The Event, which took place on May 18, 2023, was an experiment without clearly outlined frameworks and goals. The main research questions related to this Event concern determining the specificity of musical experience and translating this experience into values, especially the value of creative work. Moreover, another issue being pondered is whether and on which scale there exists a common need to distance oneself from everyday life (which, among other things, is possible through art). Furthermore, more questions arise on how to examine the specificity of the experience of music and translate this experience into values as well as how to evaluate the importance of music for personal development and culture.
PL
Wydarzenie pt. Performatyka muzyki. Gdy Mozart był mały…, które miało miejsce 18.05.2023 r., to eksperyment bez wyraźnie zarysowanych ram i celów. Główne pytania badawcze związane z tym Wydarzeniem dotyczą określenia specyfiki doświadczenia muzycznego i przełożenia tego doświadczenia na wartości, zwłaszcza wartość pracy. Poza tym zastanawia mnie, czy istnieje powszechna potrzeba (i jaka jest jej skala) zdystansowania się do codzienności, co między innymi umożliwia sztuka. Stąd wynikają kolejne pytania: jak zbadać specyfikę doświadczenia muzyki i przełożyć to doświadczenie na wartości i znaczenie muzyki dla rozwoju osobistego.
A canon is a word of religious origin. It constituted a basic aim of education at the university level. However, that time came to an end when the idea of universality was replaced with the idea of perfection (implicitly a clerk-like perfection). Ressentiment (a repressed feeling, described by Nietzsche and later by Scheler) acts against a higher ability to enjoy cultural pleasure; it creates a contemporary human as a man of labour and utility who cannot make use of the so-called cultural assets (from the canon). Depending on which field the idea of a canon refers to, we will understand it as such. It is most associated with art where it functions as a set of models, rules and methods of creation current in a given period of culture. There are three semantic fields of the background needed to examine the notion of a canon: culture, time and space (I dedicated two chapters of the paper to each). Today, a humanist has completely new roles, since not only did culture change but also time and space – the basic “forms of sensuality”, which Kant defined as our main point of orientation and a ground for thinking about the world. Coping with the canon was mainly intended to teach good choices, not only the choices regarding texts. It may be the most important mission of humanists: to show the canon and teach how to choose one of our own. Now we are observing a kind of fear of the canon (Bloom).We are irritated with what we cannot understand. The biggest load of ressentiment lies within society, in which social equality, both political and formal, goes hand in hand with very large discrepancies in terms of actual power, wealth and education. Today, humanist reflection on culture even left the political level, related to knowledge, and entered a lower, more fundamental level connected with satisfying basic needs. The only role of a contemporary “humanist” is to free themself of illusions, i.e. also of the excess of texts. Our globalised space is ruled by quick rankings and summaries of texts. We lost the need to which art responded – to determine the eternal perspective of life.
The culture of signs is a recurrent term in philosophy. It does not allow mindless programs to win. Thanks to it, it is possible to put trust in model, holistic approaches rather than the linguistic determination of meanings. The process of departing from philosophical reflection, which has always been holistic, expressed with the diagram: ideas – notions – definitions, is here reversed. Presentations allow the return to ideas; ideas have more of the imaginary than the symbolic. The concept of the Body without Organs depicts a new form of sensualisation directed not at gaining permanent representations but at the possibilities of switching various functions of experience.
The main question that the article poses is whether today there is still a possibility of media debate, for example on religion or the Church; or perhaps the system of mass media is governed by the logic of what Niklas Luhmann calls the thematic career. Mass media discuss various topics, but probably do not help to search for solutions for intra- and intersystem conflicts. According to Luhmann, mass media, politics, science and religion are autopoietic systems; they develop by their own rules. They are sensitive to external conditions, but primarily refer to what they have developed within themselves. Drawing upon Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory and using the analysis of the old debate (around Galileo), still without participation of mass media, and the current debate from 2012 when Richard Dawkins met Cardinal George Pell, I ask a question about its current shape. This is presented against the backdrop of the problem of how much the so-called synodality of the Catholic Church helps a given religion influence other social systems (such as science) and generally – social life. Why is it so difficult to fulfil the conditions of debate in the context of the three systems: religion (based on the example of the Catholic religion), media (mainly the Internet) and science? Perhaps it is because we deal with extremely different social systems which are mostly concerned with their own internal development. Moreover, the situation of reflection on the phe- nomenon of religion and social systems always becomes complicated by a specific global situation, both in the Church (e.g. synodality), and outside it (e.g. pandemic, war, new social movements).
In this article two systems of understanding of good are presented: first, the philosophical one (connected with ethical system), and second – religious one (espe cially in case of Christianity, but also other monotheistic religions). It is possible, of course, to imagine a “mixed” system or one where those two could meet each other in specific point, or concept, or representation. In general, those systems have to be considered separately. Rational explanation is crucial for a philosophical system (achieving a specific good makes a reinterpretation of ethical situation from different point of view, for example as a sacrifice, impossible), while religious system needs a personal explanation (ethical situation could have a far-reaching consequences for interpersonal relations, because a supernatural factor, for example a grace, is included here).
Is it possible to respond to contemporary challenges of Christianity from the meta-perspective of philosophy and cultural studies? We have divided the articles presented here into three groups: challenges faced by religion regarding science, challenges of secularisation, and challenges in the Church itself. The articles from the volume do not address these problems in totally different ways. The issues of consistency and rationality of religion become reinterpreted, for example when compared to results of empirical sciences, but also in a broadly understood public debate. We shall try to show a close relationship between the Christian religion and such phenomena as: science, media, churches, medicine, war, law, etc. Our point of departure is a search for the current function of Christianity, with the Catholic Church in the centre, but the questions transcend the present state of a particular religion.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.