As far as the poem goes, I was experimenting with different,
nonconfrontational modes of communication as an alternative to flame wars.
Please do me a favor and read Ouspensky's comment on Objective Art, which is
quoted in my last message, one more time.
Dennis
At 08:09 AM 9/25/98 -0400, you wrote:
>To All,
>
>Please let me know if this is really a Free Energy list or if it's a useless
>poem, triplicate message, 1mb attachment, anything-else-but list! If so, I
>am outa here.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Ed
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dennis C. Lee <atech@ix.netcom.com>
>To: Alan.CHEAH@adecco.com <Alan.CHEAH@adecco.com> alex@frolov.spb.ru
><alex@frolov.spb.ru> ahannan@MIT.EDU <ahannan@MIT.EDU>
>deadnuts@deadnuts.com <deadnuts@deadnuts.com> lupem@world.std.com
><lupem@world.std.com> peg@wintergreen.com <peg@wintergreen.com>
>bso@acm.org <bso@acm.org> claudeg@world.std.com <claudeg@world.std.com>
>DaleSVP@ipa.net <DaleSVP@ipa.net> dtassen@c-zone.net <dtassen@c-zone.net>
>sweetser@world.std.com <sweetser@world.std.com> clsmith@darwin.bu.edu
><clsmith@darwin.bu.edu> ccantor@sequenom.com <ccantor@sequenom.com>
>76753.3551@compuserve.com <76753.3551@compuserve.com> eben@ergeng.com
><eben@ergeng.com> ehill@world.std.com <ehill@world.std.com>
>leep@world.std.com <leep@world.std.com> ejp@world.std.com
><ejp@world.std.com> wordpros@inforamp.net <wordpros@inforamp.net>
>moy@ziplink.net <moy@ziplink.net> freenrg-l@eskimo.com
><freenrg-l@eskimo.com> gjcheah@guybutler.com <gjcheah@guybutler.com>
>wellenstein@binah.cc.brandeis.edu <wellenstein@binah.cc.brandeis.edu>
>hic@world.std.com <hic@world.std.com> jkokor@alum.mit.edu
><jkokor@alum.mit.edu> Bensinger@bdhepa.hep.brandeis.edu
><Bensinger@bdhepa.hep.brandeis.edu> Jim Hile <jhile@pyramidsystems.com>
>jim@msri.org <jim@msri.org> discjt@servtech.com <discjt@servtech.com> John
>Ranta <jranta@sensable.com> jsearl@tako.demon.co.uk
><jsearl@tako.demon.co.uk> joshprokop@worldnet.att.net
><joshprokop@worldnet.att.net> KeelyNet@DallasTexas.net
><KeelyNet@DallasTexas.net> Leonard Dvorson <ldvorson@mtl.mit.edu>
>atc@wit.edu <atc@wit.edu> ohl@world.std.com <ohl@world.std.com>
>71650.60@compuserve.com <71650.60@compuserve.com> pgm@world.std.com
><pgm@world.std.com> rsmith@itiip.com <rsmith@itiip.com>
>RICHARDH@uucp-1.csn.net <RICHARDH@uucp-1.csn.net> richard.quick@slug.org
><richard.quick@slug.org> raddison@world.std.com <raddison@world.std.com>
>71022.3001@compuserve.com <71022.3001@compuserve.com>
>73577.123@compuserve.com <73577.123@compuserve.com> tesla@pupman.com
><tesla@pupman.com> thiahadge@aol.com <thiahadge@aol.com>
>tcapizzi@world.std.com <tcapizzi@world.std.com> tom.duff@poweroasis.com
><tom.duff@poweroasis.com> TAFAUL@aol.com <TAFAUL@aol.com>
>vortex-L@eskimo.com <vortex-L@eskimo.com>
>Date: Friday, September 25, 1998 4:40 AM
>Subject: Objective Art - When reasoning fails
>
>
>>I suggest that we start the 'Unified Field Art' art movement. The painting
>>was done shortly before the plasma experiment was performed. Both are shown
>>in ufa.jpg. Veredith cut the cone electrode for me out of her own
>initiative
>>and instinct. Incredibly, I measured the cone angle to be the same as what
>>is associated with the Great Pyramid, fifty one degrees as I recall. I
>later
>>tried to scale the electrode size up but this caused the spinning plasma
>>cones to collapse onto the electrodes. The plasma pattern was no longer
>>stable. Does accepting the help of an abstract artist for plasma physics
>>experiments increase the ability to produce tuned phenomenon on the first
>try?
>>
>>Below is a quote from P.D. Ouspensky's book.
>>
>>
>>Dennis
>>
>>
>>
>>26 In Search of the Miraculous
>>
>> "It is known," said G. "But it would be no advantage whatever for people
>to
>>know it. It would even be worse. Some would believe it, others would not
>>believe it, yet others would demand proofs. Afterwards they would begin to
>>break one another's heads. Everything ends this way with people."
>>
>> In Moscow, at the same time, we also bad several interesting talks about
>>art. These were connected with the story which was read on the first
>>evening that I saw G.
>> "At the moment it is not yet clear to you," G. once said, "that people
>>living on the earth can belong to very different levels, although in
>>appearance they look exactly the same. just as there arc very different
>>levels of men, so there are different levels of art. Only you do not
>>realize at present that the difference between these levels is far greater
>>than you might suppose. You take different things on one level, far too
>>near one another, and you think these different levels are accessible to
>you.
>> "I do not call art all that you call art, which is simply mechanical
>>reproduction, imitation of nature or other people, or simply fantasy, or an
>>attempt to be original. Real art is something quite different. Among
>works
>>of art, especially works of ancient art, you meet with many things you
>>cannot explain and which contain a certain something you do not feel in
>>modern works Of art. But as you do not realize what this difference is you
>>very soon forget it and continue to take everything as one kind of art.
>And
>>yet there is an enormous difference between your art and the art of which I
>>speak. In your art everything is subjective-the artist's perception of
>this
>>or that sensation; the forms in which he tries to express his sensations
>and
>>the perception of these forms by other people. In one and the same
>>phenomenon one artist may feel one thing and another artist quite a
>>different thing. One and the same sunset may evoke a feeling of joy in one
>>artist and sadness in another. Two artists may strive to express exactly
>>the same perceptions by entirely different methods, in different forms; or
>>entirely different perceptions in the same forms-according to how they were
>>taught, or contrary to it. And the spectators, listeners, or readers will
>>perceive, not what the artist wished to convey or what he felt, but what
>the
>>forms in which he expresses his sensations will make them feel by
>>association. Everything is subjective and everything is accidental, that
>is
>>to say, based on accidental associations-the impression of the artist and
>>his 'creation"' (he emphasized the word "creation"), "the perceptions of
>the
>>spectators, listeners, or readers.
>> "In real art there is nothing accidental. It is mathematics. Everything
>>in it can be calculated, everything can be known beforehand. The artist
>>knows and understands what he wants to convey and his work cannot produce
>>one impression on one man and another impression on another,
>>
>> In Search of the Miraculous 27
>>
>> presuming, of course, people on one level. It will always, and with
>>mathematical certainty, produce one and the same impression.
>> "At the same time the same work of art will produce different impressions
>>on people of different levels. And people of lower levels will never
>>receive from it what people of higher levels receive. This is real,
>>objective art. Imagine some scientific work-a book on astronomy or
>>chemistry. It is impossible that one person should understand it in one
>way
>>and another in another way. Everyone who is sufficiently prepared and who
>>is able to read this book will understand what the author means, and
>>precisely as the author means it. An objective work of art is just such a
>>book, except that it affects the emotional and not only the intellectual
>>side of man:'
>> "Do such works of objective art exist at the present day?" I asked.
>> "Of course they exist," answered G. "The great Sphinx in Egypt is such a
>>work of art, as well as some historically known works of architecture,
>>certain statues of gods, and many other things. There are figures of gods
>>and of various mythological beings that can be read like books, only not
>>with the mind but with the emotions, provided they are sufficiently
>>developed. In the course of our travels in Central Asia we found, in the
>>desert at the foot of the Hindu Kush, a strange figure which we thought at
>>first was some ancient god or devil. At first it produced upon us simply
>>the impression of being a curiosity. But after a while we began to feet
>>that this figure contained many things, a big, complete, and complex system
>>of cosmology. And slowly, step by step, we began to decipher this system.
>>It was in the body of the figure, in its legs, in its arms, in its head, in
>>its eyes, in its ears; everywhere. In the whole statue there was nothing
>>accidental, nothing without meaning. And gradually we understood the aim
>of
>>the people who built this statue. We began to feel their thoughts, their
>>feelings. Some of us thought that we saw their faces, heard their voices.
>>At all events, we grasped the meaning of what they wanted to convey to us
>>across thousands of years, and not oily the meaning, but all the feelings
>>and the emotions connected with it as well. That indeed was art"
>>
>> I was very interested in what G. said about art. His principle of the
>>division of art into subjective and objective told me a great deal. I
>still
>>did not understand everything he put into these words. I had always felt
>in
>>art certain divisions and gradations which I could neither define nor
>>formulate, and which nobody else had formulated. Nevertheless I knew that
>>these divisions and gradations existed. So that all discussions about art
>>without the recognition of these divisions and gradations seemed to me
>empty
>>and useless, simply arguments about words. In what G. had said, in his
>>indications of the different levels which we fail to see and understand, I
>>felt an approach to the very gradations that I had felt but could not
>define.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html