8 ms·

Tarkovsky was an Orthodox Christian, but his ideas about the irreducibility of experience parallel Zen: "Everybody asks me what things mean in my films. This i

Tarkovsky was an Orthodox Christian, but his ideas about the irreducibility of experience parallel Zen: "Everybody asks me what things mean in my films. This is terrible! An artist doesn't have to answer for his meanings. I don't think so deeply about my work - I don't know what my symbols may represent. What matters to me is that they arouse feelings, any feelings you like, based on whatever your inner response might be. If you look for a meaning, you'll miss everything that happens. Thinking during a film interferes with your experience of it. Take a watch into pieces, it doesn't work. Similarly with a work of art, there's no way it can be analyzed without destroying it." - Andrei Tarkovsky Andrei Tarkovsky: Interviews, pg. 71 Univ. Press of Mississippi, 2006 Edit: as others have pointed out, my surprise at this parallel may tell you less about the uniqueness of Tarkovsky's world view, and more about my ignorance of Orthodox Christianity.

stareblinkstare 5y ago
You say "but" as if Orthodox Christians are contrary to this. Put another way, there is a greater overlap between the thinking (and feeling, and believing) embedded in religions than we can garner just from reading.
- coldtea 5y ago
  Came to write just that. In fact had just finished my comment when I saw yours :-)
coldtea 5y ago
>Tarkovsky was an Orthodox Christian, but his ideas about the irreducibility of experience parallel Zen Let's add that this is not by chance: the irreducibility of experience (especially divine experience) is a core motive of Orthodox Christianity as well (which also has a long tradition of mystics).
- dhdondldn 5y ago
  The idea that experience is not irreducible is rare. Who thinks they can analyse consciousness into more fundamental elements? Max Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    Reminds me of James Jeans, another idealist physicist, which I feel like is becoming slightly more popular again of a view. "The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter...we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter."
  - 0xBABAD00C 5y ago
    > Who thinks they can analyse consciousness into more fundamental elements? I do. Considering consciousness, a property of animals on a planet in a star system, irreducible and more fundamental than, say, quarks and bosons, seems laughably wrong to me. On the same level of wrong as medieval "geocentric" world views. I have a hard time imagining how those accomplished physicists think this way..
  - nineteen999 5y ago
    > Who thinks they can analyse consciousness into more fundamental elements? About half of HN, who think that we will be able to manufacture some form of AGI that should have the right to be treated as the equal of humans.
    - nefitty 5y ago
      I pre-commit to supporting AI and automaton rights. I am an ethical vegetarian.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
mwattsun 5y ago
That's not really Zen though. Zen is expanding your awareness of the present moment to experience it without interpretation, including emotional interpretation, to experience it as it is. Zen is freedom from the constant need to assign meaning and experience feelings about where you are right now. Zen is the calm eye of the storm without attachments to thoughts or emotions, especially those that we use to identify who we are. Zen is a hot cup of tea and the sounds of birds singing.
- lemmsjid 5y ago
  I might be missing a nuance in what you're saying, because it seems like the way you are describing Zen is indeed similar to what Tarkovsky is describing above. Specifically, he says, "If you look for a meaning, you'll miss everything that happens. Thinking during a film interferes with your experience of it." As you describe Zen, it is "freedom from the constant need to assign meaning and experience feelings about where you are right now". I.e., not interrupting your experience of Tarkovsky's films by attempting to assign meaning.
  - mwattsun 5y ago
    Andrei Tarkovsky: > If you look for a meaning, you'll miss everything that happens > What matters to me is that they arouse feelings, any feelings you like, based on whatever your inner response might be. That's great and I like introspective and symbolic films, but arousing feelings is not Zen. Tarkovsky wants us to think less and feel more, which I think characterizes most art. Some people might say something like "I feel good about cats but I feel bad about dogs" (as an example) or "there is a special melancholy in the dawn fog." This is all well and good and what it is to be human, but feelings are subjective and about personal identity and experience. There is nothing inherently good or bad about one or the other when you compare cats and dogs. That's about you, not about cats or dogs. Likewise, there is nothing melancholic about morning fog. Other people might feel intense joy at they way it burns off as the sun rises. Others might feel sad and go back to sleep. Zen not only gets under the thinking, it gets under the feeling, to experience reality as it is without judgement or processing. Zen is seeing things clearly and calmly. It's clarity without the filter of thoughts and feelings. I can't know how other people experience the world so I can't tell if my way of achieving clarity is the way other people, such as a Japanese Zen master, experience clarity. Tarkovsky may have achieved his clarity through emotional intelligence and that's what he puts in his films. I'm grateful to have found a way that works for me. It's really no concern of mine that other's have a different way. There is no one way but that's an opinion of mine. When in doubt, I meditate and wait for the clarity to return.
hardwaregeek 5y ago
I really agree with this. I find it so superficial when people attempt to find a singular “meaning” to a film. A film is not about one thing. It’s an experience. Reducing it down to one idea removes the complexity and nuance of that experience.
zaat 5y ago
According to the article he was agnostic.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

stareblinkstare 5y ago

You say "but" as if Orthodox Christians are contrary to this. Put another way, there is a greater overlap between the thinking (and feeling, and believing) embedded in religions than we can garner just from reading.

coldtea 5y ago
Came to write just that. In fact had just finished my comment when I saw yours :-)

coldtea 5y ago

>Tarkovsky was an Orthodox Christian, but his ideas about the irreducibility of experience parallel Zen Let's add that this is not by chance: the irreducibility of experience (especially divine experience) is a core motive of Orthodox Christianity as well (which also has a long tradition of mystics).

dhdondldn 5y ago
The idea that experience is not irreducible is rare. Who thinks they can analyse consciousness into more fundamental elements? Max Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
- Barrin92 5y ago
  Reminds me of James Jeans, another idealist physicist, which I feel like is becoming slightly more popular again of a view. "The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter...we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter."
- 0xBABAD00C 5y ago
  > Who thinks they can analyse consciousness into more fundamental elements? I do. Considering consciousness, a property of animals on a planet in a star system, irreducible and more fundamental than, say, quarks and bosons, seems laughably wrong to me. On the same level of wrong as medieval "geocentric" world views. I have a hard time imagining how those accomplished physicists think this way..
- nineteen999 5y ago
  > Who thinks they can analyse consciousness into more fundamental elements? About half of HN, who think that we will be able to manufacture some form of AGI that should have the right to be treated as the equal of humans.
  - nefitty 5y ago
    I pre-commit to supporting AI and automaton rights. I am an ethical vegetarian.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

mwattsun 5y ago

That's not really Zen though. Zen is expanding your awareness of the present moment to experience it without interpretation, including emotional interpretation, to experience it as it is. Zen is freedom from the constant need to assign meaning and experience feelings about where you are right now. Zen is the calm eye of the storm without attachments to thoughts or emotions, especially those that we use to identify who we are. Zen is a hot cup of tea and the sounds of birds singing.

lemmsjid 5y ago
I might be missing a nuance in what you're saying, because it seems like the way you are describing Zen is indeed similar to what Tarkovsky is describing above. Specifically, he says, "If you look for a meaning, you'll miss everything that happens. Thinking during a film interferes with your experience of it." As you describe Zen, it is "freedom from the constant need to assign meaning and experience feelings about where you are right now". I.e., not interrupting your experience of Tarkovsky's films by attempting to assign meaning.
- mwattsun 5y ago
  Andrei Tarkovsky: > If you look for a meaning, you'll miss everything that happens > What matters to me is that they arouse feelings, any feelings you like, based on whatever your inner response might be. That's great and I like introspective and symbolic films, but arousing feelings is not Zen. Tarkovsky wants us to think less and feel more, which I think characterizes most art. Some people might say something like "I feel good about cats but I feel bad about dogs" (as an example) or "there is a special melancholy in the dawn fog." This is all well and good and what it is to be human, but feelings are subjective and about personal identity and experience. There is nothing inherently good or bad about one or the other when you compare cats and dogs. That's about you, not about cats or dogs. Likewise, there is nothing melancholic about morning fog. Other people might feel intense joy at they way it burns off as the sun rises. Others might feel sad and go back to sleep. Zen not only gets under the thinking, it gets under the feeling, to experience reality as it is without judgement or processing. Zen is seeing things clearly and calmly. It's clarity without the filter of thoughts and feelings. I can't know how other people experience the world so I can't tell if my way of achieving clarity is the way other people, such as a Japanese Zen master, experience clarity. Tarkovsky may have achieved his clarity through emotional intelligence and that's what he puts in his films. I'm grateful to have found a way that works for me. It's really no concern of mine that other's have a different way. There is no one way but that's an opinion of mine. When in doubt, I meditate and wait for the clarity to return.

hardwaregeek 5y ago

I really agree with this. I find it so superficial when people attempt to find a singular “meaning” to a film. A film is not about one thing. It’s an experience. Reducing it down to one idea removes the complexity and nuance of that experience.

zaat 5y ago

According to the article he was agnostic.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]