Poets and critics (Another example of the operators)

I have had the strange fortune of having gone through Nietzsche superman and Chesterton's Orthodoxy one after the other. That has left me knocked around the old badminton court like a shuttle cock. On one side the manic "disturbed" gentleman and on the other hand, a guy who criticizes mania or madness in the most beautiful terms. A person is headed for disaster and blindness if he believes in himself too much one one hand and on the other hand a person who did head for disaster and blindness with periods of lucidity.

Nietzsche apparently spent months wandering around not writing anything and then in 10 days would compose one third of "thus spake Zarathustra". His writing while inspired at times is "trying to reach" at others. Often he takes the solace of what he is NOT trying to describe rather than what he is describing. This echoes with the truth which cannot be said by the sufis or mystics. It is not Nietzsche who made his writings famous. Yes he believes in them to the exclusion of all else. It was other people who saw an idea that echoed with their own selves that took up the cause and that resulted in an ideology for a nation. The ideology was the product of a thinking mind, countless critics, philosophers who expounded on the genius of a person's statements. I guess there are numerous examples how an ideology proposed by someone is then carried in to practice by the rationality of the practical people.

I would like to point out that the ideology was not a package that was given wholly, it was developed. Among the ranting and ravings of the ideology expounded exist a lot of things that would not be too inspiring or would even be contradictory to the original ideas.

Chesterton puts it elegantly when he says that the poets themselves did not lead as troubled a life as the critics that thought about their works. It actually made me think about "great musicians" that become the voice of a generations. Beatles, Pink Floyd etc etc. In the creation of their ideology exists the same redundancy of materials. The same can be said of poets like Iqbal, Rumi or Khalil Gibran. There is redundancy in them all. All inspiration is victim to the muse. The muse is an inescapable phenomenon to rationality. The elegance of a dancer during one move can be studied under graphics and reproduced by another but the inspired dancer never thought about that particular move when attempting to execute that in that particular time or rhythm.

Another aspect of this is something that arists frequently face. They see conflict within themselves and they see the opposing currents that drive their art. Thinking destroys their art. At the spur of creation the thoughts are dead. To give an example any old work of an artist may be different from subsequent works. And it is common knowledge that a person's most moving works might not end up in the full bloom of their artistic life. Art at a particular moment when being expounded cares not for the form that it is going to survive in.

Chesterton, I believe is no stranger to this when he acknowledges his critics for calling him flippant. He does attempt though to answer his critics in their own language and in the attempt endangering his own sanity by trespassing a terrain which has been set up by his critics rather than himself. An artist will meet desolation and dryness if he ventures out of his element. The language of the inspired can only survive in its own element.

The thinking mind gave us science. And yes science is worlds apart from the art. Science survives and is responsible for the survival of art also. Art on its own is like sunlight. It is there but has to have a medium to illuminate.

The thinking mind in other words is the constant operator. The inspiration is the transitional operator. Life of the inspiration in the world is the fundamental operator.

I give you an example of a person trying to woo someone. Yes there is a person who would go around planning things, lets say a dinner, to the exact details. The timing of when particular things would be said and etc etc etc. And yes there is the person who would be open to whatever comes, comes and would take it in stride believing that inspiration and the genuineness of feelings would conquer all. Which approach is better and which would yield better results? The former approach would be an example of isolated will which seldom leads to happiness. Search a barren ground and dig till you find water. If success is not met, try harder. The latter approach is an approach that will be a hit or miss. It will not be able to hold up to the rigors of courtship without some sort of a forethought going in to it. One is the constant operator and the other the transitional operator. The combination of the two in a harmonious blend is the fundamental operator.