|
Selma,
The extension into life that you suggest, in the end, is based
in the old maxim that a process is the same no matter where you find
it. That is learning theory but the theory of
practice is that the context decides whether the process is appropriate
from situation to situation. So learning something in a harmless
activity, like the arts, is practice for life but the "acting out" in
life of the processes (of character, role playing, time extension,
situation ethics (the mask) etc.) that make up the elements of artistic training
and work carried over into life becomes acceptable behavior based upon a
moral rather than an artistic or empirical context.
There are those that would argue that putting on the
mask of art at all creates the imagination for horrible actions while
others say that truly wearing the mask on the stage as the hero, the villain
etc. makes the preciousness of real life more clear off the stage, in
reality. I tend to think that the arts are a precious tool for
enlightenment but that a growing humanity and a spiritual life must embody the
actions of how you use the tools that the arts give to a person. I
believe therefore in education and artistic development as precious tools for
societal growth and enlightenment. That is why one of the most
important lessons of the arts is the lesson of practice, its meaning and
discipline.
The answer to the first part of your post is based in the
theories of what constitutes knowledge. In the Arts "knowing" means
the ability to instantaneously do a task without conscious thought.
We "know" how to walk, to read, to talk for example. The point
of walking, reading and talking isn't in the doing but in what it is meant to
accomplish by the doing. That is the meaning of the arts as
well.
But the complexity of practice is
"understanding" as opposed to "knowing." Literally
"standing-under the structure" in a comprehensible way. Practice is
the discipline of "understood" repetition from every context that
raises action to the level of habit first and then to the level of
intuition that seems as if it was natural. So
practice must be analyzed and built both through tradition or tacit
knowledge passed down holistically from one live person to another and
analytic knowledge that comes from exploring all of the structural
implications as well as the history of the way others have explored the
problem. It is like sailing but with the consciousness of driving a
car on dry land. There are levels of consciousness in it that relate
to time and speed as well as all of the elements that you must be able to
control in the act of "knowledge."
The ability to walk is "knowledge" but when confronting
the complexity of the dance or acrobatics it enters a higher realm which we call
"mastery" or the ability to "reflect in action." I'm sure you
know those wonderful Donald Schon "Reflective Practitioner" books where he uses
the artistic practice as a model for teachers, the medical profession and even
business management.
Practice is involved with many dimensions of the
problem. In Chamber Opera we say there are 13 basic fragments with
as few as seven levels to each fragment that must be practiced and that is all
after the basic graduate education. These are all Post
Graduate! Our company has spent well over a million dollars in
training artists to be competent in these areas in order to have the requisite
personal mastery to control their own individual instrument, dialogue with the
other living instruments in ensemble and then to dialogue with the audience
and the world in the art form. There are many paths or
linearities but there is no one path, there is just the process.
I suspect that the idea of "economie of scale" and
"productivity" that haunts the West is an evil twin to the concept of
linearity. One size fits all is an ideal and one way
to accomplish a task is an underlying assumption of mass
education. That is one of the reasons the arts are so
"odd man out" in all of the economic systems. That is likely
the reason also that Peter Drucker said that the future of Western management
lay with the model of the orchestra or a society of experts all in a
network relationship to each other under the control of an revolving
interpretive conductor. Not an ideal that I would think many of the
people on this list would be comfortable with or so it seems to me. The
other types are called "Stars."
best,
Ray Evans Harrell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 2:57
PM
Subject: [Futurework] Re: [Futurework]
Re: [Futurework] [Futurework] FW: "Spiritualität macht fr ei" ?
I have a question that may or may not have some kind of
answer but it seems to me very closely related to this discussion. I think it
is a question that Ray could probably answer better than anyone else because
he is so closely involved in the arts.
It is my impression, both from my own experience and from
what I have heard and read about people in the arts and in other fields such
as sports and science, etc. that it is true of the very finest
artists that when s/he has been thoroughly trained in the
technicalities of her/his art, the next step is to master those technicalities
so thoroughly that they no longer are the focus of that artists performance
because then and only then the focus can become the artistic components of the
art, i.e., the musicality, the dramatic impact perhaps in the theatre which
goes beyond the words, the passion in a painting, the sense in a basketbal
game of being part of the team to the point that the team acts a unit,
etc.
So the learning of the technical elements of, e.g., an
instrument, or the voice, would you say, involve linear thinking and, of
course, if one cannot do this one cannot do anything else; the
real art is then something that is not possible within the realm
of the linear because it demands much more, althoug, again, it is not possible
to produce that much more unless the linear has first taken
place.
Selma
As these thoughts have come to me it occurs now to me that
this can be extended to-who knows how many areas of life.
S.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 1:03 PM
Subject: [Futurework] Re: [Futurework] [Futurework] FW:
"Spiritualität macht fr ei" ?
> In voice we call that
focus and Martin Buber called it speaking the Primary
>
Word. However that doesn't address the complexity of multiple
skills or
> the way that the consciousness prevaricates to the rest of
the brain ala
> Freud and others. Mechanics does not equal
consciousness.
>
> REH
>
>
> ----- Original
Message -----
> From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "pete"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [Futurework]
[Futurework] FW: "Spiritualität macht fr ei" ?
>
>
> >
Pete,
> >
> > Your description below is correct -- in as far
as it goes.
> >
> > However, the brain becomes very linear
indeed when all the processed
> > material from the rear cortex
(whether from separated halves or not) is
> > gathered by the frontal
lobes and ordered in strictly linear fashion
> > preparatory for
action. Were this not so we could not carry out any
> skilful
>
> physical action in the right sequence, nor derive logical conclusions,
nor
> > make plans for the future, nor be able to utter a sentence
with a
> > meaningful syntax no matter how large our
vocabulary.
> >
> > Benjamin Libet, acknowledged to be the
world's leading researcher into the
> > consciousness of perception
and action, has shown very clearly that
> > consciousness arises only
at the point when the action potentials of the
> > motor neurons are
at their maxima and are then released in strict sequence
> > as
action is initiated or words spoken.
> >
> > All the
preparatory work for the sensation of consciousness is indeed
> >
carried out in parallel as you say, but the full realisation of
> >
consciousness is strictly a linear affair.
> >
> > Keith
Hudson
> >
> > At 17:23 18/09/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >Actually, pyschology demonstrates that this notion is an
illusion.
> > >I'll just sketch a couple of examples, which are
probably familiar.
> > >The truth is revealed by instances of
physical brain function
> > >disruption, which can be generated by
strokes, or by radical
> > >surgical intervention. The surgical
instance is most impressive,
> > >as in this case, the majority of
the brain is fully severed into
> > >left and right halves to stop
massive epileptic attacks. As a
> > >result, the patients become,
at the intellectual, interpretive
> > >level, two distinct
entities which do not share any information,
> > >despite the fact
that because the lower brain is still (must
> > >still be, for the
patient to survive) intact, the patient percieves
> > >themselves
as a single unitary entity. Probing the behaviour of
> > >such
patients teases out the way the brain conspires to fool itself
> >
>that it is behaving rationally. As you are probably familiar,
> >
>when the patient's hands are placed in two boxes so they cannot
>
> >be seen, which contain two different objects, then the
patient
> > >is interrogated as to the content of the box which he
can feel,
> > >if the answer is to be spoken, the response will
relate to one
> > >box, but if it is to be written down, it will
relate to the
> > >other box, as speech is on one side of the
brain, and writing
> > >is on the other, and which ever side is to
provide the answer
> > >conveys only that which it knows (the
sense data from each
> > >hand goes only to one side of the
brain). But if you try to
> > >point out the discrepancies in the
reponses, the patient is
> > >found to have a surprising
resistance to acknowledging the
> > >disparity. It can be
demonstrated that each side of the brain
> > >uses every trick it
can come up with to sneak access to the
> > >knowledge of the
other half, meanwhile denying that there is
> > >any separation,
flatly refusing to believe that two autonomous
> > >"thought
engines" are operating, even when the evidence is
> >
>indisputable. Why should this be? Because in reality this sort
>
> >of deceit is going on all the time in normal healthy
individuals,
> > >it is just that with considerable communication
between the
> > >hemispheres, the illusion is much more seamless
and easy to
> > >conceal.
> > >
> > >The
other sort of damage which reveals the same deviousness
> >
>occurs with stroke victims. Again, I'm sure you have encountered
>
> >the stories. When a part of the visual cortex is damaged, a
>
> >patient will draw pictures with one side of all the objects
>
> >missing, but won't realize that it is gone. Or will be unable
>
> >to acquire some piece of sensory information, but will
aggressively
> > >"eavesdrop" on themselves to acquire the
information by
> > >other means, while refusing to acknowledge
that they are
> > >doing so. The important point being that in
these cases,
> > >while their errors are glaringly obvious to all
other observers,
> > >they are utterly invisible to
themselves.
> > >
> > >These anecdotes, which I have
only briefly indicated, point
> > >to the systemic misdirection
the mind uses to maintain
> > >an illusion of a unitary self,
whose behaviour is rational
> > >and consistent. In fact, the
reality is that loads and
> > >loads of little semi-autonomous
pieces of the brain are
> > >always churning away, sensing,
filtering, interpreting,
> > >providing bits of information, and
most importantly coming
> > >to conclusions, outside of the
purview of conscious
> > >attention, which flits from "module" to
"module", pulling
> > >in bits of resultant items to sew together
to provide an
> > >apparent seamless, linear stream of awareness,
with an
> > >apparent logical, rational narrative justification
to
> > >hold it all together. But knowing what we now know
about
> > >how this mechanism works, it should be clear that
this
> > >narrative is essentially propaganda, a convenient myth
to
> > >keep the individual from collapsing into an
existential
> > >chaos of fractured identity. In truth, the brain
works
> > >massively in parallel, and is not linear at
all.
> > >
> > >
-Pete Vincent
> > >
> >
>_______________________________________________
> >
>Futurework mailing list
> >
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
>
>
> > Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England,
>
> <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> >
Futurework mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Futurework mailing
list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
|
