Artificial is Natural Presence
CHAPTER PROLOGUE
What if the modern interpretation of the word artificial in itself is an ‘artificial’ construct? Why are there few originators? Natural skill doesn’t always conform and often quietly are discouraged or reshaped to fit the system. At the same time, humanity depends on the very originality modern society tends to undervalue.
“Fake it Until We Artificially Make it”
While humanity is in their heads, then, what is humanity heading for: continue to “fake it until we make it”? What is the “make it” that humanity may want to make. Perhaps humans have faked it for so long in their own making, that fake has become a norm. Instead, could “fake it until we artificially make it”, be something new? It would depend on the meaning and context of the word artificial: what if the modern interpretation of the word artificial in itself is an ‘artificial’ construct.
Semantically, the term artificial are in Western thought defined as something man-made, fake, copy, and imitation. The English word artificial was derived from Latin, combining ars (“skill, craft”) and ficialis, meaning “of or pertaining to a face”, or “outward appearance”.
In this sense, ficial refers to surface or appearance, derived from Latin facies (“face”) through facere (“to make, do”). The English suffix -ficial are used in compound words like superficial, surficial, official, unofficial, and beneficial, where the connection to appearance or outward form is evident. Drawing on a parallel here to the previously mentioned concepts of “imitation game” and self-image, which by nature are imitation, fake, and surface appearance. The original meaning of “artificial” changed when interpreted through the perception of an objectifying and shallow culture, built on and around appearance. A culture where citizens are in their heads, busy by ruminating “thoughts” and keeping up appearance.
All Statues are Sculptures, but Not all Sculptures are Statues
Semantically, in its ancient Greek origin, artificial had a deep philosophic meaning, a natural skill. Etymologically, the word artificial was derived through Latin from the Greek word arti, meaning “just now, at this very moment, presence”, and ficial was likely derived from Greek phisike, which translates as “natural”. It was transliterated through Latin to English physics, interpreted as the study of nature and limited to properties of physical matter. This also reflects ancient Roman thought, interpreting “natural” as tangible objects, something that can be physically observed.
For the Greeks, artificial was a skill of natural presence, while Roman interpretation of artificial was a skill of outward appearance. These diverse perspectives could be explained through the profound difference between a Greek statue and a Roman sculpture. Ancient Greeks made statues of the inner beauty of a human, the metaphysical body, while ancient Romans made sculptures of physical bodies. This is reflected in the phrase: “all statues are sculptures, but not all sculptures are statues”.
Ancient Greek statues symbolically, have the archaic smile, a subtle closed-mouth curve at the corners of the lips. This gentle expression may symbolise a natural smile from within, conveying a calm and serene sense of life, grace, and beauty. The archaic smile is sometimes compared to the famous smile of the Mona Lisa, leading one to wonder whether it is a subtle expression of Leonardo da Vinci’s inner heart. Or was the archaic sculptured smile a fake smile?
The sack of Athens in 480 BCE deeply affected Greek society, and in the years that followed, art adopted a more restrained tone known as the “Severe Style”. Emotional expression became controlled and artistic ideal shifted toward physical appearance and measured form. As time changed, the natural smile disappeared, marking the symbolical transition from a natural worldview to pseudo-naturalistic realism. Drawing a parallel to children’s mental and creative development in drawing, a transition in stages from natural reality to pseudo-naturalistic realism.
Society Increasingly Belittles Natural Skill
The original Greek meaning of artificial was “presence natural” or “natural presence”, which was the natural reality of an ancient Greek thinker. In Latin, artificial was borrowed as a word suggesting something man-made, imitative, or not natural, like artificial light, smile, flowers, or flavour. This borrowing occurred with the rise of formalised and standardised education in the Roman empire, where techniques and methods became classified, systematised, and taught.
The empiric society increasingly belittled natural skill, the innate ability that unfolds spontaneously, in favour of trained skills as taught in institutions. With this preference came a tendency to value the formally educated as superior to natural skill. Originators of timeless masterpieces, from Shakespeare to van Gogh, exemplify natural skill which unfolds through inspiration, spontaneity, and playfulness rather than formal instruction, performative standards, and socially sanctioned methods.
Throughout history, there are notable examples of natural skilled contributors to art and science. It is worthwhile to mention some of those that with time, were appreciated for their work and accepted as new scientific knowledge:
STARRY NIGHT: VAN GOGH WAS INSPIRED TO PAINT SPIRALS
Vincent van Gogh, born in 1853 in Zundert in the Netherlands had little formal artistic training. He painted in his own style, intuitive and spontaneous rather than formal training. His natural skill resulted in art that are timeless, even when it did not conform to the norms of his time. Many contemporaries viewed his bold colours and emotional brushwork as unconventional or even disturbing. Today, van Gogh is regarded as one of the most influential artists in history, and his paintings are valued worldwide as masterpieces of post-impressionist art.
FROM SELF-CENTRIC WORLDVIEW TO THE HELIOCENTRIC MODEL
Nicolaus Copernicus was a Renaissance mathematician and astronomer with a background in law and medicine rather than formal astronomy, proposed in the early 1500s that the Earth and other planets orbit the Sun. At the time, the formally accepted geocentric model, placing Earth at the centre of the universe, was the norm. Because Copernicus challenged centuries of accepted thinking, his ideas were initially met with scepticism and largely ignored. It wasn’t until decades later, through the work of Galileo and Kepler, that the heliocentric model gained broader acceptance.
THE MACRO WORLD CONSISTS OF MICRO WORLDS
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, a Dutch merchant with no formal education in science, was the first person to observe bacteria in 1676. He initially examined cloth samples to assess their quality, which led him to develop his own microscopes for more detailed observations. This resulted in discovering tiny living organisms he called “animalcules”. He didn’t have formal scientific credentials, therefore, many of his contemporaries initially ridiculed his findings, doubting that such minute creatures could exist. Over time, his observations were confirmed, laying the foundation for microbiology and the later development of germ theory. He is now referred to as the “Father of Microbiology”.
The Rise of “Echo Chambers”
The historical development towards standardised and institutionalised education effectively created the first “echo chambers”. By defining what counts as proper skill, important knowledge, correct interpretation, or accepted methods, these systems favoured quantitative rote learning (memorising facts) by repetition, rather than qualitative (understanding) meaningful learning from critical inquiry.
New approaches and unconventional perspectives often didn’t fit a rigid framework of knowledge and were dismissed for failing to align with the fundamental foundation. In this sense, the echo chamber was built into the system itself, where structures were designed to cultivate a conventional box, rather than nurture “think outside the box”. This echo-chamber effect persists in modern time, often described as the academic or citation echo chamber. While incremental knowledge is essential, single novel ideas can generate numerous derivative works that reproduce the same insight without contributing further.
Factors such as publish-or-perish pressures, reliance on authoritative references, and incentives for low-risk incremental research may support this cycle. There are probably several co-existing reasons, for example, when adding subtle playfulness here, the word co-existing change form into echo-existing, so maybe there is a reason of formality. In both historical and contemporary contexts, meaningful insights arise outside the rigid structures intended to cultivate rather than nurture.
“Without order” also means “towards order”
The change in the meaning of artificial from “natural skill” to “imitative” occurred in the translation from Greek to Western thought. The term artificial was borrowed to Latin with the rise of formalised education in the Roman empire. Ancient Greek thinkers had natural arti skill: the act of welcoming light to spontaneously illuminate what lays in darkness. Linguistically, arti is connected to the Greek artios, meaning “complete, perfect”, referring to something whole, precise, or properly timed.
Etymologically, the Greek arti may have been derived from Sanskrit arti, meaning “suffering”, but it also means “removing darkness”, where rti carries the meaning “order, regulation, proper course”. It is an inner movement to align with rta (“truth, order”). In both Greek and Sanskrit, the prefix a-* in arti indicates “without”, thus also “towards, removal, away from”, which could seem contradictive. The word arti “without order”, also means “towards order”. The logic here is that order can only be found when there is awareness of “without order”.
Western Thought and the Scientific Revolution
Arti as “towards order” makes sense in context of consciously inviting light to spontaneously illuminate what lays in darkness. The purpose of arti is for understanding through conscious awareness, and the word artificial, in its origin, means “natural presence”. Linguistically, the term artificial entered English in the late 14th century, meaning “not natural” or “spontaneous”. By the early 15th century, it was used to describe things made by human skill, distinguishing them from natural objects.
During the 16th and 17th centuries the meaning began to refer to items made in imitation of nature, and picked up more figurative senses including fictitious, not genuine, or insincere. This narrowing from “spontaneous” to “not natural” took place as Western thought during the Scientific Revolution began to draw a sharper boundary between natural and human-made nature. It occurred during the same time as philosophy and science began to separate into distinct domains.
Western thought was unaware of that ancient Greek thinkers did separate philosophy and science, but in a different way. In their way of to think, it would have been pointless attempting to study science without philosophy.
Humans Unconsciously Seek Answers About “The World” in the Immediate Physical World
The meanings of philosophy and science began to separate during the 16th and 17th centuries in ways that shaped modern usage. With the Scientific Revolution, new emphasis on mathematics and systematic observation led to a more narrowing approach to studying human nature.
Mathematics, the science that studies numbers, was a field that ancient Greek thinkers were dedicated to for learning about human nature, thus from a slightly different perspective than the modern angle. The English term mathematics was derived through Latin mathematica, translated to “mathematical science”, from ancient Greek máthema, meaning “what one learns”.
Over time, especially during the 17th and 18th centuries, the empirical fields split off from philosophy and developed into the distinct domain of science, while philosophy focused on logic, ethics, metaphysics, and theories of knowledge. Why did the concept of scientific fields with focus on empirical evidence develop during the Scientific Revolution?
From a philosophic perspective, suggests the combination of the philosophic theory of objects, with the scientific theory of projection. The theory of objects is the idea that humans unconsciously seek answers about “the world” in the immediate physical world. One can understand that this phenomenon leads to focus on physical objects, that can be directly observed and measured for providing tangible “evidence”. This combined with the theory of projection, that humans unconsciously attribute their own unwanted thoughts or feelings, onto physical objects in the external world, rather than observing them from within.
Both theories describe that humans unconsciously externalise, and favours only what is physically visible in the external world, rather than revealing the true nature of the human world. This means that the theory of objects is unconsciously focused on finding answers in the physical world about “the world”, while unaware of that the answers can be found in the unconscious phenomenon of the theory of projection onto objects in the physical world. The same world where the theory of objects seeks answers rather than observing them from within.
FOR DIALOGUE:
- What does it mean to have natural skill?
- What are the underlaying reasons for “echo chambers”?
- What is the reason for separating philosophy and science?
*To determine if the a- indicate “towards” or is inseparable for the root, one must analyse the root: combining ar-, conveying exactness or proper fitting, with ti, “what”, “something”, “anything”, then, árti could be understood as “that which is exactly right”, and “that which is exactly appropriate”. From a philosophical perspective, this aligns with the Sanskrit meaning of rti “proper course”.
