grid space contains fragments
what does chaos look like?
(not what it produces, not the wreckage, but the force itself)
is the force visible, can it be extracted, revealed, unhidden and made into a image?
(mathematics can extract the form of chaos, in the shape of equations and graphs)
chaos is within art, closer to what we can see than what we see in a wreckage.
a wreckage is loaded with human pain and suffering
which is completely different from the underlying form of forces and equations
but how can it not be different?
is there something about the forms, and the fields of force, that bind particles together, that is intrinsically ’suffering’, as if in our quantum equations, we have an equation for suffering, or the seed of suffering…
…a seed which by what seems like a very convenient and odd arrangement, comes to fruition at the very very small scale in which we exist? in a small gap between the microscopic and the dimensions of galaxies, suffering becomes fact from potential for creatures with consciousness?
if we were not conscious we would not feel suffering. does that mean that suffering is a product of consciousness? or is suffering always there, as a fundamental principle (as the fundamental principle), as a statement of fact, regardless of whether there is anything conscious around to give it a name?
imagine a concept become real, but at such a fine level of granularity, of such purity, that it cannot be measured. it is a place before where subject and object have split. it is therefore not known as suffering, but it becomes suffering. in this place our Gods exist, though for them existence is ‘nothingness’ (how could it be otherwise, else the universe would be unbalanced?).
if the underlying nature of the world is suffering, it is easy to see why adding more is not a good thing. this is all that buddhism, science and art are trying to tell us. therefore all progress in art is about moving along a spiral towards the centre, towards a description of suffering that is crystal clear, that is understood by many people. how can this be possible for art to achieve?
art has the potential to communicate in the same symbols as the reality it describes. there is in art that connects with what lies beneath the surface, as in the I-Ching; but many things get lost in translation; there needs to be simply the direct replacement of a symbol made visible in reality with a symbol in our own language. how can we tell that it is a direct replacement of symbols rather than a lossy conversion? perhaps if there is harmony in our pattern of symbols, and harmony is either all or nothing.
this perhaps explains why art created from chance events and intuitive leaps of thought can be (strangely, it often seems) full of harmony and beauty. if there is beauty in representing reality in symbols, how does this reconcile with the root (cause) of reality being suffering? the threads resolve into paradox, nerve endings, and in a small way, lines that trace patterns across a composite image.