From a sugar packet...

[anthony]

I think it was on a sugar packet,but I've treasured - and utilised - this little gem for years. It's from the English landscape artist,John CONSTABLE.(18th > 19th cent.)

"We see nothing,until we truly understand it."

It sounds almost ingenuous at first,until one thinks about it. It also has an un-O'ist reversal of the process of consciousness and existence, until one realises that in the context of art - creation and appreciation - this is exactly what happens.Whether one is painting (or photographing)a leaf on a tree,a complex machine,or the human form,'knowing how it works', and its internal components, is crucial.

btw,this stands in contrast to John Keats'poem 'Unweaving the Rainbow',in which he was snippy with Isaac Newton for taking the mystery out of Nature and beauty with his meddling science.[ Richard Dawkins wrote a strong defense for this in his book of the same title.]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tony,

That works for coded knowledge like language and art after concepts have developed.

It doesn't work for visceral things like the affects (see The Wonderful Way Shmurak Faces Emotion), nor for concept formation.

It's an interesting thought...

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

It sounds almost ingenuous at first,until one thinks about it. It also has an un-O'ist reversal of the process of consciousness and existence, until one realises that in the context of art - creation and appreciation - this is exactly what happens.Whether one is painting (or photographing)a leaf on a tree,a complex machine,or the human form,'knowing how it works', and its internal components, is crucial.

When we first see things we only partially grasp what they are. After some reflection and a little cooking we get an insight so that when we look again we see the things we missed the first time.

Many people saw fruit falling from trees, way before Newton. Humans saw the Moon tens of thousands of years before Newton. Newton was the first to grasp that falling fruit and the moon were doing the same thing.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

Ba'al, "When we first see things we only partially grasp....[then]we see the things we missed the first time."

Oh yes. It's a process that's always brought the image to me of 'batting' something back and forth: observe,then absorb,digest,define - observe,absorb,etc,etc,. It's a habit which I've got into in photography - to look at a subject - and then go away for a while - and return with some fresh insight,and look again.Repeatedly,if possible. It works fine at a pre-conceptual level,when often one's aim is to present the viewer with a brand new vision of the object,untouched by any pre-conceived notions.

Through the eyes of a child,perhaps?

The material that Michael supplied by Shmurak and Tomkins,seems a valuable find. It answers, and fills in,those gaps that many of us,I'm positive,had to try to fill for ourselves in our early Objectivist days. (What came first,the seed or the tree..?)!!

Shmurak's argument for 'affects'(basic emotions)in an infant is convincing.

Michael's case, contra Ayn Rand's claim that one should be able to program ALL of one's emotions,inclusively, rings a bell with me. Thank you for that.

T.