Patrício Batsîkama
Note of introduction
2+2=4 is Ratio/Reason or correct. And 2+2=3 is Er-Ratio/mistake or incorrect. Is it possible Ratio/reason/correct tolerates er-Ratio/mistake/incorrect?
In Angolan (ancestral) philosophy, we find several metaphysic supports, as well as the cognitional essences of the production of ART as sache (Heidegger). The Artist António Tomas Ana – after several years of military life – structured his artistic philosophy. I called it ETONISM, the tolerant reason. What is really it … etonism? It might be the relative response of “is it possible Ratio tolerates er-Ratio?” Let’s suppose that on a peace of paper, I write down the number 9. Who ever placed in front of me will see the number 6. Isn’t it? So who, between both of us, is correct or in Ratio’s side?
Maybe we find the possible answer in Republic of Plato, chapter I and II. Plato has difficulties to define the JUSTICE because, it seems, he based his reflexion on RATIO not tolerating er-RATIO. Is it why he couldn’t satisfactorily define the JUSTICE? While Kantism reflects on the inter-subjectivity, etonism is about intra-subjectivity.
ETONISM, definition
Etymologically, etonism derives from the term etona which means (in Angolan languages) (1) Reason; (2) Justice; (3) Tolerance. Our analysis will firstly be based on the António Tomas Ana artworks: painting and sculpture (Batsîkama: 2006; 2007).
In painting, we can observe three intensities of tonality:
HOT intensity means, in artist’s viewpoint, dominance, property, energy, intense desire and, symbolizes, “something well-organized, well-done”:
NEUTRAL intensity marks a balance of opposite poles (Hot and Cold), the according to the artist’s codification;
COLD intensity, naturally contrary of hot, and the artist codifies “something not well-organized”.
In the sculpture, we can find:
FLAT treatment indicates knowledge; a man well educated; opinion well structured (in artist’s viewpoint);
ROUGH treatment reveals the knowledge acquired without schooling; auto-didacticism (the according to the artist);
ACCIDENTAL treatment. When the artist brings with him the wood – acacia from Luanda specially – he chooses particularly the wood destroyed by insects. This part means lack of knowledge, lower/dominated class.
Angolan society – where the artist formulizes his art’s codes – we found the sequels from colonization: racism, discrimination and tribalism or other kind of separatisms. The artist seems downsizing the co-existence of 3 antagonist “blocs” not by their convergent elements, but by the respect of their divergences. For him, the relationship between Well-educated, Not-well-educated and Not-educated has only one convergence: Human being. That’s enough.
We can understand Human Being (HOMO) by 3 ontological dimensions: I, YOU and HE. In this case, the HOMO is I (subjective) and can be WE (objective/common place). If I and WE assume the existential ontography of HOMO, HE makes bridge and permits I and WE understand the dependence of their unsatisfied subjectivity (Homo imitatvs became Homo inventis). Kant called it inter-subjectivity. Ferry thinks that might be the Hipper-subjectivity. But, in etonism way, it is illustrated as intra-subjectivity (from Homo-body, Homo-idea and Homo-will). That’s why, the necessity of destruction of “WE” and ontological comprehension of each element (I, YOU and HE) and reconstruction of them is based on the respect of their diversities, talking about I (intra-subjectivity). And, talking about WE, the reflexion conducts us to a neo-harmony.
The term etona means Reason, Justice and Tolerance. Looking for the Justice not defined in Plato’s Republic (Books I and II), we can consider Reason and Tolerance as opposite ways in conquest of JUSTICE. This is what really means etona.
In Occidental World, RATIO (Reason) seems not tolerant. Since Plato, Aristotle, Plotino… to Kant, Hume, Montesquieu … and now, the rationalism doesn’t and cannot TOLERATE its opposite: Er-RATIO. For our understanding, as we exemplified in the introduction, 2+2=4 is Ratio/Reason or correct. And 2+2=3 is Er-Ratio/mistake or incorrect. So, is it possible the Ratio/reason/correct tolerates E-Ratio/mistake/incorrect?
The term etona means (i) Reason and (ii) Tolerance in Angolan languages. António Tomas Ana so-called Etona, as painter and sculptor, expresses his desire to build a HOMO TOLERATVS, as we already exemplified it before.
Immanuel Kant created the HOMO transcendental. In his world, Ratio cannot tolerate Er-Ratio because of the position occupied by him (Homo transcendental), in epicentre of existence/reality or the World submitted in the existential reason. So, let’s ask, in this case: how explain some HOMO sleeping in Angola and dreaming some action in Greece? Kant can respond us very well in existential way: the background/experience of the HOMO construct his dream with every colour.
Etonism responds: Ontologically, HOMO seems divided in three parts: (i) material/body. This HOMO-body can speak, feels pain or joy and depends to the natural existence and can die; (ii) immaterial/idea. This HOMO-idea can feel but pain or joy means nothing to him, it is HIM who thinks and can not die. When we read “Critics of reason”, we can imagine Kant alive. Isn’t it?; (iii) will: it is not immaterial nor material. This HOMO-will can feel and confound its feelings without HOMO-idea. My brain advises me about the danger (measured by HOMO-body) and it depends to my HOMO-will before any ACT (hiding from this threat, or combat it, for example). Isn’t it? In this case, HOMO seems constructed by 3 different mini-Homos and, as we can understand, their harmony depends to the rich divergences: one needs other and vice-versa. This is to say these mini-Homos construct the Homo-individual (single PERSON).
As we can see, Homo-idea is RATIO and the Homo-will no-Ratio. In the other hand, Homo-idea can think and obeys to the laws of nature: it can only think about some thing realizable because it originates from the existential supports. Meanwhile, the Homo-will can not think, but it strengths the process of action. Love, for example, depends to the Homo-will. We call it no-Ratio not because is mistake, but because ratio means nothing for it. It comes from the essential supports. Finally, we have Homo-material. This one depends to the Homo-idea and Homo-will. Also called Homo-body, it instrumentalizes the pain (on the neck), the love (sexual relation) because it’s from the existential and essential birth. Curiously, Homo-body interprets Ratio and er-Ratio in existential ways with rationalism. Intra-subjectively, the Homo is based on Ratio and no-Ratio. The idea of er-Ratio seems to begin in the disagreement of Mid-Age heritage (Faith, dogmatism, …) and Descartes and Cartesians opted the rational experience as the unique way of acceptability of Intelligenzia. Each of us – all of us as Homo – has Ratio and no-Ratio. The circumstantial exigencies obliged the Human being (Homo) to use the rationalism as unique cognitional instrument. With etonism, the no-Rationalism and the Rationalism made Homo Toteratvs.
These are the areas of HOMO TOLERATVS. In this way, RATIO can TOLERATES Er-RATIO because, not only of their different outlook (angle), but because they fundamentally understand the essence existence by TOLERANCE.
HOMO AESTHETICVS OF LUC FERRY
Luc Ferry – in his Homo Eastheticvs – supports the subjectivity as the ways of creation of the World/Culture and not to merely imitate the Nature. In other hands, Ferry is one of the continuator of Kant, centralizing the relationships between individuality, the nature and the determinism (Pierobon: 2005, pp.315-322)… and “affirms the transcendence of ideas or cultural and moral values against the notion that a man is inserted in the same link which manages the natural phenomenon” (Ferry: 2003, p.40).
The notion of mimesis by Kant celebrates the invention of the World by simples wish on the Nature. Luc Ferry is trying to demonstrate – in the other hand – how the Hipper-subjectivity makes the World. The individual World of HOMO.
The democracy seems based on the necessity of the HOMO as Social-being and recognizes his role in his existence contributing in the “Common-place” with his marks. As we come just to know, HOMO-individual as harmony of Homo-idea, Homo-will and Homo-body, is in constant recreation: Homo-inventis. Walter Benjamin thinks that this Homo-inventis can finish his [individual] World for aesthetics reasons. It’s true, in understanding the Pop Art, Contemporary Art, Body Art, Surrealism, Abstractionism … That why Arthur Danto wrote After the End of Art.
Considering the position of Luc Ferry in congruence with etonism, permit me to introduce some considerations of “Organic State” of Friedrich Ratzel/Kjeller. They consider the points of sensibility as source of disestablishment of society: we underline (a) nationality, (b) boundary. The nationality and the boundaries, both inventions of Homo aestheticvs are the closed criteria of tranquillity of each State. Unfortunately the nationality and boundary are porosity where comes from the disestablishment: (a) son of American and Chinese born in Africa… for example; (b) the source of war and trouble in the World are from the boundaries: (i) physical; (ii) cultural; (iii) politic; (iv) economic; (anthropological/social; etc. We have boundaries everywhere. The Homo-inventis who made these “things” created aesthetically his World, and of course, can finish with it in aesthetical reasons (Benjamin: 2003). In the same way he can save it up.
Etonism tries to exhibit the intra-subjectivity of HOMO, showing his nationality and boundaries. The nationality of HOMO is sensible because of its porosity (born in Islamic country from Christian parent and educated by Japanese ways and living in Africa society: compare with the case of angolanized painter Neves e Sousa, A., ...Da minha África e do Brasil que eu vi… Luanda: Machado Gravador, S/D.), as well as his boundaries: Homo-body, Homo-idea and Homo-will. The HOMO needs a good neighbouring of these mini-Homo for his intern tranquillity, and can safely survive accepting the diversity of his nature (nationality, in this case).
MUNTU-ANGOLAN METAPHYSIC AND MIMESIS
We call muntu-Angola the unity between populations of Angola country: Côkwe, Ambûndu, Kôngo and Umbûndu. In this case when we say muntu-angolan people, it means, these are four main populations. This unity seems to be anthropological, linguistic and philosophical.
We are going to point out the concepts of mimesis: being and truth. First of all, we trying to define and approach the muntu-angolan semantics about art the according to Occidental historiography: art: ociwa (Umbûndu/Côkwe), waa mbote (kikôngo), ciwa or waba (Kimbûndu) and philosophy of art: ocisolakuliso wa ociwa (Umbûndu/Côkwe), luzolakudisu lwa waa mbote (kikôngo), solakulikisu ciwa (Kimbûndu). After that, we compare the literature existing about mimesis in Occidental World to the no-literature able to exist in muntu-angolan case. Aesthetics in muntu-angolan expression can be called ndungu or lûngu (Batsîkama: 2010/manuscript).
Angolan social tissue is fractionated, doesn’t adequately fight against exclusion and seems fragile in the challenge of globalization. Some scholars think that it might be the heritage from the nationalism/independence (Batsîkama: 2010). Other ones believe that the lack of art or scientific advises can be pointed as second reason of exclusions in Angolan society (Paulo de Carvalho: 2009). This reflexion tries to present the art as potential contribution in “peacing” (making peace) of the spirits. This process was the way that Angolan Ancestors used in the past (Kandjimbo: 1997, pp134-143). And, it can be possible to continue to do the same, actually. That’s why we were obliged to compare and combine the muntu-angolan perspective with Occidental historiography, and our effort stays long from the Afrocentric Idea (Asante: 1987; Bidima: 1993).
In Hegel tradition, mimesis seems to be truth and being in exalting the corrective imitation. The Greek sculpture can serve as model (Donohue: 2005). Nelson Goodmann and Arthur Danto are different in this viewpoint (see the eventual reason in Pinson: 2005): the first one thinks that imitation presents epistemological problems as source of art; the last one renews the Aristotle’s mimesis in two senses: (1) imitation is limited and points out two imitations: (a) imitation-as and (b) pseudo/imitation; (2) truth constructs itself and its dynamics nature can depend to God (Leibniz), or not, as in the mathematics: 2+2+4 not depend to God.
We present 10 sculptures and 10 paintings divided in 3 groups showing that:
The mimesis might be Truth and Existence: see the pictures sculpt#1, , sculpt#6, (Verly: 1955), compare with the theories of Goodman, Dewey and Bilolo, paint#2 e paint#7;
The mimesis seems the embodiment of truth and existence in false imitation: see pictures paint#3 (compare to Devish: 1972), sculpt#4, sculpt#5 (compare to Biebyuck: 1973) and paint#8 (Danto and Dikie);
The mimesis belongs to two separated Worlds: (1) real and imitated: see picture #9 (Aristotle, Hegel and Bidima); (2) unreal and pos-existed or pseudo/existed in culture (see Paulme: 1956; Adorno, Umberto Eco and Gaudibert): see the picture #10.
The process of creation in sculpture obeys to several dimensions of aesthetical appreciation. The masks from some rites or ceremonies in the museum present two orders. (1) Before to be classified in the museum scientifically, the mask was classified in the liturgical supports in traditional religion with other kind of museum. In both case, the essence of the object (Sache – Heidegger) as art is only differentiated in science and religion, or yet, in scientific paradigm and popular/religious paradigm. (2) Pensador (Thinker) or palanca negra are both the national symbol of Angola. The first was derived from the Cokwe ceremonies and embodies the Auguste Rodin’s literature about his Thinker (Néret: 1994). In this case this imitation seems function out of mimesis as Danto articulated in After The End of Art. Palanca (kind of animal) and imitated (Hegel) because it exists (Aristotle) but, in Angolan credo; the image of palanca negra symbolizes the force (palanca ≠ force) but when Angolan people admit they are palanca, metaphorically means that they’re thinking strong as well as palanca (Goodman, Dewey and Bilolo).
The ancient sculpture of Egypt explains to us that mimesis acts on the imitation corrective and, in the same time, imagination pseudo-existed as culture (Basiba: 1977, pp.43, 47-50; Willet: 2002, pp. 34-44). We have an example in Senegal with the poesy of Leopold Sedar Senhor (Kotchy: 2000): there is not opposition in African Culture, but juxtaposition, said Senghor. In the Contemporary theatre of Ivory Coast the catharsis obeys in the pseudo-imitation/existence supports (Koffi: 1997, pp.21-24). The exhibition of Etona tries to explain how the sculpture (art in 3 dimensions) expresses 3 ways of mimesis and encourages, maybe, new systematization for its well-understanding. Also, he’s trying show us how his painting is three mini-paintings in spite of to be mono or plural-chromatic.
Firstly, mimesis is not presented here as imitation and being. And secondly, the mimesis presented needs collateral explanations (see the explication of each artwork). And finally, we are in front of an essay of redefinition of mimesis. Nelson Godman tried it in his theory of languages of Art (1979 and 2006). The Angolan writer Pepetela (Drindarska & Malanda: 2000) shows it in his work Yaka (1988, and compare to Devish: 1972) as well as, Mayimona, the Angolan poet, in his Idade das palavras (2002); or Masongi in his symbiosis kimoyôngi (Batsîkama: 2008) or other Angolan paintings (Mixinge: 2001) . The Muntu-Angolan mimesis is not frequently expressed as imitation or being, but as pseudo-imitation and existence: (a) pseudo-imitation because of unrealism and abstractionism (symbolism) of nature; (b) existence is promotes the real, the good, the healthy and seems to determine the status. The existence is vast, and being is included in it, that why the existence represents good/bad, healthy/unwell … (Batsîkama: 2009). Of course we’re in front of the no-Occidental aesthetics (Blocker: 2005) and there several examples outside of Africa, where African people were exported (Martinez-Ruiz: 2001)
This panoramic platform holds up the understanding of etonism.
HOMO TOLERATVS versus CRIME
It’s for our interest to find out the posture of etonism before the crime. If we suppose that Er-Ratio is crime, will Ratio tolerates it? Response: Yes. The main problem seems to understand “How” will this tolerance be? Exposing this question in comprehensible sense, we shall try to embody this answer in etonist scheme.
The crime isn’t – in general way – contrary of the norm. Generally “crime” is every violation against the law or its transgression. We call law or norm what a (Ratio’) and b (Er-Ratio?) “sacralise” as their form of common life (harmony in society/intra-subjective synchronization). And, in case that one of them (a and b) disobeys or transgresses the norm, this act can literally be called crime. Meanwhile, with the normative sense of Ratio, a norm seems as its synonym. And in this Logic, Er-Ratio will be the crime as well as is antagonist to Ratio/norm.
The true seems to be that Ratio and Er-Ratio are existentially not antagonists in etonist scheme, but they’re from discrepant visions about the same norm: the number 9 seen as number 6 by two people suppose the intellectuality of the appreciators. A norm seems to be the “thing observed”: one sees 9 and other 6 in the according to appreciation’s pole and both of them understand why their appreciations are different. In essentialist judgement, it is inconvertible to take Ratio for conform-to-the-law and Er-Ratio for crime. This is the impression that everybody can have, but it seems simulacrum, in verifying the facts.
Er-Ratio/crime seems not compatible composition: Er-Ratio/contrary-to-reason doesn’t combine to an essence of crime for two main reasons: (i) Er-Ratio as experimental (2+2=3), cannot comport itself the idea of violation or lack of conformity; (ii) in spite of exclusively be experienced consumed act, crime comports itself the notion of violation and not the lack of conformity. This is to say that Ratio as well as Er-Ratio comport in norm/law, than crime appear violation facing what Ratio and Er-Ratio sacralise. What is it?
Existentially, tolerance facing crime can be illustrated. If crime is considered as violation against what Ratio as well Er-Ratio sacralise, the first impression that everybody could have is: unknowledgeable act by author of crime. We can also read it in other way: if crime is violation or transgression against the law and this one (law) seems to be the only “thing seen” of different positions, the crime as “consumed act” indicates the deficiency of acknowledge about the norm, it needs some previous correction. And it cannot belong to the rational ways. In this perspective the tolerance before the crime might be the correction of crime’s actor. In the society this correction seems to be the punishment. Ratio/Er-Ratio don’t defend the elimination of criminal.
Respecting the etonism, how understand crime intra-subjectively? Homo-material is the existential author of crime as act; Homo-will is the essential author to crime as intension; and Homo-idea is the creator of the crime as conception. Normally, everything begins with the Homo-idea and this one imposes to the others. If we pay more attention, we’ll see that the Homo-body as existential suffer exclusively the punishment or consequential acts from the crime as well benefits the “good” side of crime, in spite of the Homo-idea initiated everything. The Homo-will was seduced by the experience of Homo-body. This is the disestablishment of Homo Toleratvs.
Ontologically each Homo acts in accomplishment of crime not because of its authentic and exclusive nature but because disestablished and, than, corrupted in acting. (1) When the Homo-idea imagines something, this one can not be considered crime without its act consumed. Or, the Homo-idea cannot consume the act because its nature doesn’t permit it. (2) When Homo-body is acting or consuming the crime, the Homo-will helps it strongly without the concurrency of Homo-idea, the truly author of pre-crime. (3) Homo-will is neither rational nor existential-functional but accomplishes the consequential order from Homo-idea in moving the Homo-body in consumed act. The Homo-body transmits the neurological information of its act for the registration to the Homo-idea. This one concretizes his conception.
The place of crime in intra-subjectivity belongs to Homo-body; but this one (Homo-body) haven’t ability to distinguish conform-to-the-law from the crime. This skill is for Homo-idea, the only entity able to think and understand the law’s instructions. Curiously, Homo-body accomplishes the act. Why? Maybe exemplifying we explain well.
“An Old man abuses sexually a child girl” is crime. The Homo-idea of an Old man knows ratio is not-abuse, isn’t it? But, the Homo-body remembers itself about the pleasure of sexual act and, in the same time, Homo-idea presents two versions to it: (i) positivity: the relation’s act is sunny and legal between two adult people; (ii) negative: paedophilia is crime. Homo-idea in closed collaboration Homo-will decide what to do. When Old man decide to act, psychologist can explain us about his conscience became worthless. It means Homo-will acts with insensibility of Homo-idea (not-remember no more about the negativity). Let’s suppose that “make sex” is the norm and “Old man makes sex with child” is crime. In paedophilia, only the Homo-will impulses Homo-body to act, and the Homo-idea – as the really author of pre-crime – seems positively inactive. Imagine that Old man contracts a free-girl for sex. In this case, Homo-idea seems positively active, that why, they’re can eventually use Venus’s preservative, because they’re conscientious in what they’re doing. Homo-idea is acting positively.
As we can see in acting-conform-the-law and acting-in-crime the Homo are, in the first case, idiosyncratically observing their singular nature (Homo Toleratvs), and in the second case, we observe the disestablishment in their corroborative act. In this case, Ratio continues to tolerates Er-Ratio, unfortunately Ratio cannot be considered as conform-to-law as most people can eventually imagine, or Er-Ratio cannot be considered as crime. The problem is, Ratio, No-Ratio and Er-Ratio are three ways of intellectual observation (on the norm), and crime couldn’t be considered as rational act, in spite of its inevitability. Homo Toleratvs can obviously tolerate the crime by re-education of Homo-idea, by training of Homo-body and by discipline of Homo-will. Religious talks about the penitence; artist talks about sacrifice and, in the common vocabulary, we’re talking about the PRISON (punishment) as the “place” of author-of-violation-against-the-law (criminal).
CONCLUSION
Is it possible to talk about the HOMO TOLERATVS (Locke: 2009, p. 43) in this XXIº Century? The reflexion on Etona’s artworks is really interesting as philosophical essay about the society seen by artist. This seems some introduction on the Homo Toleratvs as individual: intra-subjectivity. As well as each society needs good neighbouring for its tranquillity – as we consider the geopolitical theories of MacKinder/Kjeller – each person needs firstly to understand the neighbouring of his composition as existential entity. Etonism tries to show this composition and the inter-link of them.
The Homo Aestheticvs existed at all times, and he is old than the Human existence is. The Homo toleratvs always existed where people got conscience of the existence as the unique way of continuation of Human being. In this case, Homo toleratvs is not “evangel” (Good news nor new)… but our Century needs it in renewed form in according to our challenge. Etonism as Homo toleratvs seems, in this case, a modest scheme.
The philosophy take somebody behind the jail obeys to the following process: (i) suspected will see His human rights downsized; (ii) the suspected will be judged; (iii) suspect is declared criminal; (iv) criminal is conducted to re-education. This manner to confirm the crime belongs to reasonability, and Ratio and Er-Ratio belong to rationality: the crime belongs to loyalty and Ratio/Er-Ratio belong to logic.
Commentaires