This argument is set forth under the criterion that all movements, physical, psychological, cognitive and even perceptual occur under the same dynamics and that therefore there are strict correlations between events, physical bodies and minds, which make the laws of motility applicable in any movement of objects as well as minds. We know for a fact that art and artists are potentially mind movers, for an image, they say, may be worth 1,000 words. Images are linguistic representations, which can embody human, ideals, beliefs, feelings and emotions that move bodies and mind. Powerful images have been instrumental in the French and Russian revolution and have shaped our civilization for better or for worse. The power of images rests on their linguistic form and capacity to induce human action, which much depend on the creative intelligence and interpretive capacity of the artist producing them. Equally, a symbol is representation of specific beliefs, a sense of belonging, like religion, liberty and an icon representing special human virtues, while a sign is a conceptual form stating commands, logos identity and representation, embodying specificity and particularity of functions. Each of these representations are given particular meaning when applied in art, for instance, more than the Pop representations of the “Brillo Box: the “Coor Beer” or the portrait of “Marylin Monroe,” which are limited to cultural denotations. Images, signs and symbols, all possess a special sociological and humanistic force that can be measured by the potential movements of human progress and whether they are able to move minds in the right directions. In sum, they are the instruments that artists may use to move anthropology forward.

Art and artists can then be seen as vectors of force and movers that can help change the world when embody and project certain type of substance to others. As Aristotle mentions ours is a teleological natural world of actuality and potentiality where each individual has a purpose to contribute to the common good interactively in the best way he or she can. We are talking about a world of possibilities, not a world of dreams and fantasies. The instruments of representation must possess the potentiality to produce changes or they are not instruments but toys. These instruments do not come from inspiration or from metaphysical-esoteric sources. They come from real substantial necessity to improve our kind of life in every way. Changes, not necessarily have to occur accidentally, like many artists believe, they can be thought out and planned according to natural laws. Full knowledge of nature must be acquired under the auspices of a conscious intentionality before approaching the white canvas or the marble block. The art object should deserve to be treated like the plan of an architect applying sound ideas. Aristotle studied motions of all bodies of the universe and discovered that which each entity, comprising mass and volume an adequate force is necessary to move it and to win its static resistance. Analogically, in this study, we pass from physics to psychology via phenomenology to produce an example that bodies and minds can be moved toward the right direction. Their, spirit and culture can be conquered and directed toward a unity of purpose . The purpose is help make this a better world, a world not difficult to envision or to imagine when universal values abide in our minds and have reached a mature existential consciousness in the artist.

In this sense, the definition of motion acquires meaning from the actuality and potentiality of the mover experiencing the desire for changes and investing the object with the required intellectual force of intentionality. The mover must win the unmoved obstacles in order to actualize changes. A mover must possess adequate force to move the object to destination. The force should be sufficient to overcome the passive resistance that interferes with the object’s motion for change. The kind of force must be such to meet the nature of the object. This is a discourse validating possibilities in every field of philosophy, psychology, physics and sociology. When this concept is applied in the human sciences, the mass is overcome by the object’s brain substance and the obstacles is eliminated by natural logic. Cultural dispositions are often contrary to the logic of nature because there are no ideal social structures, or the world would be entirely different. A static mind is like an object at rest unable to produce the right force to move others. In physics and chemistry, the potentiality of the force used must be adequate and meet the nature of the object’s intrinsic molecular structure. At the molecular level 1Kg. of coal, for instance, can generate 12 KWh of energy. The same amount of uranium can generate 24 Million times such amount. The necessary potential energy must adequately meet and not overwhelm the nature of the object to be moved or natural disasters are assured. The two materials possess diverse molecular structure, which require different methods to liberate energy. Coal must be burned, while Uranium must be bombarded with high speed flux of electrons. Today’s environment is out of balance because technological progress requires too much energy. Natural disasters occur because human have through the years liberated an excessive amount of energy from the earth—energy stored for billions of years. This is to say that there has to be sufficient and a specific methodology for art to produce congenial changes in the world.

We have now almost proved that the same laws of physics can be accounted in art and in psychology to move people in the right direction. According to Aristotle, the nature of the force must meet the nature of the object, in which case the change is natural (phusei) or according to nature (kata phusin). Changes can also happen in the face of a contrary nature or disposition on the object or according to non-natural conditions—in which case the changes are forced or contrary to nature (para phusin).

A natural change can occur with minimum force when the latter meets the nature of the object. A displaced natural kind, though temporarily out of control, such is the perception of art at the present historical moment, can be corrected and addressed toward the congenial nature. That is why one must be hopeful to provide a contribution to changes in the world. One could be more hopeful if this belief were commonly shared by others. A major presupposition from Aristotle’s mind was that the division between the natural and the unnatural is exhaustive and that there can be no changes to which the nature of the entity would be indifferent or neutral if the force and the entity are fundamentally congenial. The congenial force requires intelligence and knowledge. The fundamental values of life must be studied and moved by causal necessity because nature and human nature can be susceptible to all kinds of solicitations regardless of their potential nature, which demonstrates the chaos and insecurity of modern society. As a matter of fact, distortion of natural principles can be seen almost everywhere. The major consideration behind such a presupposition is that the principles of nature can be recognized everywhere and we should not ignore them but apply them to regulate our behavior accordingly. This realization arises from a phenomenological analysis that gauges the general problematic conditions of the mind in a comprehensive manner, and not merely partially from an external standpoint. Consequently, it can teach psychology the parameters of reason. Such analysis is necessary to allow the natural force to activate changes from the inside out of the object and keep the unnatural force out of the line of action, preventing it to interact from an external point far from the molecular at the intra-molecular level.

In physics, any force acting on matter, in order to be effective, must interact with the object at the molecular level, altering its core structure, while in neurology when the force is acting on the mind from an external point, it must interact in a substantive manner. This is how art could speak at the heart of humanity with a unified substantial voice. No changes in the entity will occur without the interactive causality of substance, which in the case of art is strictly cognitive of universal validity. If the force does not engage the entity from within, changes will not occur because language cannot exploit the interactive potentiality of neural energy. As a result, the entity will remain atrophic until the more vigorous force arrives. The latter is a reflection of art and art history affecting the course of anthropology superficially.

No beneficial changes have occurred in the last 100 years either because the force exercised by the object of art was insufficient or because the nature of the idea and the perception of art were not stimulated and remained passive. Analogously, this phenomenon has occurred in the history of the world when psychology, philosophy and science could not share a common ground.

Before arriving at the core of this argument, it is necessary to make a general analysis as to how science and technology are to be identified as para phusin and why they have moved against human nature, bringing about dangerous beliefs and ideas for the sake of innovation before safety and experience. Two hundred years away from the industrial revolution science and technology have done the kind of damage that has not been done in thousands of years. This motion is in reverse, which we cannot call it progress, for it has brought all kinds of health and environmental problems to the world.

The question now is to determine the nature of the object and then determine the adequate kind and quantity of force to apply to bring back the needed awareness of natural laws. It is obvious that Aristotle, a colossal thinker, considered a number of variables in his theory of motion, which brought different results from situations of inadequate force, which we cannot consider.

In the book on Physics Aristotle expands his argument of movers and unmoved to celestial constellations. The para phusin forces, according to him are not just contrary to nature, but are somehow disingenuous insofar they produce distorted manifestation of contingent phenomena that do not conform to natural geneses. The resulting forces can thus be multifarious. It is the same in the social sphere, but since human disciplines of knowledge are interdisciplinary and imagination is somehow infinite, contingent phenomena are too complex to bring to a rational structural argument. Had Aristotle lived in this time and age, he could not have written a relational book on critical psychology and on technology because of the inextricable behavior of our modern world. Not even the four causes, the material, formal, efficient and final would apply to a discipline of behavior whose variables fall under a cluster causality impossible to construe. A theory of impossible contingent causes, like several psychologists have attempted, such about dreams and the unconscious, have failed miserably to provide understanding and reliability. For example, nothing can be construed looking at an irrational world under the threat of nuclear war and escalating terrorism emanating from some crazy individuals. The Modern age proved that the human mind is in a maze of innumerable and contrasting ideas causing irreparable damage to the logic of thought, which has been for so long forgotten or misapplied. Under these circumstances empiricism, that which makes distinctions of appearances, is no longer a philosophy, but acceptance and recognition of the status quo of a distorted reality merely resting on contingent, lawless behavior.

Again Aristotle says in De Coelo mentions that two opposing forces eventually will annihilate one another. This notion is perhaps most significant in this type of discourse of specific correlation with art’s distorted behavior as to be considered insignificant from a phenomenological standpoint because they oppose rational thought and the cultivation of true human substance. At this point, one cannot foresee at a distance of time, which of these two forces, namely, subjectivism or humanism will actually coalesce. We can make a distinction between the two because they are essentially dichotomous and demonstrate their pros and cons with objectivity. While the former is essentially a search for self-ingratiation, the latter remains attached to the development of real human values and therefore should be adopted. However, it is obvious that we must maintain some sort of distance between these two cultural forces imagining certain conditions of space and the intersecting straight and circular vectors, which come to augment or diminish the intensity and the outcome of changes in the world. This is perhaps what Aristotle meant by “locomotion”– not perhaps one force, but a number of forces running against the sole single force of nature.

In Book 8 of Physics Aristotle argues that for each motion there has to be a mover. In cases of forced motion, the movers may be present in a perspicuous way. It is hard to single out the mover in a collective social action and determine illogical tendency of behavior. This is true in art and in the social organism. However, in order to operate a reduction to a natural motion, there has to be a catharsis. Apart from the cases where the nature of the entity is at the same time a moving and efficient cause, i.e., apart from living beings, whose nature and the soul, are both formal and efficient causes, the motion must be brought to be viewed as a single vector of substance. This is eminently so, in spite of the remaining mixed motions of psychological contingencies.

The catharsis is needed in order to free the essential elements of the natural motion, but the complex causal contingency engages a type of ballast that prevents actualization of the potentiality of the object of art. One could make the right art, which would eventually be ignored or fought against to maintain market supremacy and prevent material losses. In this passage, the correlation is quite simple. At this point, the object represented by the final humanistic end of art, remains confused until opposing forces obscure it even more and a halo of cultural complexity alienates it from the social environment. At that point, it is almost sure that art will lose its historic glorious past and will be reduced to the level of low commodity.

The inner principles of causal forces preventing the demise of the art world remain for the moment locked in a steel box inactive and motionless, but when the artist is deprived freedom of expression even a steel box may explode like the bag of a kamikaze. It is up to the masses to determine what would be better to sacrifice the real potentiality of the object of art and allow the powerful materialism to prevail or to give up middle class material values and preserve the integrity of the idea of art and its historic legacy. It is a fact that the system of support of the arts is corrupted to the core. Materialism is an opposing and invincible para phusin force that moves against the spiritual nature of art and its potential becoming as well. Perhaps no compromise will ever be reached unless art scholars embracing the right realm of thought will encourage the ‘movers’ of art to perform their motions. Moreover, Aristotle adduces that the principle of causational synonymy rules out that any non-homogenous mass, without an internal substance would still be able to move against substantial nature. This is the constant and irreducible threat facing the art of today. This is so because, chances are that one part of a non-homogeneous body will move against another good spirit and changes in the art world will never occur.

We all know by now that art sooner or later will be bound to reach its final destiny of greatness in the world, This is not a wish but a necessary logos defining the human’s creative spirit, which is a gift from God. Any type of intolerance against a principle that Aristotle call “locomotion” is bound fail, for art’s legitimate and natural mission will not succumb to material forces. It is to be wished that a reawakening of thought in art will provide greater reason to open the understanding and the perception of the potentiality of the object of art and to grow as continuous eternal motion of greatness and excellence. This sentiment should indeed be studied in particular as a remedy to shine same positive light in the present darkness of world view. Positivity is a necessity, which must answer the question as to why the object of art should not encounter resistance toward reaching its natural place. Art belongs to the highest human endeavor and it is somehow unthinkable that someone will make it impossible for it to reach its final destination or to deliver its message to humanity. At times, obstacles are difficult or impossible to remove or even to circumvent, but if it is removed the one actor must bear causal responsibility and be engaged in the struggle until the message reaches its destination.

In sum, Aristotle’s law of ‘locomotion,’ from here to there and from now to then, is a secure movement toward the destiny of the superiority of human thought. The motion has been disrupted for 200 years in art by confused, mindless movers, who disrupted the evolutionary intellectual movement that distinguished the intelligent, humanistic art of the Renaissance. Now it is the time to readdress these issues, especially after recent neurological research that puts the creative art process at the forefront of human evolution. Once this idea is established, art and artists will be recognized by their true capacity and will be truly free to pursue the creative spirit granted by the will of God, the first mover and implement a broad interdisciplinary knowledge into their work. Aristotle, Galileo and Newton went on studying celestial systems of causality like the solar constellations and demonstrated how the planets are intrinsically bound by the magnetism of just one star, the sun. The planets have reached their point B and terminated their ‘locomotive’ movements and since the “Big Ban” have been regulated by the balance of their internal forces, which does not allow solicitation from outside systems. This says that there is no place for accidental mover in a closed system, which would interfere with the ‘locomotion’ of an object, in this case a meteorite would not collide against any of the planets of the solar system and cause a catastrophic explosion. Should this occur, with great probability the supreme force of the sun’s magnetism will incorporate it into the solar system like an aggregate new planet. This is not fiction, but science emerging from Aristotelian studies.

Humans are perhaps tiny dots in the universe, but they nevertheless a part of the solar system. Similarly, we must recognize that the idea of art, not judging from the production of the last 200 years, still possesses the potentiality and actuality of the same ‘locomotive’ force of its glorious past, which Aristotle spoke about and there is nothing that the ‘unmoved’ forces can do to oppose it. The destiny of art, like all potential forces in the universe, is not only to move from point A to point B, but to contribute to the “order of things,” which is M. Foucault’s universal theory suggested. However, the moving object of art’s actuality and potentiality must be recognized in order for the motion to bring changes in the world.

Raffaele M. Pandozy. Ph.D.
July 15, 2017