Ray,
There is so much here. I'm going to save it for when I have
timte to study it a little. Thanks for the wonderful input.
Selma
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 2:07
AM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Re:
[Futurework] Re: [Futurework] [Futurework] FW: "Spiritualität macht fr ei"
?
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
|