About a year or so back I wrote a rather extensive number of notes on the Apollonian-Dionysian dichotomy, including the addition of the Hermetic to form a triad. I had intended to write this together into an essay at some point, but my obsessions lead me elsewhere and I never finished it. I was reminded of this after reading an essay by Heliotroph here on Substack concerning the connection between Apollo, Dionysus and pleasure. A link will be provided at the end of this essay. Reading this, I was once again brought back to this little bit of unfinished work.
When you say, "not the form itself, but the dynamic process by which form is acquired." and then "In art, the Apollonian appears as order, harmony, measure, and restraint. Because it possesses these characteristics, Apollonian art tends towards displaying a great measure of technical skill and tends to portray luminous idealizations or images of perfection." and subsequently for Dionysus as well, how is it that a dynamic process can assume a definite form? Is it that the Apollonian and Dionysian are the processes that lead to these definite forms and these forms are actually something else that's not them? In this way, we could predicate symbolism of them? Or is that beginning clause not meant to restrict the Apollonian from having access to definite forms? Or, within that affirmation, is there some sort of Heraclitean presupposition?
When you say, "not the form itself, but the dynamic process by which form is acquired." and then "In art, the Apollonian appears as order, harmony, measure, and restraint. Because it possesses these characteristics, Apollonian art tends towards displaying a great measure of technical skill and tends to portray luminous idealizations or images of perfection." and subsequently for Dionysus as well, how is it that a dynamic process can assume a definite form? Is it that the Apollonian and Dionysian are the processes that lead to these definite forms and these forms are actually something else that's not them? In this way, we could predicate symbolism of them? Or is that beginning clause not meant to restrict the Apollonian from having access to definite forms? Or, within that affirmation, is there some sort of Heraclitean presupposition?
Great article! I enjoyed it very much!