Eidic hierarchy as the basis of vertically oriented aesthetics

Pankratova Aleksandra Vladimirovna PhD in Philosophy Associate professor, Department of Design, National Research University “Moscow Power Engineering Institute” 111250, Russia, Moskovskaya oblast', g. Moscow, ul. Krasnokazarmennaya, 13 S, kab. 605 sashaoscar@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

Currently, aesthetic relativism is a rather serious problem in culture. Thanks to the periods of modernism and the avant-garde, a position has been established in culture related to the relativity of beauty and the permissibility of absolutely everything in art. Today, a horizontally oriented materialistic paradigm dominates, which does not imply an aesthetic hierarchy.

In recent years, this position has received extreme expression in the philosophy of flat ontologies (A. S. Vertushinsky ^[1], M. DeLanda, G. Harman, Jan Bogost, L. Bryant, T. Morton ^[2].), whose followers believe that non-being is not hierarchical, and, consequently, the ontological status of man and human art no higher than the status of any other objects ^[3].

This situation raises the question of the very existence of art, as well as the professions of artist and designer. In our research on modern design and the modern cultural situation ^[4,5,6], we came to the conclusion that the culture of modernism, the influence of which continues today, has adversely affected the visual appearance of both the subject and the information environment.

Therefore, research on the opposite – vertically oriented – paradigm is becoming relevant today, including from the point of view of applicability in design and in the organization of the visual environment.

The differentiation of the horizontally and vertically oriented paradigm is carried out by A. G. Dugin ^[7]. The philosopher introduces the terms "Logos of Apollo" and "Logos of Cybele", which are convenient for studying visual culture. The logos of Apollo is a vertically oriented system of thought, implying hierarchy and transcendent reality, God. A. G. Dugin connects this line in philosophy with Plato, Neoplatonism and further the Christian philosophy of the Church Fathers. The logos of Cybele is a horizontally oriented materialistic paradigm that stretches from the Cynics and Epicureans in our day through positivism and materialism into modern philosophy. Today, the Cybele logo finds its continuation in the philosophy of flat ontologies.

If subjectivity and the non-necessity of beauty are the defining attitudes of a horizontally oriented paradigm, then the opposite position should be associated with a clear aesthetic hierarchy.

In this article, an attempt is made to show that in a vertically oriented paradigm, the basis of ideas about the beautiful, and accordingly, the basis of the organization of the visual environment, is the idea of an eidetic hierarchy. This article is part of a larger study related to the transition from simulation to eidetic creativity in modern design. In this piece of research, it is important for us to establish a connection between vertically oriented aesthetics and the eidetic hierarchy, eidos.

The object of this research is the organization of visual culture in a vertically oriented paradigm.

The subject of the study is the eidetic hierarchy as the basis for the organization of the visual environment in a vertically oriented paradigm.

The purpose of this study is to explicate the eidic hierarchy as the basis of aesthetic representations in a vertically oriented paradigm (for further construction on the basis of this speculative model of the concept of the eidic design environment). This article is part of a larger study of design as a cultural phenomenon. We show that modern design inherits the ideology of modernism, that is, a horizontally oriented materialistic paradigm. This is precisely why the problems of modern design are connected: aesthetic relativism, the disappearance of the criteria of beauty, and after that, the disappearance of even functionality, human orientation and, as a result, the vector of transhumanism. These arguments are described in more detail in our other articles in the journal "Culture and Art" ^[3,4,5,6]. In this case, it is important for us to consider a speculative model for constructing aesthetic representations in a vertically oriented paradigm (the opposite of the modernist one in our constructions). In the future, an attempt will be made on the basis of this model to talk about the prospects for further development of the phenomenon of design and visual culture in general. 

The theoretical basis of the study:

Mentioning the modern philosophy of flat ontologies, we rely primarily on A. S. Vertushinsky ^[1], T. Morton ^[2], V. V. Ryzhenkova (Putintseva-Ardanskaya) ^[8]. The main terms on which this article is based – the horizontally oriented paradigm (the Logos of Cybele) and the vertically oriented paradigm (the Logos of Apollo) belong to A. G. Dugin ^[7]. The doctrine of eidos, of course, belongs to Plato ^{[9, 10]}, develops in Neoplatonism ^[11].

Considering the Eidic hierarchy in the Christian paradigm, in this article we rely on Dionysius the Areopagite ^[12], R. Descartes ^[13], G. V. Leibniz ^[14], G.F. V. Hegel ^[15], V. S. Solovyov ^[16], A. F. Losev ^{[17, 18, 19, 20]}, P. A. Florensky ^[21], V. N. Lossky ^[22], N. O. Lossky ^[23]. The theory of installation on tectonics in ancient aesthetics belongs to L. I. Taruashvili ^[24]. We also appeal to the thought experiment of A. K. Sekatsky ^[25] when considering the phenomenon of synthetic perception.

Results and discussion:

The problem of the modern visual environment is that in the conditions of aesthetic relativism, the criteria of beauty and art have disappeared. In the modern visual environment, everything is acceptable. That is why today artists are actively being forced out of the profession by neural networks. Artificial intelligence is able to generate content much faster and more efficiently than a living person. Neural networks without aesthetic and axiological selection combine everything that exists in the information environment today, and thus objects are created that proponents of the philosophy of flat ontologies consider to be full-fledged works of art.

In such conditions, it is important for culture to return to a fundamentally different paradigm, in which art has criteria, and these criteria are determined by a fairly understandable system. Such a paradigm is a vertically oriented worldview that recognizes an ontological hierarchy and a super-object, that is, God.

That is why the study of the foundations of the aesthetics of a vertically oriented, and more narrowly Christian paradigm is becoming especially relevant nowadays, since this aesthetics can become a way out of the impasse of modernism, into which the modern visual environment is immersed. What is fundamental to the Christian understanding of beauty, what is optional, and what contradicts the understanding of beauty in a vertically oriented paradigm are issues that need to be considered today.

If we follow the definition of A. F. Losev, "aesthetics is the science of expression" ^{[19, p. 391]}, then, first of all, the question arises about the means of expression, sign forms.

From the point of view of symbolic forms, it was the Christian paradigm that began to use the symbol as the main type of sign.

The main characteristic of the sign-symbol, from the point of view of semiotics, is the complete discrepancy between the graphic structure and the meaning of the signifier and the signified. The signifier in the sign-symbol is not motivated by the signified, but at the same time, they are identified. In the sign-symbol, the image and the depicted form a single, separate integrity ^{[17, p. 29]}. The essence and phenomenon in the symbol are synthesized ^{[18, p. 223]}. The external and internal in the symbol are not connected, but at the same time, the "point of their absolute identification" is visible ^{[18, p. 66]}.

However, the most important feature of the symbol is that the symbol is the only type of sign with which you can talk about things that, in principle, cannot be expressed, about the transcendent, the non–peaceful. Symbols translate the transcendental into the transcendental. As P. A. Florensky writes, a symbol is "something that is something that is not itself, greater than it, and, however, essentially declared through it" ^{[21, p. 269]}.

That is why symbols in the full sense are possible only in a vertically oriented system: the symbol exists to refer to the transcendental, to the super-object.

For quite a long time, symbols were created using the canon. The canon allows the artist to talk not about his personal individual impressions and experiences, but about the universal. The canon preserves the experience of many generations of artists who lived before, the experience of the past centuries.

From the point of view of semiotics, a symbol is a sign, an instrument of expression. Canon is a way of organizing signs into a structure, the principle of syntax. That is, the symbol and the canon refer to tools, to means of expression.

But in order to understand the essence of the aesthetics of a vertically oriented paradigm, it is important to analyze the signified, which in this case will be transcendent.

The art of the horizontally oriented paradigm is focused on creating illusions and on conveying the individual feelings of the artist. According to P. A. Florensky, abandoning medieval theocentrism, Western European art tries to establish "likenesses and ghosts instead of reality, illusionistic art takes the place of theurgy, theater takes the place of divine action" ^{[21, p. 67]}.

Christian art, on the contrary, speaks not about the illusions of this world, but about reality, but a transcendent reality. That is why the art of the vertically oriented paradigm strives to create a universal work. Colors, shapes, lines, and light should tell not about the random, but about the universal.

Since Plato, the universal form of a thing has been understood as an eidos (idea). Eidos is ontologically primary and exists in the realm of a more real being – the world of ideas.

Plato's concept of the world of ideas determines art, which is understood as the material embodiment of higher ideas such as Goodness, Love, Beauty, that is, to express divine meanings. A work of art implies the presence of a signified first level, which refers to the transcendent signified, to God.

Further, this concept develops in Neoplatonism: the closer a thing is to the One, the more beautiful it is and the higher its ontological status. To quote Plotinus: "Therefore (here in the sensory world) for every thing that is only an imaginary essence, in order to be beautiful, and even before that, in order to exist, it is necessary that a shadow fall on it and the image of that true beauty be reflected in it; so that here every thing exists, and beauty always possesses only so much to what extent it participates in the beauty of the true essence" ^{[11, p. 118]}.

It is important to note that the eidetic hierarchy does not remain exclusively a concept of Platonism. Today, many researchers agree on the statement of historical continuity from Platonism to the philosophy of the Church Fathers. Let us give the formula of this continuity, for example, from A. G. Dugin: "from the truth of the Hellenes to the truth of Hellenism, and through it to the truth of Christianity" ^{[7, p. 130]}.

In the Christian paradigm, eidos continues to be considered as the ideal form of a thing, its highest being and a model for objects of the material world.

The most systematic idea of the Eidetic hierarchy in Christianity was set forth by Dionysius the Areopagite in his treatise On the Heavenly Hierarchy. Hierarchy is "a sacred order, art and activity, perceiving, as far as it is accessible, the likeness of God and to the illuminations manifested from God, proportionally erected for onomatopoeia" ^{[12, p. 52]}. The purpose of the hierarchy is "to be likened to God as much as possible and to unite with Him, having Him as a mentor in all sacred art and action" ^{[12, p. 52]}.

This hierarchy is connected with the idea of eidos. V. N. Lossky, expounding the dogmatic theology of the Eastern Church, writes: "Ideas are wisdom in action, if you like, even "images" (exemplarisme), but dynamic images, images of "volitions—thoughts", "thoughts-words", in which they are rooted The "logos" of things: By the Divine word, the world is called out of its non-existence, and there is a word for everything that exists, a word in every thing, for every thing, a word that is the norm of its existence and the way to its transformation" ^{[22, p. 338]}. Interestingly, in the Christian paradigm, eidos are not fixed, but dynamic. The ideas of things are the thoughts of God in motion, the creative energy of God, the ideas of volition.

Dionysius the Areopagite also calls the ideas of volition "patterns", "predestinations", "anticipations", and emphasizes that they are not identical with created things. Divine wills are the ideas of things, their "words", their "logos". That is, Plato's doctrine of ideas is being developed and clarified by the Fathers of the Church. The doctrine of ideas reveals a difference with the ancient worldview.

Plato's ideas are rather static, unchangeable, immobile. There is a study by L. I. Taruashvili, which proves that the main aesthetic attitude of Ancient Greece is tectonicity – the ability to stand still ^{[24, P. 13]}, and in the Christian paradigm, opposite aesthetic qualities are beginning to be appreciated – take-off, lightness, the ability to fly and soar. Thus, Plato's eidos are static and tectonic, and the eidos in the Christian understanding are dynamic, these are thoughts of God filled with creative energy.

Art that does not refer to the Eidic world remains meaningless and empty. V. N. Lossky writes about such art: "The beauty generated by art closes in on itself and by its magic attracts a person to itself. These inventions of the human spirit give rise to culture as a cult of some kind of abstraction, in which there is no One Present to Whom every cult should be addressed" ^{[22, p. 383]}.

In Modern Times, the line of the Apollo Logos, or vertically oriented worldview, continues, for example, in R. Descartes. Moreover, R. Descartes clearly maintains an attitude towards eidos as the fundamental principles of things. In "Reflections on the first Philosophy" R. Descartes gives an example with a triangle. You can imagine a variety of triangles, but the essence of a triangle is not born by consciousness and is not changed by our imagination. "It is unchangeable and eternal, not invented by me and does not depend on my mind" ^{[13, p. 215]}. Descartes calls the idea "that which is comprehended by the intellect directly" ^{[13, p. 256]}.

According to R. Descartes, the closer a thing is to an idea, the more real it is, that is, the ontological status of a thing is directly related to its proximity to the world of ideas. Descartes tries to explain this idea to T. Hobbes in correspondence. T. Hobbes, being a representative of horizontally oriented thinking, the Logos of Cybele, does not understand the thought of R. Descartes or consciously does not want to understand, he asks what is a "big reality", how "one thing can be more of a thing than another" ^{[13, P. 261]}. Descartes replies that "greater" and "lesser" realities are possible precisely to the extent that substance is more real than mode. If there are real qualities or imperfect substances, then they are more real than modes, but less real than perfect substances ^{[13, p. 262]}. R. Descartes is echoed by G. V. Leibniz: "there is the greatest perfection, since this is nothing but the greatest amount of reality" ^{[14, p. 235]}. Thus, the idea of the eidic hierarchy of being turns out to be a stable idea in Modern Times.

G. V. F. Hegel considers the requirement of a real work of art to be a complete union of idea and matter, the idea and its formation in concrete reality must be brought to full adequacy to each other ^{[15, p. 179]}.

Christian aesthetics is most fully revealed in Russian philosophy, since our country turned out to be the bearer of Orthodoxy and the philosophy of the Fathers of the Church in its purest form.

V. S. Solovyov, continuing Plato's thought, writes about eidic art: "The validity of ideas and mental contemplation is undoubtedly proved by the fact of artistic creation. In fact, those ideal images that are embodied by the artist in his works are, firstly, neither a simple reproduction of the observed phenomena in their private and accidental reality, nor, secondly, general concepts abstracted from this reality" ^{[16, p. 128]}. Artistic creativity, according to V. S. Solovyov, is an area where things are searched for and embodied in the material of the eidos.

According to V. S. Solovyov, artistic ideas and images do not represent the result of observation and reflection, but immediately "appear to the mental eye at once in their inner integrity" ^{[16, p. 128]}. Artistic creativity is a synthesis of the artist's experience, not a mental generalization of concepts, but an idea that holistically opens up to inner contemplation.

An important thought of V. S. Solovyov is the indication that the idea is a combination of perfect individuality with perfect universality or community.

V. S. Solovyov, following Plato, considers beauty as an embodied idea. Beauty is goodness and at the same time truth, sensually embodied in material existence ^{[16, p. 176]}. According to V. S. Solovyov, the highest goal of art is theurgy, co-creation with God ^{[16, p. 176]}.

Russian philosophy clarifies an important point for understanding eidetic art. Eidos is not an abstraction for the artist. A. F. Losev points out that "idea" in Greek means something visible and Platonic ideas, in which all cosmic life is generalized, are thought of by the Greeks not abstractly and abstractly, but materially and corporeally ^{[20, p. 105]}. A. F. Losev writes, "The Idea" It is given concretely, sensually, visually, and not just thought of as an abstract concept. The "image" itself speaks about the expressed idea" ^{[18, p. 65]}.

To understand exactly how the artist sees the eidos, let's turn to P. A. Florensky. In the work "The Meaning of idealism", he explains what Plato understood by the words "to see an idea" ^{[23, p. 264]}. The artist does not convey a photographic illusory copy of reality, but a harmonious unity of various states, a generalized image. Contemplating such works, we turn to "synthetic perception" ^{[23, p. 265]} – the perception of an object from all points of view at once, not as we see the object with our eyes, but as our mind perceives it.

Synthetic perception allows you to see and depict a thing as such, not its perception, a noumenon, not a phenomenon.

This idea is very well clarified by the thought experiment described by A. K. Sekatsky. The philosopher suggests imagining a camera with infinite shutter speed that shoots from all points of view at once. Such a device will not record something transient, unimportant, momentary changes in lighting or shadows. Everything that is not important to the object, subject to change and destruction, will not be preserved in the photo. From the lyre, for example, there will be only harmony – lyricism. "If lyricism remains from the lyre, then from the table — the table, from the horse — the horseness; and we could see them if we showed such restraint." That is, "we would see the imperishable, those same divine primordial images-eidos, standards of things and meanings" ^{[25, p. 176]}.

Canon, as a vision system that has been developing for centuries, is just such a lens with infinite shutter speed, allowing you to capture the universal and eliminate the accidental.

Conclusions

In the vertical oriented paradigm, the canonically established ways of depicting objects, figures, plants, space, folds of clothing, etc. are images of ideas of figures, things, etc.

Christian aesthetics, a vertically oriented paradigm, is associated with the image of eidos, ideas-the wills of God. Canonical images do not show a random moment of temporary existence, but an eternal idea, they create a synthetic perception for the viewer's perception.

The canon translates the language of the image from the level of fixation of phenomena to the level of reproduction of the noumenon.

Thus, Christian aesthetics is determined by the idea of the eidic hierarchy of being. A canon has been developed over the centuries to depict the shapes of objects approaching ideas. Today, artists, of course, do not use the canon, but the semiotic principle of Christian art itself may well be accepted as a working tool. The use of symbols – signs referring to the transcendent signified, the creation of not superficial art, but art striving, to the limit, to depict eidos.