WHY.    Art as a unifying theory of all things

What we call ‘art’ is a mishmash of takes on our species’ manic proliferation of    
image fabrication. Why the mania? It has to do with the mind games we humans
play in postulating our place in the scheme of things.

It begins with the revelation that we are objects among all the other moving parts.  
Among the most significant manifestations of which are the marks we leave behind
and the existential connections we infer from them. Somewhere deep in our psyche
and early on in our life history, we understand the rivalry of our weightless
panoramic thoughts and visual omnipotence with our centripetal and plodding
physical presence.

From a fixed vantage, we can choose to see everywhere. In time, we learn the
orders of spatial magnitude we can skip to; from out to the far horizon and
untouchable stars and then in a quarter of second back to the tiniest speck of
pollen. So
, why can't we ‘be’ everywhere too? The unsatisfying resolution of
simultaneously seeing all but experiencing so little initiates an inner dialogue of   
‘self-regard,’ the slow tango of high consciousness.

What we make of the inherent frustration is the stuff of our incredible historic record.

The specific narrative of an individual's interaction with his space and time is
determined by the residuals we leave. Every conscious human also figures out that
the minute we regard these configurations, they become a history source with a
multiplier effect. First, they are no longer accidents by virtue of the fact that just
knowing we have left them validates their existence as a free-standing object and
something completely 'other' than we are.

We can walk and maneuver, and extract pattern information, from them. We can
return to them; we can alter them. We can invite others to consider and refer to
them. We can eradicate them.

But we also link them as a record of our personal progress, which is an objective
reference for our personal existence. They live on their own merits as stable objects
and substantiate the fact that we are objects too. These marks allow us to attend or
focus an individual's unique narrative by virtue of the fact that we can revisit specific
episodes, even if it is not nonchalantly. Thus, they are information caches
depending on how we choose to treat them. We know 'it' is out there, in the air, on
its own, though, we have moved on.

This attitude of objective self-regard is by nature backward-looking and integral to
our signature brain behavior, which is to swing constantly through episodic
time-frames. It has everything to do with our first level of inquiry regarding what the
scheme of things might be by considering, evaluating, and maneuvering this funny
object we're stuck with
for life that has so many dangling and moving parts. After all, we
begin life as a mystery to ourselves and recognize early
on that we can be both the
puppeteer and the puppet. What we take from this seeming perplexity is our own
xpectation to arrange the world too.

    Mystery is not all that Mysterious

Incumbent in this theme is the obvious—that mysteries mean something is solvable
and we can figure it out. We can't help but speculate what controls the
jurisdiction beyond our personal (and communal) reach. This is not a
placid conundrum, but a
ctually a roiling irritant. Ironically, the enormously irritating part
erupts from our false sense of
genius. It is a kind of omniscience we get used to that
derives from our abundant visualization

To date, we have counted over fifty areas in the brain that help manufacture vision.
It is our most informative sensor. Yet it is as deceptively grandiose as it is agitating
and bewildering for its deficits.

'Mystery' is this activity of postulating thus and thus, and then believing to have
figured the rest out even if 'the rest' we ascribe to powers different than our own.
Pretty presumptuous, I'd say. This leaves a fertile and wide swath for doubt, but
only around the edges. Example: we see the distant mountain miles and miles away
and think we know all about distance and height and landscape. Except for the
nooks and crannies that defy our ken, like the bug holes and hawk patterns and
clouds forming that we cannot see. What monitors all this?

Humans have always thrived under mystery. It is doubt that we can't stomach.
'Mystery' allays concerns; 'doubt' causes anxiety. One provides a loamy pretext for   
our narrative bent like the invention of Gods. The other slams on the narrative
breaks and leads to pure agitation. One is cognitively rich, the other is emotionally
pungent. Toxic even.

This sounds counter
-intuitive. Why is 'doubt' not a part of mystery? It seems so
logical. And why can't we tame it with fancy explanations?

Well, if you believe th
at the reason for something is 'this' even if you can't specify what
'this' is, then it automatically implies it isn't 'that.' For example, if you depend on the
reflex of withdrawing your hand near a flame, then you accept that something else is
not manipulating you. You might not understand why or how you can respond so
fast, which is fairly mysterious, but you are comfortable with the regularity of it
happening. Maybe you invent an elaborate explanation about unseen sparks flying
out. Whatever the mystery of why it happens this way, you are satisfied that it does
and depend on it.

What might the 'that' be? Well, what if one day you hold your finger to the fire and
burn it? Immediately you decide it was a crazy thing to do and wonder why on earth
you did it. Was it curiosity, a distraction, a perverse challenge? The annoyance
reveals the doubt. It is no longer a mystery.

Mystery is not frustrating, it's settled business: The Gods did it. The dog did it. My  
genes made me do it. Uncharacteristic behavior, as mentioned above, becomes the
doubt around the edges, the realm of 'that.' It defies your belief that you can even
have explanations and makes us feel victimized.

All religious philosophies, no matter how diverse, build in an innervating 'that'
quotient, the most familiar being the dissembler, the trickster, and the diabolic. This
is the built-in provocateur that we understand is reliably random and unpredictable.
Although it can become contained in a negative theory of sorts as Flip Wilson used
to say, ‘The devil made me do it,’ the fact is that it is a pretext that feasts on our

The conceptual role these play, is essential to our general thinking. We express in
macro-metaphorical terms our micro-neurological need to respond to high 'alert.'
One could then postulate that our need to be on high alert is functional; it pertains
to our fight-or-flight emotional secretions, which should have ebbed by now because
you'd think we'd have learned to trust in our innovative designs to regulate the
If we learn to draw the interlaced bodies of snakes over and over, then we
'know' all about snakes and feel fully knowledgeable and prescient about their

In which case, our two little ancient amygdalae, the engines that drive
anxieties, should
, after all these hundreds of thousands of years, have diminished in
. But evolution is far more lethargic than you would think or hope. We don't seem to
be as reactive as Darwin's finches, with
beaks that grow or diminish in size and shape
in one or two generations, depending
on which island they inhabit of the Galapagos
and the idiosyncratic food resources
and climate.

For example, the emergence of our so-called brilliant inventions like masonry
construction, pottery, weaponry, and 'group
-think' to help regulate our lives is still
quite recent, given the lifespan of our species. We had been strolling around a good
long time—maybe as much as hundreds of thousands of years—before hitting on
some of these. And when we finally did, maybe fifty thousand to thirty thousand
years ago, we certainly went through enough generational selections for the fittest in
our species.

You'd think that with such inventions to reduce anxiety and control environments,
the amygdalae would have long ago begun to wither. Why they haven't, which seems
to be the case, should be perplexing. We have enough skulls
to make the comparison
for general size and form.

I suggest that their role is different but still essential today. In large part, the
amygdalae are responsible for the churn of 'mystery' thinking today which is ever
more various, urgent, fractious, and frankly
, shrill-hysterical. All of which suggests
that we require neurological pretexts as an artificial frisson and excuse specifically
for the purpose of channeling this seemingly useless apprehensive energy.

In other words, anxiety is the mother of invention. One might think that we have
discovered enough, what more can we do beyond smart
phones, rockets, and
nuclear medicine? Apparently, much more. As long as fear and aggression are
anxiety's children, the risk-taking, neuro adventurers will just never look a good
solution in the face and call it a done deal.

Now we must be careful. Activism, politics, and wars seem to be part of that
fabricated vehicle, that 'mystery' function for which we believe we have the
wherewithal to craft a framework of explanations. Yes, war is an explanation.         
These aggressions don't have to be hide bound and specific, but they must reduce
surprise with predictability. And predictability easily gets transformed into labels
behind which we hide, hold placards, socialize, argue, decimate, and destroy. To
say 'I am a this' is to sign onto a concept that is an intended, all-purpose key to
navigating life and taming the vagaries of the future.

Unfortunately, it just doesn't work. We still remain on high alert around the edges.


Ironically, it's because of how we need to metabolize energy efficiently. We do this
by being hyper-responsive to anomalous breaks in normal patterns. Although one
could say that any fool knows that the reason it is so blatant is because our brains
re wired for dismissing ho-hum normal as a baseline to spotlight anything that is
not. Ironically, that which is 'mysterious' is our assumption of a well-established
predictable pattern. It's the positive response to an agitating negative that cleaves
our boredom and begs for re-framing the contexts of our lives.

Why. It's a mesmerizing and subtle negative because it suggests that complacency
is sitting on a wobbly foundation. Well, we don't really need to know all about 'why.'
We just need to get cozy with the framework we constructed to contain it. Jeremy E.
Guinn summarizes this conservation of energy dynamism nicely.

A habituated animal retains its instinctual ability to respond to threats    
 without continually reacting to benign activities. (Guinn 2013)

Today we have the amygdalae to thank for those dark and irritating 'misgivings' that
infest the intellectual areas around the edges that threaten our solutions. Were we
so certain of the labels that define our choices and lifestyles, we wouldn't yell so
loudly. We can see this in the pitched clash of ideologies themselves—emphasis on
'clash.' These ideological clashes come from exactly the same neural place as those
nasty nocturnal creatures of the jungles that threaten our comfy campfire routines.
Be it religious, political, social, creative—you name it.

A poisonous snake in the grass is a malevolent equivalent to your neighbor's    
political party affiliations. One solution must necessarily be threatened by the mere
existence of others. Psychologically, we need these manufactured anxieties and
hostilities in lieu of a dearth of what had once been our natural fear and
apprehension of environmental assaults. The hungry amygdalae demand this. And
we deliver.

Our cognitive health owes a great deal to our addiction to feeling irked.