The Aesthetics of Existence, the Will to Art, and ERE

Simple living, extreme early retirement, becoming and being wealthy, wisdom, praxis, personal growth,...
AxelHeyst
Posts: 2677
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The Aesthetics of Existence, the Will to Art, and ERE

Post by AxelHeyst »

I'm not done with all of the essays yet but I've read enough to pull out a coherent reflection on why his writing is landing so saliently for me for me

Recap
Alexander argues that due to biophysical limits, voluntary simplicity at the personal, local, and societal levels are the only feasible long-term way of life possible. Consumerism is fundamentally terminal. In a best case scenario, widespread adoption of voluntary simplicity could help avert catastrophic collapse. In the much more likely collapse scenario, voluntary simplicity will provide some measure of resilience to those who do adopt it (collapse now, avoid the rush).

Beyond the biophysical impossibility of sustaining a consumption-based society, Alexander argues that acquisitiveness doesn't provide a good enough freedom-to, or vision of the Good Life, for those who pursue it, due to the fact that it's a treadmill: the more you acquire, the more you want to acquire, and you never escape the anxiety trap of more.

However, "just enough is plenty" isn't really a freedom-to Vision of the good life. It's more like a description of how to meet your material needs in a fairly straightforward manner, so that you can put your attention to other things (a way to frame it is that the physiological needs of Maslow's Hierarchy are pretty easy to meet, and once met you can/should/ought to turn to other methods for meeting your 'higher'-level needs).

Alexander proposes that there is actually a purpose to the Universe, and that it is the production and contemplation of Beauty. The 'reason' consciousness evolved is so that the universe can perceive itself, and act in alignment with a universal 'Will to Art'. The desired (although not inevitable) arc of the universe is towards beauty. He proposes this Will to Art as a way of framing the meaning of life and an organizing principle with which to frame one's freedom-to.

In other words, Alexander is saying that we can say that the purpose of our lives is to produce and experience art, which is very broadly defined and does not imply that everyone should/ought to take up painting/music/dance/the formal arts.

So to recap: Alexander is connecting consumerism, collapse, voluntary simplicity, and aesthetic/artistic endeavor. Consumer logic leads inevitably to collapse, and if we want to avert or be as resilient as possible to the consequences of consumer society, voluntary simplicity is our best bet (everything WILL simplify in the coming centuries, the question for each of us is will that simplification be voluntary or involuntary). Voluntary simplicity also provides a potential long-term vision for how a society or churn of societies could persist through deep time.

Further, Alexander is proposing that since it's pretty easy to meet your basic needs under the logic of voluntary simplicity, that will leave us all with abundant free time and attention to devote to the deeper purpose of the production and contemplation(/experience) of beauty/art, and seeing our lives themselves as that which can be artfully constructed and lived.

---
Personal Reflection: Voluntary Simplicity and ERE
This series of essays is deeply resonant with me, possibly at a similar level to how resonant ERE was for me. Let me explain.

Unlike many here, I was not a naturally frugal person. Besides whatever minimum 401k match my employer gave, I spent all of my income plus a little bit until 2018 or so. But I had deeply help convictions about the limits to growth, 'sustainability', an ecological society, etc. So I lived with a heavy dose of cognitive dissonance between my values and actual lifestyle. I couldn't get the two to line up.

I'd read about voluntary simplicity, but all the descriptions I'd read were either academic apologies ('we ought to adopt voluntary simplicity because capitalism is bad') without any clear instructions, or vague squishy anecdotes about how it felt to live a lifestyle of voluntary simplicity. I wasn't exposed to any brass tacks, practical advice on how to actually get from where I was at to where I wanted to be. In retrospect it seems obvious in the same way it seems obvious to me to lose weight ("put the fork down? duh?") but I just could not put it together. I couldn't connect the dots, it was outside of my Overton window. It was a WL+/-2 issue, I think.

Reading ERE and finding this forum was the instruction manual I needed: *how* to voluntarily simplify clicked and I basically just did it. This almost entirely resolved my cognitive dissonance and my life is profoundly different now, for the better.

If I'd ready these essays in 2019, I might have liked them but they would not have been at all actionable to me because I lacked the ability to execute voluntary simplicity. That would have locked me out of approaching the stuff about aesthetics and the will to art. I was stuck in consumerlandia.

Personal Reflection: The Will to Art and the Meaning of the Universe
Now, though, having Achievement-Unlocked post-consumer praxis, I feel like I'm in a place where the aesthetics stuff can actually land and be actioned in my WoG. But I feel like I need to explain why the aesthetics stuff IS landing for me in an extremely resonant way - how I was primed for it.

In 2011 or 2012, I was deep in a period of manic disillusionment. It was right after Occupy had fizzled out and work was getting crazy but the righteousness of our projects was starting to look iffy and the ppm's CO2 were going up, and I was more or less freaking out about the purpose of everything and my role in it. I went for a walk in the woods with a friend and had a spiritual experience where it became clear to me that the best and also only thing I could do about It All was endeavor to Make Beautiful Art. I could not in fact single-handedly save the world from itself via sheer number of all-nighters, I could not 'figure out' the metacrisis via concentration and blogging, I could not justify my existence by sleeping too little and not caring about my own physical and mental health. I *could* Make Beautiful Art, which I definitely understood even then as being something very broad - it didn't mean I should go become a painter or start calling myself an Artist, it was pointing me in the direction of an attitude I could take towards my day to day actions. It was pointing me towards a centralizing theme.

This insight brought me a lot of relief from my anxiety, and has continued to do so whenever I revisit it in times of despair. Of course, I haven't actually *done* it in any real way. But I've had experience after experience that seems to confirm the validity of the basic insight -- all we can really do is endeavor to make beautiful art, whether that's in actual formal art, whether it's in the beauty of our relationships, or in the design of social engagements, or even the beauty of engineering or scientific work. I've felt over and over again something deeply correct about this idea that the production and contemplation of beautiful works is central to existence.

So these experiences primed me to pick up what Alexander is putting down. These ideas are now informing and tuning my personal freedom-to visions. I'd found it difficult to articulate exactly what I was doing in a way that seemed to be the final Why. With Alexander's framework it feels possible to say that want I want to do is such and such particular thing, and to do it as beautifully as possible, and done in such a way that it allows me to continue to make more beautiful artful things. The zeroth-order purpose is to make an artful thing: it has first-order purposes of X and Y and Z perhaps.

And Alexander's framework, plus the post-consumer praxis of ERE, ties it all together:
  • Consumer society is terminally flawed. The consumer *way of life* will not persist.
  • Post-consumer praxis is the only long-term way of life -- the only question is voluntary or involuntary?
  • Post-consumer praxis/voluntary simplicity leaves ample free life to do whatever else you want with it, since sufficient material needs are easy to come by.
  • Consider that the purpose of the universe/your life might be to produce and contemplate beauty. And that the material needs for artistic/aesthetic endeavor are similarly minimal/dematerialized.
  • With the foundation of post-consumer praxis, you have the option of framing your freedom-to in terms of artistic/aesthetic/beauty production and contemplation.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 10692
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Aesthetics of Existence, the Will to Art, and ERE

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

I generally agree with everything you communicated above. However, I do wonder whether a focus on "art" might be due to INTJ having Fi/Se as "backseat" or maybe due to TeFi in second and third? I mean, in a sense it's a movement towards "quality" in the "place" where another type might move more towards something else like maybe "community" first. IOW, (Ni/Strategist-introvert -> Te/Doer-extrovert -> Fi/Artist-introvert...) Of course, Alexander himself is more likely a primary Fi type.

For example, I might describe my Freedom to as more like "learn and explore" and use the adjective "interesting" more than "beautiful." Of course, I would also likely describe the sort of art I prefer as "interesting" more than "beautiful", so moving along...

AxelHeyst
Posts: 2677
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The Aesthetics of Existence, the Will to Art, and ERE

Post by AxelHeyst »

Sure. I interpret Alexander's use of 'beauty' here to be a very broad umbrella term. The word 'art' points at it, so does 'quality' (in the way Persig uses it), so does 'truth' (as a scientist or philosopher might use it?), also 'craft', etc. I don't mean that people ought to use the words beauty or art, but rather than when I (/Alexander) uses these words, we aren't excluding activities such as "the pursuit of truth" or "interestingness". We're not saying "hey, forget that community stuff, your purpose is to be in a studio making #art".

It seems not too much of a stretch to describe the pursuit of interestingness as a form of contemplation/appreciation of beauty in novel forms. And is community not one of the richest veins of opportunity for the production and appreciation of artistic beauty? I've gotten lost in the subtleties of a glance across the room with a universe of meaning behind it, or being engaged in the mycelial network of relationships on a permaculture community project.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 17108
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: The Aesthetics of Existence, the Will to Art, and ERE

Post by jacob »

@AH - It's popped up here and there before, but Aristotle identified "the good, the true, and the beautiful". Within medieval Christianity, which relied/stole heavily from the Greeks, these are also known as the transcendentals. I was arguing (elsewhere) that the triad is missing one dimension: "the great" as in greater than the person. The Great would cover any desire to integrate larger and larger parts of the universe.

Methinks it's important to somehow integrate all three or at least not pursuing one at the expense of the others. For example, the true at the expense of the beautiful begets modernism. The beautiful at the expense of the true begets postmodernism.

AxelHeyst
Posts: 2677
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The Aesthetics of Existence, the Will to Art, and ERE

Post by AxelHeyst »

jacob wrote:
Fri Apr 25, 2025 1:33 pm
Methinks it's important to somehow integrate all three or at least not pursuing one at the expense of the others. For example, the true at the expense of the beautiful begets modernism. The beautiful at the expense of the true begets postmodernism.
Agreed. So far I'd say this is a point not well addressed explicitly in Alexander's essay series, but something I feel like he'd agree with.

I might argue that all his previous work around voluntary simplicity and the sufficiency economy is based on a keen relationship with the good (enough for everyone, forever) and the true (wanting the star trek future won't make it happen: we ought ground our decisions in the reality of biophysical limits), at least at one level of scope.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 10692
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Aesthetics of Existence, the Will to Art, and ERE

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

So, the good spreads itself horizontally, while the true tends to expand more vertically, and the beautiful is found in the transcendent symmetry ( or maybe some amount of asymmetry if you prefer the interesting over the eternal.)

Stasher
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2021 11:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Aesthetics of Existence, the Will to Art, and ERE

Post by Stasher »

Thanks for sharing this journal entry AH, you write in a way I can easily digest and helps me with the level at which I can understand and implement comparisons on my own timeline of MMM/ERE. Seeking simplicity and pushing back on consumerism in my own journey helped me unexpectedly find the beauty of nature which then had me seeking better understanding of the cliff we are inching over on the natural world. My beauty/art evolving from that might have been sharing the importance of nature through a newly found knack for photography and also new found efforts in advocacy for society/nature.

TLDR ~ Your reflection neatly fits on my last 13 or so years of life when I apply it through that lens.

Jin+Guice
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: The Aesthetics of Existence, the Will to Art, and ERE

Post by Jin+Guice »

I read the essays and I think this is an excellent summary.
jacob wrote:
Fri Apr 25, 2025 1:33 pm
@AH - It's popped up here and there before, but Aristotle identified "the good, the true, and the beautiful". Within medieval Christianity, which relied/stole heavily from the Greeks, these are also known as the transcendentals. I was arguing (elsewhere) that the triad is missing one dimension: "the great" as in greater than the person.
I think this is an important. While I do think the essays define "art" broadly, the word still has a certain meaning and connotation. In the way it is intended I think it extends to engineering, social relationships, businesses, etc...

Coming from the needs hierarchy perspective, I think anything in the hierarchy can be done artfully, where art can possibly be defined as combining all of the needs levels at once (for example making food with an eye towards, safety, pride, the people who will eat it, the technique with which it is made and a presentation which is pleasing to the senses).

Given this, an interesting question is "what is not art?"


What I took from these essays is that we are facing two problems 1) is a problem of environmental exhaustion. 2) is a philosophical problem for humanity.

What's interesting to me is that even if we were not facing environmental limits, that our obsession with economic growth is likely not serving us. Thus voluntary simplicity not only would increase our chances of averting environmental disaster but also make our lives more pleasant and easier.

Which begs the question why are we not voluntarily simplifying?

7Wannabe5
Posts: 10692
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Aesthetics of Existence, the Will to Art, and ERE

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

why are we not voluntarily simplifying?
Because short-term methods of voluntarily simplifying often signal "poverty" and/or "irresponsibility" if not done "artfully". And long-term methods require long-term attention/adherence and they also sometimes signal "boring" and/or "Dad-jeans-conservative" if not done "artfully."

ETA: I also think Hanzi's threesome of the hippie, the hipster, and the hacker might hint towards varying paths for "artful" approach. I might also add "humorist" to the triumvirate, because I think my own frugal lifestyle would be more appealing if I could just nudge it a bit towards becoming more like a female version of a Bill Murray character and or "laughing Buddha."
The name "Budai" literally means "cloth sack", and refers to the bag he is usually depicted carrying as he wanders aimlessly. His jolly nature, humorous personality, and eccentric lifestyle distinguish him from most Buddhist masters or figures. He is almost always shown smiling or laughing, hence his nickname in Chinese, the "Laughing Buddha". Budai is traditionally depicted as overweight and having a huge stomach (possibly a symbol of abundance or forgiveness) and many stories surrounding Budai involve his love of food and drink. Because of this, he is also referred to as the "Fat Buddha", especially in the Western world.
-Wikipedia

Jin+Guice
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: The Aesthetics of Existence, the Will to Art, and ERE

Post by Jin+Guice »

Yes, I agree. We spend the majority of our time working and buying signals that we are not impoverished, irresponsible, boring or uncool.

Why are we doing this?

Is this what we want to spend our lives doing?

7Wannabe5
Posts: 10692
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Aesthetics of Existence, the Will to Art, and ERE

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Jin+Guice wrote:Why are we doing this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kyWDhB_QeI

Post Reply