I'm confused here. What IYO is the difference between art and expression? For me ART has the capacity to provoke a higher emotional experience that is not usual for us. Expression just creates random emotions normal for our lives. Do you distinguish art and expression differently.
Yes, but I don't think with the same operational definitions that you have. I think expression is any act that externalizes a human thought or feeling through symbolism. This could be language or whatever else. I think art is a conscious form of expression- it is art with a self-conscious purpose. That purpose could be beneficial or not and could invoke a range of emotions or thoughts on the part of the observer. I follow the standard dictionary definitions, more or less. Art, however, is a toughie to define really well because although there are standard definitions for it, any artist or person who has studied art realizes that art is something defined in part by the artist and in part by the audience.
Since I believe that God IS outside of creation which is the domain of existence, I must respectfully disagree. As I understand it , we can experience divine love as grace and God's will as expressed in creation as well as existing conscious help from above within creation. I appreciate the sincerity of your intent but still have experienced that I am the "Wretched Man" so I see how quickly intent turns into its opposite. This is why I believe it is more practical to admit my nothingness before being too idealistic.
We just conceptualize God differently. I'm a panentheist, so I experience God as being both beyond creation but also in and through it. Again, I really think it's an issue of semantics in the topic at hand. Whether the grace comes from within or from without, it's the grace of God. Believing that this grace is already alive in all beings, a little spark of light waiting to be fanned to flame, doesn't make it less Divine in origin. It's just the location changes. You say grace comes from above, I say it comes from within... but grace is grace.
When I read how Tolstoy was torn up over the recognition of his own hypocrisy it just made me conclude that it is our way though not many are willing to admit it.
I figure people can get beyond the hypocrisy, but it takes work and open-mindedness and self-discipline.
Our physical bodies are animal. There is nothing wrong with this. Unlike any other animal the belief is that we have the capacity to be more than the reactive animal we normally are. As I understand it, the human condition is as it is because our emotional selves that become the source of our personalities is corrupted with all sorts of unnatural acquired negative emotions.
That's interesting. I don't think our emotional selves are the source of our personality, but rather that our personality is based in an interaction of our genetics (the way our brain naturally works) and our environment. Things we think of as personality, such as our inherent talents, types of intelligence, learning styles, and basic preferences can be summed up fairly well by combining the likes of the OCEAN model of personality, Gardner's work on intelligence, etc.
Our emotional responses are informed in part by our basic personality tendencies. For example, and introverted person might experience discomfort when at a party. A person who inherently does not deal well with change might experience anxiety when he travels. And so forth. On top of this, our environment, particularly our culture, conditions us to produce certain emotions in response to certain social scenarios.
The handy thing is that we can analyze all of it and then move beyond most of it. We are remarkably plastic in how we respond to things.
Where the emotions should provide the balance between our ideas and bodily desires, it cannot provide this function because of this corruption. Our spiritual selves or the seed of the soul is covered over by all this emotional corruption.
Again, that's an interesting idea. I think the emotions are tied to our hormones and our physiological responses to stimuli. Our ideas seem to come afterward unless we train ourselves to do otherwise in order to evoke certain emotions. I never found that my emotions were corrupted, but rather I approach them in a matter of fact way. Self-reflection allows me to see where my feelings come from and whether or not they are useful or beneficial, and then I can decide what to do with them. This starts with a basic practice of recognizing emotions as we have them.
One day we approach a greater humanistic potential and the next day we are in a rage while in a traffic jam. This conflict is why everything remains as it is.
With diligent practice, I find that the number of days I'm in a rage lessens. Things are not stagnant unless we choose it to be so. Spiritual development is, to me, like developing any other capacity in many ways.
If I take up learning piano and expect to be Mozart in one day just because I bought a piano and a music book, I'll rapidly become frustrated. Rather, I have to recognize that I am embarking on a lifelong journey that requires diligence and persistence. It requires that sometimes when I don't want to, or it doesn't feel that great, I still need to put practice time in. Even when God is silent, it is not an excuse for me to be lazy. That's something that was affirmed for me in reading about Mother Theresa's work through the long silence of God in her life. The purpose isn't to make me feel good, though a by-product is joy. The purpose is transformation, and it requires my commitment. Part of this commitment is to maintain hope even when there are setbacks.
Of course secularism doesn't want to recognize it but our emotional selves need the inner cleansing that grace can provide which in turn makes our ideals possible.
Without it, everything continues as it is.
I think it's all by the grace of God. But people don't have to recognize it as such to transform. I've seen atheists that were very compassionate, loving people. If we are diligent and open-hearted to it, I believe God works in us whether we believe in it or not. The fundamental choice in service to other beings prompts transformation in ourselves and our world. I do believe this comes from God, but it isn't the belief that delivers me from what I would otherwise be... it is the choice to dedicate my life to love. Belief is not enough.
You'll probably appreciate this old poem by Yeats since it speaks of what you wrote.
[minstrels] Sailing to Byzantium -- William Butler Yeats
This following excerpt is a real kick in the inner butt.
Lovely- nice illustration.
In the pure sense I believe this is why Jesus had twelve apostles. They represented the essential human astrological types. In Jesus presence they could retain enough presence to experience the totality of human reaction in themselves from being open to the individuality of another rather than argue and block as we do.
That's an interesting idea...
But regardless of the path, I believe at some point we must experience this inner Armageddon between our inner attraction to conscious spiritual liberation and our habitual attachment to the "world" if inner liberation is the goal.
I'm the first to admit it isn't easy but do appreciate your obvious sincerity and dedication.
No, it isn't easy. I screw it up all the time. But the longer I work on it, the more frequent the times I'm not screwing it up are, and the longer they last. Give me a few more gazillion lifetimes and maybe I will get it right.
In all seriousness, it's a difficult task and no religion says it is easy. But most things worth doing aren't.
