Aesthetic insights from spiritual practice?

[seeker36]

Hello everyone,
I currently define myself as a Non theist Quaker and I regularly attend Quaker meetings which are essentially an hour of silent meditation/contemplation/prayer. During Sunday's meeting I had an interesting experience which relates to the subject of Aesthetics. I started off feeling rather withdrawn and alienated from the group and I noticed that this was a result of my thoughts about the people around me. I looked an old woman from the group. "Stupid ugly useless old woman" I thought. She seemed to project an image of unkempt mis-shapenness. The thought felt false,a judgement of my own mind that I was adding to my perception of the woman. So i asked myself if my perception was accurate. "What do I feel is true about this? What happend next felt very profound. I saw the old lady through the eyes of a artist. I was awestruck by her simple beauty, she was a wonder, an embodyment of divinity.

I find this very thought provoking. How much do our prejudices, judgements and evalutions of what is "beautiful" and "ugly" affect our sense of the Aesthetic?

[chaz wyman]

Hello everyone,
I currently define myself as a Non theist Quaker and I regularly attend Quaker meetings which are essentially an hour of silent meditation/contemplation/prayer. During Sunday's meeting I had an interesting experience which relates to the subject of Aesthetics. I started off feeling rather withdrawn and alienated from the group and I noticed that this was a result of my thoughts about the people around me. I looked an old woman from the group. "Stupid ugly useless old woman" I thought. She seemed to project an image of unkempt mis-shapenness. The thought felt false,a judgement of my own mind that I was adding to my perception of the woman. So i asked myself if my perception was accurate. "What do I feel is true about this? What happend next felt very profound. I saw the old lady through the eyes of a artist. I was awestruck by her simple beauty, she was a wonder, an embodyment of divinity.

I find this very thought provoking. How much do our prejudices, judgements and evalutions of what is "beautiful" and "ugly" affect our sense of the Aesthetic?

It's a bit like asking to what degree is our nose responsible for the what we smell.

I doubt that there are innate definitions for beauty and ugly, that cannot be unlearned.
It is likely that we come equipped with some innate revulsion to deformity, pollution and otherness, but I would not want to push that very far. I still think we have to learn what are bad smells for example.
Ugly and beautiful are culturally defined terms.

I'm a bit surprised you could look at another human and initially react as you did;""Stupid ugly useless old woman".

I find it odd that an atheist would attend a Quaker meeting. I know they are very liberal in their views in the UK. Are you there or "over there"

[seeker36]

Hi again Chaz,

It's a bit like asking to what degree is our nose responsible for what we smell.

Really? You honestly don't see the distinction between thought and direct perception? Come to think of it thats interesting. I suppose it follows that thought contamination of perception is a spectrum or qradiant.

I doubt that there are innate definitions for beauty and ugly, that cannot be unlearned.
It is likely that we come equipped with some innate revulsion to deformity, pollution and otherness, but I would not want to push that very far. I still think we have to learn what are bad smells for example.
Ugly and beautiful are culturally defined terms.

Hmm, I have the feeling that this discussion of aesthetics could go the same way as our discussion of morality If ugly and beautiful are culturally defined terms why do these concepts exist at all? Ideas do not come from nowhere, they come from humans.

I'm a bit surprised you could look at another human and initially react as you did;""Stupid ugly useless old woman".

Nobody's perfect.

I find it odd that an atheist would attend a Quaker meeting. I know they are very liberal in their views in the UK. Are you there or "over there"

I'm over there. Non theist's even have a website and a book "Godless for god's sake". I'm imagine US Quakers may be less liberal?

[chaz wyman]

Hi again Chaz,

It's a bit like asking to what degree is our nose responsible for what we smell.

Really? You honestly don't see the distinction between thought and direct perception? Come to think of it thats interesting. I suppose it follows that thought contamination of perception is a spectrum or qradiant.

I meant specifically;"How much do our prejudices, judgements and evalutions of what is "beautiful" and "ugly" affect our sense of the Aesthetic?". Aesthetics is a human concept - what else could it be?

I doubt that there are innate definitions for beauty and ugly, that cannot be unlearned.
It is likely that we come equipped with some innate revulsion to deformity, pollution and otherness, but I would not want to push that very far. I still think we have to learn what are bad smells for example.
Ugly and beautiful are culturally defined terms.

Hmm, I have the feeling that this discussion of aesthetics could go the same way as our discussion of morality

You are making the same argument for morality that I am for aesthetics. I seem not problem and no contradiction.


If ugly and beautiful are culturally defined terms why do these concepts exist at all?

I never ask 'why'. There is only 'how' they emerged. They have been reproduced as they have not impeded human growth. If they had they would not be so common. There may be natural utility in recognising bad smells for example.

Ideas do not come from nowhere, they come from humans.
And humans have emerged from nature.

I'm a bit surprised you could look at another human and initially react as you did;""Stupid ugly useless old woman".

Nobody's perfect.

I thought you might have been exaggerating?

I find it odd that an atheist would attend a Quaker meeting. I know they are very liberal in their views in the UK. Are you there or "over there"

I'm over there. Non theist's even have a website and a book "Godless for god's sake". I'm imagine US Quakers may be less liberal?

Well the radical Ranting and extremists of the Protestant World left Britain because it was much too free.
Yes, read that again. They hated the freedom and ideology of latitudinarianism and left for the USA where they could be more strict in controlling their flocks. So the US version of Quakers and related sects such as Fakers, Shakers, German Amish etc. are so traditional they have not evolved out of their 17thC form, whereas in the UK they changed mutated into socialists and unitarians, many adopting free thinking and rejecting the idea of a personal god.
They were responsible for many charities and pushed for social reform especially during the Victorian period.

I'll get back to you on the moral question tomorrow.

Cheers!

[..nameless..]

So i asked myself if my perception was accurate. "What do I feel is true about this? What happend next felt very profound. I saw the old lady through the eyes of a artist. I was awestruck by her simple beauty, she was a wonder, an embodyment of divinity.

I figure that the more that you learn/understand/walk a mile for a camel, about someone, the less you can hate them!
Who is unworthy of Love?
Seen through the eye of Love, ALL is Beautiful!
Hence the equation of Beauty and Love!

All love is 'Self!' love!
All judgment is 'Self!' judgment!
All hate is 'Self!' hate!
All knowledge is 'Self Knowledge'!!!

"The eye by which I see God is the same as the eye by which God sees me. My eye and God's eye are one and the same." - Meister Eckhart
ONE AND THE SAME!

The new, critically updated all inclusive definition of 'Knowledge' is; "that which is perceived"!
All knowledge is 'Self!' knowledge, every moment/percept of existence, all inclusive!

"Perhaps it is the curvature of space that, like a fun-house mirror distorting our own reflection, we imagine strangers." - Mythopoeicon

As the mystical experience opens the floodgates of Love/Faith... so, too, perceiving the Beauty of all that Is (Loved)!!
Who/what is unworthy of Love (especially when you give them a chance!)?

The entire Universe, all features, are 'divine manifestation'!

tat tvam asi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi)

[chaz wyman]

So i asked myself if my perception was accurate. "What do I feel is true about this? What happend next felt very profound. I saw the old lady through the eyes of a artist. I was awestruck by her simple beauty, she was a wonder, an embodyment of divinity.

I figure that the more that you learn/understand/walk a mile for a camel, about someone, the less you can hate them!
Who is unworthy of Love?
Seen through the eye of Love, ALL is Beautiful!
Hence the equation of Beauty and Love!

All love is 'Self!' love!
All judgment is 'Self!' judgment!
All hate is 'Self!' hate!
All knowledge is 'Self Knowledge'!!!

"All theories that claim to explain everything, explain nothing.", Karl Popper

"The eye by which I see God is the same as the eye by which God sees me. My eye and God's eye are one and the same." - Meister Eckhart
ONE AND THE SAME!

The new, critically updated all inclusive definition of 'Knowledge' is; "that which is perceived"!
All knowledge is 'Self!' knowledge, every moment/percept of existence, all inclusive!

"Perhaps it is the curvature of space that, like a fun-house mirror distorting our own reflection, we imagine strangers." - Mythopoeicon

As the mystical experience opens the floodgates of Love/Faith... so, too, perceiving the Beauty of all that Is (Loved)!!
Who/what is unworthy of Love (especially when you give them a chance!)?

The entire Universe, all features, are 'divine manifestation'!

tat tvam asi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi)

[chaz wyman]

So i asked myself if my perception was accurate. "What do I feel is true about this? What happend next felt very profound. I saw the old lady through the eyes of a artist. I was awestruck by her simple beauty, she was a wonder, an embodyment of divinity.

I figure that the more that you learn/understand/walk a mile for a camel, about someone, the less you can hate them!
Who is unworthy of Love?
Seen through the eye of Love, ALL is Beautiful!
Hence the equation of Beauty and Love!

All love is 'Self!' love!
All judgment is 'Self!' judgment!
All hate is 'Self!' hate!
All knowledge is 'Self Knowledge'!!!

"All theories that claim to explain everything, explain nothing.", Karl Popper

"The eye by which I see God is the same as the eye by which God sees me. My eye and God's eye are one and the same." - Meister Eckhart
ONE AND THE SAME!

The new, critically updated all inclusive definition of 'Knowledge' is; "that which is perceived"!
All knowledge is 'Self!' knowledge, every moment/percept of existence, all inclusive!

"Perhaps it is the curvature of space that, like a fun-house mirror distorting our own reflection, we imagine strangers." - Mythopoeicon

As the mystical experience opens the floodgates of Love/Faith... so, too, perceiving the Beauty of all that Is (Loved)!!
Who/what is unworthy of Love (especially when you give them a chance!)?

The entire Universe, all features, are 'divine manifestation'!

tat tvam asi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi)

[..nameless..]

"All theories that claim to explain everything, explain nothing.", Karl Popper

Popper is irrelevant, obsolete!
That's all you got? Pretty pathetic!
That's why you are on my ignore list.
bye bye

[chaz wyman]

"All theories that claim to explain everything, explain nothing.", Karl Popper

Popper is irrelevant, obsolete!
That's all you got? Pretty pathetic!
That's why you are on my ignore list.
bye bye

If I am on your ignore list then I suggest you keep it that way.

[Notvacka]

Isn't telling somebody that you ignore them a contradiction in itself?

Also, I think that "ignore" lists are for people who lack the character and moral strength to actually ignore.

[chaz wyman]

Isn't telling somebody that you ignore them a contradiction in itself?

Also, I think that "ignore" lists are for people who lack the character and moral strength to actually ignore.

Exactly.

[seeker36]

Hi Chaz,

I meant specifically;"How much do our prejudices, judgements and evalutions of what is "beautiful" and "ugly" affect our sense of the Aesthetic?". Aesthetics is a human concept - what else could it be?

Yes you're right good point.

You are making the same argument for morality that I am for aesthetics. I seem not problem and no contradiction.

Yes more or less. With the additional points that anything does not go and there are genuine moral standards. But that's another topic

I never ask 'why'. There is only 'how' they emerged. They have been reproduced as they have not impeded human growth. If they had they would not be so common. There may be natural utility in recognising bad smells for example.

This is interesting, thanks. Truth is i've never really given aesthetics much thought until the above experience. Some speculations: Perhaps ugly and beautiful emerged during the paleolithic through, as you say things like being told "don't eat poo" and "rotting things make you ill". Perhaps also things that remind us of old age and dying(Like old ladies) cause people to over generalise artificial standards of aesthetics and the casting aside of the prejudices(old women are intrinsically ugly) enables people to see people and objects with less bias?

I thought you might have been exaggerating?

Sadly no. But this relates to an aspect of my ethical ideas. I try to non judgementally look at my thoughts and allow them to express themselves without my censorship. Sort of like Freud's free association. Once the thought has expressed(privately) I can decide if it's rational, stupid, cruel or whatever. It can sometimes be surprising and horrifying, the unpleasentness that can come up.

Well the radical Ranting and extremists of the Protestant World left Britain because it was much too free.
Yes, read that again. They hated the freedom and ideology of latitudinarianism and left for the USA where they could be more strict in controlling their flocks. So the US version of Quakers and related sects such as Fakers, Shakers, German Amish etc. are so traditional they have not evolved out of their 17thC form, whereas in the UK they changed mutated into socialists and unitarians, many adopting free thinking and rejecting the idea of a personal god.
They were responsible for many charities and pushed for social reform especially during the Victorian period.

I had heard this recently. It's rather amusing and ironic to me,given that the Quakers I have met from up and down the uk, generally seem to be a very liberal minded lot, sometimes to the point of wooly minded absurdity

[seeker36]

Hi nameless,
Regarding your post, i have to agree with you. Karl Popper not withstanding.
I don't think what you said was a theory of everything.

Chris.

[chaz wyman]

Hi Chaz,

I meant specifically;"How much do our prejudices, judgements and evalutions of what is "beautiful" and "ugly" affect our sense of the Aesthetic?". Aesthetics is a human concept - what else could it be?

Yes you're right good point.

You are making the same argument for morality that I am for aesthetics. I seem not problem and no contradiction.

Yes more or less. With the additional points that anything does not go and there are genuine moral standards. But that's another topic
Er.... is it? Where do these genuine standards come from?

I never ask 'why'. There is only 'how' they emerged. They have been reproduced as they have not impeded human growth. If they had they would not be so common. There may be natural utility in recognising bad smells for example.

This is interesting, thanks. Truth is i've never really given aesthetics much thought until the above experience. Some speculations: Perhaps ugly and beautiful emerged during the paleolithic through, as you say things like being told "don't eat poo" and "rotting things make you ill". Perhaps also things that remind us of old age and dying(Like old ladies) cause people to over generalise artificial standards of aesthetics and the casting aside of the prejudices(old women are intrinsically ugly) enables people to see people and objects with less bias?

Indeed. We can overcome our inherent revulsion being rational beings. As for their origin - well the Palaeolithic is a bit recent for the innate or inherent revulsions; they are likely to all the way back. But I agree conceptualising them is certainly a quality that emerges with language.
I think it is almost impossible to separate our instinctive sense of beauty and ugliness from the culturally learned. It is often though that revulsion to spiders is natural in the west. However, in the eat where spiders are a nice crunchy snack, is it that they have overcome the natural fear or is it that we have added it culturally.
The human baby more than any other species is a sponge of potentialities; that soak up learning. The body has the cerebral mechanism to walk, talk, understand falling, recognise faces like many other animals but if they are not reinforced whilst young these skills can be lost forever - that it the price we pay for being such an advanced species in the learning dept. But because of this aesthetics and morality though based on innate potential is all culturally defined and modified.

I thought you might have been exaggerating?

Sadly no. But this relates to an aspect of my ethical ideas. I try to non judgementally look at my thoughts and allow them to express themselves without my censorship. Sort of like Freud's free association. Once the thought has expressed(privately) I can decide if it's rational, stupid, cruel or whatever. It can sometimes be surprising and horrifying, the unpleasentness that can come up.

Well that's one way to do it. At least you look at how you feel - not everyone does. Racism and traditional values is more prevalent in the less endowed with intelligence.

Well the radical Ranting and extremists of the Protestant World left Britain because it was much too free.
Yes, read that again. They hated the freedom and ideology of latitudinarianism and left for the USA where they could be more strict in controlling their flocks. So the US version of Quakers and related sects such as Fakers, Shakers, German Amish etc. are so traditional they have not evolved out of their 17thC form, whereas in the UK they changed mutated into socialists and unitarians, many adopting free thinking and rejecting the idea of a personal god.
They were responsible for many charities and pushed for social reform especially during the Victorian period.

I had heard this recently. It's rather amusing and ironic to me,given that the Quakers I have met from up and down the uk, generally seem to be a very liberal minded lot, sometimes to the point of wooly minded absurdity

Yes I wonder how they can honestly call themselves Christians!!
But generally good folk, and I usually just instinctively hate Theists.

[chaz wyman]

Hi nameless,
Regarding your post, i have to agree with you. Karl Popper not withstanding.
I don't think what you said was a theory of everything.

Chris.

Are you sure?

All love is 'Self!' love!
All judgment is 'Self!' judgment!
All hate is 'Self!' hate!
All knowledge is 'Self Knowledge'!!!

This does not leave much room to draw any distinctions does it?