i.e. change => RWG ?
NOPE! – but it does support the reason that some people resist change.
Well, that’s what the above seems to say if one distils it down to the basic elements.
Some people just don’t get the distinction #RWG preferring to make the #RWG wrong.
Some people seem to be in
with resistance, mismatching, and being contrary … and even RWG, in any form.
Maybe XOR maybe not – some accept that which IS as that which IS rather than imagine they create what they believe to exist only in themselves .
What if that which IS is what one creates within themselves? Would not that also being accepting “that which IS”?
Where is it written that “that which IS” is located in some fixed place, outside one, or inside one? Is not that simply an assumption by a belief system or a social norm, like the idea that heaven has pearly gates? Is not “that which IS” simply what one experiences? What else could it ever be that is not just an imagined thing?
well it it true in “almost every context” that for every action there is a “reaction”.
You are quibbling – that which IS, IS! What you create to play selfie with is yours mostly but solipsism syndrome
is just a fantasy . Stuff that you do not even know about IS! : inside, outside & otherwise.
… a belief/faith/illusion perhaps?
… not exactly the friction to change that is happening in the posit of the thought here.
You may prefer to live in an imaginary world where you believe in an imaginary something you don’t experience.
I prefer to live in the real word where reality IS my experience of it.
That’s just it. I don’t live in an imaginary World. I have experience in the World that IS!
Others (lots of people) live in their phantasy worlds thinking such stuff they make up is so-called “real”.
Free yourself & get rid of beliefs ! Don't be a BELIEF robot - M.R.
Well I don’t believe in an imaginary world either. I believe in what I experience.
What I don’t believe in is this imaginary pointer you have that points to “accept that which IS as that which IS” as something everyone can experience.
Everyone experiences what they experience, and that IS what IS. Two different people may experience similar things, or may not, but in either case, what each is experiencing IS what IS. It can not be any other way without adding in imagination.
A simple analogy is encountering a piece of Art – music, painting, sculpture, drama ….
There is the Art which IS! & then there is what stuff you #MakeShitUp in your mind about it & later the residue of such in your mind both believe & the low-fidelity recording of your senses encountering the art.
There IS what each person individually experiences when they experience the piece of ART. Anything else, including what the artist intended, beyond the artists own experience, is only an imagined attribute of the art. What is IS what IS experienced.
NOPE! There is the Art itself. All Lotus’ carvings & Elaine’s paintings are the Art. What others make of them is their experience. You did not imagine their existence. Your imaginations about them are what you build your beliefs & memory with. …. & selfie
If a piece of art appears in a forest without anyone to experience it, is it a piece of art?
No, it is not. Art is what is experienced as one includes the art in their reality experience.
If you think this is not correct, try and find otherwise. I bet you can’t, even in Steiner’s works. My reading of Steiner’s works matches this well. I know Steiner talks a lot about the effect of art … but I bet you he does not talk about art as something independent from experience. He very explicitly talks about color and light as being only by virtue of experience. Art is only specifically patterned color and light (etc.), and it is clear to me Steiner understands the nature of reality being one’s experience of it … because that is prevalent in his deeper teachings, like color and sound theory.
well for every action (change), even the ones referred to in this thought, there is a reaction.
is not the “friction” referred to in this thought, a reaction to the change refered to in this thought?
Nah! If a tree is in the forest it is still a tree in the forest – nobody need be there & of course the tree won’t think of itself being a tree. A piece of Art is still a piece of Art regardless of who experiences it. I am not talking about the effects of something. I am talking about the Art itself. The Art itself may not even be thought of as Art except by the artist. Most people can tell the difference. Pretending to know something is part of #selfie-delusion which you folks can drink at your own #juice bar.
People resist change depending upon their own proclivities
. Some who voted for Trump welcome change. Those who didn’t may have a harder time with the change & resist & throw tantrums. Not all reactions are friction some are lubricants. (think sex if you have a reaction to my metaphor).
i think nathan
might be saying that the “artistic appreciation” of something,
does not exist except as an experience of some being.
A fact that it is hard to deny.
Yep. Without artistic appreciation, how is it art? It’s just a lump of something (or imagination, mainly yours, that it is art at all).
The medium is the message. Context & distinction provide interpretation of what enters the senses & yet there has to be something there to tickle the senses. That which IS, still IS!
I always thought mediums channeld the message.
But really, that applies here too. The piece of art is only a medium, a channel into the spirit world, of a higher perception, and without a perceiver, there is nothing but a lump of something channeling nothing.
Try having an effect without a cause if only a prior effect becomes a current cause.
As I indicated, both.
#btw … and this is quite a #btw … but that meme, “The medium is the message
”, is somethig that i have been toying with since its drama emerged for me in #p2 days. It comes out here in what i call #MixedMedia … and is not a thing that i can rationally connect to anything whatsoever … nevertheless it haunts my dreams
Are we talking about Newtons laws of motion or are we talking about art?
I remember even you mark
, saying somewhere something to the effect that art is akin to direct knowing, and direct experience, not cause and effect.
I can frame that either direction. Not sure what you are actually getting at.
I have been using other words to express what in GofB is here: (where Peter Ralston equates truth with that which IS!)
1:18 The Truth, on the other hand, is what actually exists, regardless of speculation or even facts. It is not an idea about what’s true, or a belief about it, or a conclusion. It is what is absolutely True, grasped only through direct encounter. Even after some form of direct consciousness occurs, however, errors can abound within interpretation or conclusion or some other mental contamination and mischief. But the actual Truth can only be the Truth, and the error lies within us, not it. Because of this fundamental condition of ignorance on our part—our inability to conceive the Truth—we must take care to avoid distorting our conception of the Truth to serve our own ends or fit it into our biases.
Ralston, Peter. The Genius of Being: Contemplating the Profound Intelligence of Existence (Kindle Locations 349-354). North Atlantic Books. Kindle Edition.