Mindstructures » Definitions

The Developing Definition of Art

Annemieke — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 11:16:38 +0000

Art is a difficult word to define.

Wikipedia defines it as ‘a product or process of deliberately arranging symbolic elements in a way that influences and affects the senses, emotions and intellect’.

It also says that the word art was traditionally used for skill or mastery, but later as an intention to stimulate thoughts and emotions.

According to David Bohm, as I quoted in my previous post, the original definition was ‘to fit’. He said that the word art has come to mean ‘to fit, in an aesthetic and emotional sense’, but, as Bohm showed, art can also mean ‘fitting in a functional sense’.

When I read that, it indeed made very much sense to me. But ‘fitting’ was not exactly a word that I found when I searched for several definitions of art. So I searched specific for that and found some old definitions that said ‘fit together, join’ and ‘skill in joining or fitting’.

Taking all the definitions together, I get the following ingredients that have to be present in order to call something art:

a product or a process
skill or mastery
fit together in a certain context
affect senses, emotions, intellect in others

So far this is a definition of art that describes a person to person thing. One person has the skill to produce something (a product or process that fits together in a certain context) that affects another person.

Searching for New Patterns

But there is also an element of ‘fitting’ in the whole of society. Or actually of not fitting, not going together harmonious in society, that is the ground for art to rise. Even how we nowadays are more likely to define art. Many things show the skills of a person and affect another person, but are not seen as art.

Now, in general, art is more about changing contexts, going beyond what is known. But it is still about seeing a new ‘fit’. Going beyond the well known, but still making it appealing. Searching for new patterns ‘that are fitting in every sense’, as Bohm defines beauty.

So apart from the previous four ingredients in the definition of art, there is a fifth:

a search for new patterns that fit in a greater whole

Something that goes beyond the individual. Which is about the individual in the whole of society. Or the society in the whole of the world. Or history. Or even of the world in the whole of the universe.

Searching for a new order, that can only arise if the individual gets a sense of a new pattern. Patterns that are underneath and go beyond the visible and already known.

Me, my Self and I

Annemieke — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 07:27:07 +0000

The ‘self’ is a concept that I know best by the writings of Carl Jung.

I don’t know if my understanding of the concept is right, but I thought I more or less ‘got it’.

But as mentioned in my previous post, David Bohm also talks about the ‘self’. And somehow I got the feeling he gives it a different meaning.

In another post I will go into the meaning I think Jung gives to it, but in this post I want to look into the definition of Bohm.

I versus Me

First he makes a clear distinction between I and me. The ‘I’ is in control, while the ‘me’ is limited. The ‘I’ makes the choices, while everything just happens to ‘me’.

A child must begin regarding himself as the great I am because he sees himself as the center of the universe from which all action flows. Then he learns from society he’s only little me. They say: Who do you think you are?

Reflex system versus creative expression

The next differentiation Bohm makes is between, what he calls, the ‘repetitive reflex system’ and a ‘natural desire of creative expression’. Everyone has this creative desire, but when the repetitive reflex system is more strong, the creativity is most likely not able to develop enough.

People are conditioned to stay in the repetitive reflex system, which has the tendency to defend itself and to keep you in it.

One of the greatest dangers of creativity is producing for a reward.

If the child is rewarded for producing a desired result, this will automatically throw him into the reflex system. It gives a very powerful emotional pressure to continue there.

Creative children do not need a reward, they don’t need to be told they are good, because the creative free play is a reward in itself. It makes them learn to rely on their own inner knowledge.

Self and Ego

I don’t think the definition of Bohm of the ‘self’ is the same as the definition of Jung. I will go into that into another post, but as I see it at this point, the definition of Bohm might be what is called the ‘ego’ by Jung.

The Difference between Integrity and Honesty

Annemieke — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:38:26 +0000

Recently on a forum someone asked for opinons about the difference between integrity and honesty.

I thought that was a really interesting question. I indeed view them different but never thought about why exactly.

Like many other words, those two represent a whole world of meaning. They are used all the time and most of the time, people tend to understand what you mean if you use those words.

But sometimes someone uses the word honesty where another would use the word integrity. Or the other way around.

In the comments on that question there where some very interesting views and although there seems to be overlap, they are certainly not the same.

My view was that there can be honesty without integrity, but no integrity without honesty.

But although integrity needs honesty, it does not mean you always have to be absolutely honest to others.

It just means you have to be absolutely honest to your self.

Being honest to others is many times just giving a personal opinion. And that opinion might just as well have nothing to do with facts.

So I do think integrity needs honesty, but honesty as an inner process. Looking at your own values and act upon them with respect for others.

It got me thinking which are the signs of the zodiac that represent honesty and integrity. Honesty is not so hard to see, as it is a characteristic of aries.

Aries is about action and uncomplicated behaviour. Just act without thinking. Something that is not influenced by others, a pure and, in essence, innocent behaviour.

Integrity is more complicated to place. I have seen it used as a characteristic of leo. But in a way I always found that a bit hard to see.

Leo is also acting that is not influenced by others, but it is different from aries. It is the act of self-expression. Expression in accordance with the persons own unique self. Much more an ego based action.

But as I already tried to write about in the post Ego Development, the ego is not static. It has to grow. And the growth goes through the whole zodiac, from the first impulsive action (aries) to the most compassionate sign (pisces).

And so I thought that ‘integity’ might indeed be a characteristic of leo. But a characteristic of a more developed ego. An ego that looks beyond itself, symbolised by the sign sagittarius.

Sagittarius is about expanding our worldview. Looking beyond our own limited experiences. It is about using our own talents for the benefit of the greater whole.

But that side of sagittarius can only come into existence in the development of the first sign of the individual part of the zodiac, leo.

Because leo is the start of the individual development. The start of disovering the own unique self. That which seperates us from everyone else. Our own creative centre.

As long as that is not discovered, sagittarius might expand our worldview but has no centre to return to. The centre (leo) that rules our actions (aries) for the world as a whole (sagittarius).

Critical about Criticism

Annemieke — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:59:13 +0000

Last week I read a blogpost, Criticism the unwanted mentor, that really got me thinking.

I have that more often of course, but this one did not only make me think, it also made me analyse my own thinking.

The post itself was very interesting but apart from that, it made me want to comment. And I actually did.

Which is not that common. I often feel like commenting but just as often decide not to. There are several reasons for not commenting, but the main reason is that I can not get my opinion into clear wording.

In this case I commented immediately after my reading, and got thinking just later on. Which was more common for me in my off line life, as there I always act or have an opinion before I think.

But when it comes to writing, it takes a lot of time to find the right words. And the result is that I do not post a comment often, just think about it, form an opinion, but do not share it.

Well, anyway this time I did. And after that it got me thinking why that was. I went back to the post to see what I wrote and analysed my reaction.

I think there is a very fine line between criticism, feedback and judging. They all have their place, but I am not so sure criticising and judging another person is of much use as only to get the other defensive.

Personally I think it often says more about the one who is giving it, then the one receiving it.

Feedback is great, but still only if the situation is suitable for that (parents/children, teacher/pupil or if someone asks for it).

If it is about the actions (or lack there of) by others that bother you, the only way to do it (in my very personal opinion) is to say what are the problems you yourself have with that behaviour.

But that does not mean that criticism is not important. I think it really is, but never on a personal level, always purely about ideas. And the only way to criticise those ideas with others, is if you totally respect each other.

Just my view at this moment.

First thing that I noticed was that I did react from another perspective than the post was saying. The overall intention of that post was: ‘seeing the value if you get critisiced’. And my response was in general: ‘never criticise another person’.

The second thing I noticed was that I was splitting hair. I differentiated between criticism, feedback and judgement. So I thought, is it really that different to judge, give feedback or criticise?

But actually I think it is.

I really think the differences are essential. But often one word is used where someone else would mean another. If I read back my reaction, I actually say that no one should criticise another person. But do I really think that?

And indeed I do. But I think each criticism, feedback and judging has its place.

Judging

Now to start with the judging, I think it is just fine to judge. We can judge whatever and whoever we like. Actually it is what we do all the time, judge by our first impression and take all kind of decisions based on that. And many times it hardly is any conscious judgement. It is often just based on our previous understanding of the world.

But that does not mean we can throw that judgement on to the other. I think judgement needs a strong filter before it gets public so to speak. A conscious filter that differentiates our own prejudice. Any prejudice.

Feedback

As to feedback I see it as a very important tool. But even if I think it is different from criticism, I still do not think it has to be given just like that. In a teacher/pupil setting it is very necessary. And there might be many others like in the workplace. Or if someone asks for feedback.

But I think even feedback needs a filter. Not just whatever comes to mind (unless the other asks for that) but filter our own prejudice again.

And besides that, I think it needs a certain setting. A setting with cultural determined rules that provide a certain ‘playground’.

Criticism

What I would call criticism is a very important factor, but I think there is actually no circumstance that anyone should criticise another person.

I think criticism has to do with analysing and improving. And there is no other person who can see what exactly needs to be improved at that specific moment in time.

We all might think we do know, but in many cases we let our own judgement of how things should be, get in the way.

There might be someone like in psycho analysis that goes certain steps along, but in the end it is the person itself who has to do the criticising.

Discussions

But I think criticism is very essential in another way. It is an important factor in discussions. But only if it is used in discussing ideas.

And then it is essential. Because without critical analysing we can only get so far. We never get to the bottom of things.

As I see it, criticism is only possible when people who participate in the discussion know themselves and respect the other. And if they do not respect each other, there is no way of criticising and as a result no way of really discussing.

Concepts

As for using my basic model of Integral and the Zodiac, I would place the concepts as follows:

6. Criticism

7. Feedback

9. Judging

Again, just my view at this moment…