How many ways are there of expressing or denying truth?

I like the definition of art, given by Richard Anderson;

Art is culturally significant meaning, skilfully encoded in an affecting, sensuous medium. 

 

I would want to add that

 

art = 

the products of the imaginative power

to re-present subjectively not only the world around us,

but also inevitably the life of our inner world of consciousness. 

 

I would also say that the definition should include 'and personally' so that it reads;

 

Art is culturally, and personally, significant meaning, skilfully encoded in an affecting, sensuous medium. 

 

If it doesn't connect for you - it ain't art for you.  (Sometimes we have to make an effort.)

 

Art then always says something important about the human condition and, what it says, it says re-presentationally, that is via the subjective experience and viewpoint of the artist – using whatever is the chosen medium. It says;

 

 ‘this is how I experienced, or feel about, or see, or 'read' this phenomenon’.

Art then is truth expression in the 'I' voice - as opposed to scientific truth which is in the 'IT' voice (Sciences), and the moral truth of the 'WE' voice (Humanities).  

Getting these mixed up is the cause of almost all of the world's troubles.   Why?  

Because they are three separate ways of truth-telling.  All are valid.

But they are limited because we need all three. If you try to work one in ways that rightfully belong to one of the other ways of truth-telling you get a monster - such as fundamentalism.

Of course fundamentalism is characterised by a range of factors including failure to recognise that metaphor trumps literalism, absolutist thinking, failure to recognize most holy scripture can only give approximate renditions of what was said, inability to proceed with live and let live, low tolerance to doubt and uncertainty....................

Art and religion are the same in that they are accounts of an inner journey or an encounter - all such accounts are failures, some are glorious failures.  

Why failures?  Well because they are inevitably metaphorical accounts of experiences that are literally ineffable.  Poets as well as people of religion try to express the experience, but the breaking point is the uniqueness of the subject, and subjectivity, that has had the experience.

Religion goes bad when spiritual-mystical accounts become tidied-up as ideologies - followed by a zealous few who decide that it is good to impose the ideology on others.  

Most religions are dead husks of dogma from which the living inspiration has gone.

Fundamentalism is the constantly ramped-up desperation to impose deadened dogma on others.

When we try to deal with art or the spiritual-mystical scientifically we get scientism, or crude bean-counting.

Religion inevitably is supposed to be entirely subjective - the ineffable can't be otherwise.

But the subjective, or heart-knowing, is a form of truth-telling, one that comes via consciousness and common compassionate humanity.

From this rising consciousness, and common compassionate humanity, we come to distinguish between the great seers and poets and mystics and the charlatans. 

The great mystics and the great artists are there to reveal and inspire - via the compassionate bond of being human, in the world with others.

Right action of course must flow from the inspired being and revelation - 'Ye shall know them by their fruit.'

I don't care if you believe in fairies and space-ships - so long as you are just and bring to the world some goodness, truth and               beauty - preferably with a good dose of humour.

Without right action even if we are a bishop or mulla or guru we are hypocrites.

 

 

-0-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted via web from sunwalking's posterous