Re: Art: practical or not?

From: Steve Bennett (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jan 30 2007 - 14:08:24 PST

> did u know that mathmeticians and other scientists
> think in "pictures"
> not words -(CM)

Yes. The way fast readers sight-read whole pages as single "images".
Pattern recognition is a foundation of science.
But our innate (or "overall") intelligence doesn't separate things in
experience like that, like "words" and "pictures". It wouldn't have need the
way ego does of organizing data into conceptual categories. Ego is just a
funtion of the brain to filter for survival data and as a proportionally
derived function to live with and redress various imbalances. As such, it is
essentially a function proportional to health. The way we really learn is
all at once, from all the sounds, sights, energies and movements (including
our own) around us at any/all given moments. Dealing with this kind of
perception and experience through conceptual frameworks like "pictures" or
"sounds" wouldn't take more than the 10% of our brains needed to approve and
recognize (comply with?) such ideas.
One example is the way children will naturally learn to read, if exposed to
this behavior, by themselves and with no other "training" aside from basic
human observation, between age 5 to 7. If they remain untrained in their
reading, they rapidly become quite fast with it. By contrast, training them
to funnel down into 2 - 3 sentence "See Spot Run" books trains them to get
used to a much less challenging (less detailed and less requiring of
creative interaction) "environment" or "field" of consciousness. Similarly,
burying them in "phonics" often funnels their awareness to a very small
subset of the data on a given page being read.
Maybe around 10%, max, in each case. And so on. The sham behind many schools
is that they've trained the child to read at about 10% of their ability in
the exact time period that the child would've done a better job on their
own. Think about how that kind of thing figures into some types of "art"
education, wherein the student is funneled down into a fraction (about 10%
probably) of their intelligence and sensory function, and thus in their
essential (to intelligence and survivability) creative
reactivity/interaction with reality - then, thus stunted and at some level
seeking more functional involvment, slowly sold it back over a period of
many years.
We do the same thing with what we call "pictures" and "music", etc. We use
them (these ways of thinking and organizing our experiences and
interactions) on each other, or someone convinces us to use them on
ourselves, etc, as filters over one or another sense(s).
> i don't really know exactly what ur saying
> could u xplain what is "leftover"
> after ur list?
> is this sarcasm? -(CM)
That's exactly the kind of thing I'm referring to.
Steve Bennett
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.