Dali's Nuclear Mysticism
Uncertainty: a principle for combatting determinism
While writing the first piece, I was unaware of the large influence that the atomic age would have on Dali. I believed he may have been tapped into some mystic source of information that was flowing into his work. That the ‘spirit of the age[1]’ was appearing in his painting without his direct knowledge. Much in the way that I felt archetypal and psychoanalytic themes in his earlier paintings. Then, I discovered that Dali was directly playing with these themes and reading (and writing) out on the edge of ‘science.’ Quote – ‘In the surrealist period I wanted to create the iconography of the interior world – the world of the marvelous, of my father Freud. I succeeded in doing it.
Today the exterior world – that of physics – has transcended the one of psychology. My father today is Dr. Heisenberg.’
Dali would paint a string of atomic related paintings: The Three Sphinxes of Bikini, Leda Atomica, The Madonna of Port Lligat, The Christ of Saint John of the Cross, and Assumpta Corpus Lapislazulina. I’m not going to explain these paintings, as I found an article that already does so. These paintings are part of a later movement in Dali’s work called Nuclear Mysticism. These works are a fusion of science, particularly physics and molecular biology, and religion, particularly Christian mysticism. Contained within Dali’s Nuclear Mysticism is the answer to the soul crushing rationalism and scientism that has become a dominant worldview.
The following passage is from Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground:
And that, furthermore, there also exist in the world the laws of nature. Consequently, these laws of nature need only be discovered, and then man will no longer be answerable for his actions, and his life will become extremely easy. Needless to say, all human actions will then be calculated according to these laws, mathematically, like a table of logarithms, up to 108,000, and entered into a calendar; or, better still, some well-meaning publications … and also calculated with mathematical precision, so that all possible questions will vanish in an instant, essentially because they will have been given all possible answers.
This passage reminds me of LaPlace’s Demon[2] which summarily states that if the precise location and momentum of each atom the universe was known, then the knowledge of all past and future events could be calculated. Since I wrote such a lengthy footnote about Ulanowicz, indulge me with a summary of his argument against LaPlace. Ulanowicz argues that many thermodynamic processes are irreversible and that certain thermodynamic variables do not follow a deterministic behavior[3]. I believe this is generally the division between classical and quantum mechanics, but let’s not wade too deeply. Pulling back out to the philosophical implications of such a construction, one can see how the concept of the Demon and determinism in general can lead to an overvaluing of the ‘rational’ and ‘scientific.’ If only we could construct this algorithm (insert your word of choice), our world would be perfectly ordered.
Back to Dostoevsky:
…Perhaps the whole goal mankind strives for on earth consists just in this ceaselessness of the process of achievement alone, that is to say, in life itself, and not essentially in the goal, which of course is bound to be nothing other than two times two is four…
I admit that twice two makes four is an excellent thing, but, if we are to give everything its due, twice two makes five[4] is sometimes a very charming thing too.
Value can be derived from the second quote by removing the twice two and the five and replacing them with alternative symbols (Science is real[5]). There is a danger in taking the symbolic logic behind a mathematical expression and applying it to something political (etc). through the use of natural language. Though I haven’t finished the Tractatus, I believe Wittgenstein has already beat me to this point. The problem isn’t necessarily that there is no objective truth but that there is no adequate way to communicate objective truth. But all manner of propaganda will bludgeon you with subjective truths disguised within symbolic forms that appear to be objective based on their presentation (is this is as the kids say ‘gaslighting’?). I use the word bludgeon because it is not that these are necessarily killshots in an assault on your mental autonomy but there is an energetic cost in defending against them.
Dali’s work can be an example of how to remystify the sciences and our ‘souls’. Interestingly, within Manifeste Mystique, Dali is using the progression of science to reanimate, strip away the decadence of art. It appears that these periods of stagnation (decadence) and animation (mystique) are broadly cyclical in most fields when viewed from a distance. Oftentimes pockets of ‘progress’ from another field can be used as inspiration.
[1] Wanted to avoid being highfalutin and saying Zeitgeist here, but putting it in the footnote so you know that I really am aware of the intellectual jargon.
[2] Perhaps of more interest to me than to you dear reader, when I search LaPlace’s Demon, I click on the Wikipedia entry. There is an entry entitled ‘Arguments against LaPlace’s demon.’ The first point under this heading is ‘Thermodynamic irreversibility.’ This point is referencing a book by a chemical engineer by the name of Robert Ulanowicz. Immediately, the name is familiar to me, though I assume that this is a rather obscure reference. Already on my computer are several papers authored by Ulanowicz. It happens that Ulanowicz developed techniques for characterizing flow networks and performing ecological network analysis. Almost five years ago, I traveled to Barcelona to develop a paper on virtual water networks of American agriculture and used Ulanowicz’ methods as the basis of my research. Perhaps it is the caffeine causing these coincidences or the Earth Coincidence Control Office (search this with the name John C. Lilly), but this trip to Spain also piqued my interest in art (Dali in particular).
[3] Haven’t accessed the book yet so this is relying heavily on Wikipedia, please forgive me elementary English teachers.
[4] Is Orwell referencing this in 1984? Yes, I looked it up.
[5] Insert additional bumper sticker slogans