Re: Art: practical or not?

From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jan 30 2007 - 14:21:52 PST

you are so smart
this is so dead on
thank you for this

yay the ego is so reptilian brain

but do u think the "leftover" is not quantifiable
or quantifying it reduces it to the 10%

so amazing
i love it
the open

On 1/30/07, Steve Bennett <email suppressed> wrote:
> > 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.

yay my brain wasn't letting it in
but at least it asked a question
i wonder what else i can do to not align with the 10%
what do you do?


Steve Bennett
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.