cultural machine thus seems to me to strike a balance: two dualistic ways of knowing, two non-dualistic ways of knowing. Is there a pecking order? I think so, but I'll get to that part later. In part I explored the pecking order just a bit in my earlier post on 'english' as a toolset, in which I argued that the language itself tends to preclude non-dualism from gaining anything like an upper hand or primary role in the epistemological barnyard. But I'll touch on a slightly different strand of the same idea later in this post.

For now, I'll start with the idea that there may be a certain kind of 'doubling' or intensifying of non-dualism that occurs when art hooks up with science (via technology). This possibly creates a kind of overbalance, too much for the dualistic side of Western culture to bear without triggering push-backs. Labels are one way to push back: non-dualist art sometimes gets called avant garde, which is a kind of compliment but also a kind of locked box.

Hyphenated terms in the intellectual realm may similarly threaten to upset the cultural balance by introducing non-dualism into traditionally dualistic epistemological terrain. Maybe this is why such terms are forced, when they do emerge, to bear the tell-tale sign-of-the-hyphen. Hyphenated names in marriages may raise similar suspicions! Now that I think about this, teaching digital media courses in a liberal-arts arena sometimes gets me to feeling like a hyphenated term myself.

What does the above have to do with generative art? It seems to me what we are exploring is an incredibly provocative and evocative form. Particularly now that computers have entered the picture, it is possible to elide the otherwise obvious mechanical side of industrial-era technology and make tech-infused art which evokes traditional transcendent resonances and intellectual appeal --thus satisfying the needs of the dualist side of the Western cultural machine while also furthering the advance, so to speak, of non-dualism. Because of this, we may be in the unique position of participating in the encoding of so-called 'new-media' into the cultural mainstream. In some ways we may be recapitulating history by starting with generative sketches that employ, for the most part, highly visible industrial-era media (and, going back even further in history, to nature-powered media). (Which reminds me to make a note that I might want to discuss creating a passel of solar-powered mini-sculptures that could be planted, so to speak, strategically around campus).

There are organizations popping up that are dedicated to an overall convergence of epistemologies. This is interesting to me because it represents an attempt to include all epistemes in a merged mode, not a balanced mode --which highlights the founding metaphor of 'balance' in our cultural machine; 'merge' is not the main mode, in other words. One such organization is called HASTAC (the acronym stands for Humanities, Art, Science, and Technology Advanced Collaboratory. The only epistemology HASTAC leaves out is the spiritual one (the organization captures scientific, aesthetic, and intellectual epistemologies only). The grand-daddy of electric media studies, Marshall McLuhan, included them all in his analysis, synthesis, prognostications, and creative ramblings.

A link to the HASTAC website. A link to an article in wired magazine (in reference to the spiritual) about the influence of Teilhard de Chardin on some prominent media-convergence folks including McLuhan. A link to an article on technoshamanism (I haven't read this article closely but it looks like it could be mined for some of its links and resources).

Bottom line? My hunch is that the Western cultural machine is designed to preserve, above all else, transcendental dualism. I think the genius of cultural machines is that they scale up or down very easily, and morph freely to preserve their operational imperatives. For example if non-dualism emerges here and there within the cultural landscape, it will be naturally counterbalanced in myriad ways to preserve dualism's ultimate say and way. Culture seems sort of like an organic-machine, which is sort of like bio-tech, which is sort of like where this post started, exploring the whys, wherefors, hows, and trajectories of hyphenated terms.