Self Remembering

[NormaRegula]

While reading this interesting thread I remembered having read a chapter in Secret Teachings Of All Ages,
in which Manly P. Hall makes a convincing case that the works of Shakespeare were probably written by Francis Bacon.

Yes, there are scholars who think the actor Shakespeare may have been a front man for Sir Roger Bacon. Lots of research and controversy regarding this theory...along with some reasonable scenarios that point to another writer who was more worldly and had traveled extensively. Through surviving personal correspondence and accounts from Shakespeare's contemporaries, a handful of historians (fwiw) have depicted the Bard as being vain, provincial, and an excellent mimic. Perhaps Shakespeare did posess an active imagination along with keen powers of observation. I'm not sure about his being deeply into esoteric matters, nor was he well traveled and privy to the intricacies of court intrigue and politics until he was more established as a writer later in life.

It is intriguing that Sir Roger Bacon was into esotericism, alchemy, was well traveled, and known by his peers to have exceptional insights into human nature. Being a playwright was not considered a gentlemanly pursuit at that time.

Here's a brief, interesting piece written by Ellis Parker Butler at the turn of the 20th Century on this matter: _http://www.ellisparkerbutler.info/epb/biblio.asp?id=2358

EDIT: Oops, forgot to mention, an English professor once told me that the article above was a hoax perpetrated by Butler who was upset by the rejection of his theory by several publishers. It was actually meant to be humorous. However, I've come across mentions of this discovery in other "scholarly" works. The truth of the Bacon/Shakespeare controversy is a difficult matter to solve.

 

[webglider]

Anart wrote:


"DonJ wrote:
To write at that level requires a level of observation and grappling with the issues that might make it close in some sense to forging a unified 'I' and might help us to do so, I think.

Anyway, I found the digression interesting.

What if to write 'at this level' merely requires the artist to be only peripherally involved - a vessel of some sort

If this is the case, does the "vessel" are there qualifications for a "vessel" that is involved for a particular person to be used in this way?


- or what if it merely flows from the power of a child's unbridled imagination coupled with an adult's mastery of language - then does this indicate a 'unified 'I''? "


If this is the case, than the work would NOT be conscious. According to the Cassiopaeia Glossary, "imagination" is by definition "unconscious".

In 4th Way discourse, the word imagination is seen somewhat differently. Imagination is one of the principal features of man which keep him asleep. Specially negative imagination and identification with it is a detrimental mechanical habit. Negative imagination consists of reviewing by means of automatic habitual association all manner of possible or impossible calamities which might befall one. Knowing about the world's dangers is even necessary but habitually dwelling on them in lurid reveries of horrors is counter-productive. The key distinction here is between mental activity which leads to action and mental activity which alone seeks to generate more similar mental activity.

Many works of art, though pleasing, would fall into this category. Does Shakespeare's?

Anert wrote:

"...coupled with an adult's mastery of language" What is an adult's mastery of language?
Might it have been different in Elizabethan England to what it is in the English speaking countries today?

Shakespeare may have had only a grammar school education which meant that he would have left school after about 8th grade. During that time, he would have studied very few subjects - one of the most important of which was Latin. From Latin he would have studied a curriculum that would have included the topics found on the following website:

http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/silva.htm

This was part of the basic education of that time. So an "adult's mastery of language" in modern times is not equivalent to the education of the 16th Century. This means that most educated people of the 16th had achieved a remarkably high level of language proficiency. The choice of a vessel to serve as a channel, if the requirement were "an adult's mastery of language", may have had other requirements aside from language facility.

Anart wrote:

"I just find it fascinating that because certain works of art might touch someone in certain ways that they then tend to attribute all sorts of projected values and characteristics onto the artist that might, in reality, have never been there and could never be there. I'm certainly not saying that it is impossible, I'm just saying that a true 'unified I' is so rare in this world, that it is often very, very easy to imagine that anyone who evidences sparks of creativity or deep thought to be 'advanced' - when, in reality, that certainly does not have to be the case."

I agree with Anart that the great majority of people don't have a true unified 'I". I can't support this other by any criteria than those of observing the condition of the world today. But it is my very strong belief that Shakespeare's works, (who ever that may be) were conscious "B influences" inserted into life to wake people up.

Here is what the Cassiopaeia glossary presents as its definition of "B" influences:

B influences are vectors that are thrown into the field of A influences but these have a conscious source and a consistent direction. B influences do not cancel each other out and systematically recognizing and following these may lead man to the beginning of esoteric work.


B influences differ from A influences because they are CONSCIOUS in their origin and have been created consciously OUTSIDE life by conscious people for a definite purpose. These influences are the "soul" of any culture and they are embodied in the form of religious systems and teachings, philosophical doctrines, art, etc. They are inserted into life for a definite purpose but although these influences are conscious in their origin they begin to act mechanically when they mix within the general vortex of life. Eventually 'B' influences will be transformed into 'A' influences after they merge together within this general vortex.


In some people there is a discriminatory power within them that allows them to discriminate between these two kinds of influences and they discern from this that there are certain influences that come from a source that is outside the mainstream of life. This person remembers them and FEELS them together and they begin to form a certain whole, a certain kind of magnetic "presence" within that person. This person may not be sure exactly what this feeling is and they cannot really give themselves a clear account of what these feelings necessarily mean but the end result is that they collect within this person and they form a MAGNETIC CENTER, and if the conditions are right, this magnetic center leads them to search for someone who knows the way and is connected to the source of these 'B' influences, that is, they seek a person or teacher who is connected to an esoteric center that stands outside the general laws of life.

 

[kenlee]

How could he not have had a unified "I' to be able to really SEE all the little "i"s of all the characters he creates and demonstrate the effect that each of the "i"s has on the social and political network of their situations?

I have not studied Shakespeare but I gather from what little I have read is that he was a subjective man and as asleep as anyone else and is what Gurdjieff called "a man in quotation marks." Did he know what he knew with the entirety of all his being or did he know what he knew with only a part of himself? Are his plays designed for different subjective interpretations so as to only suit the ‘wiseacring’ personalities of his fans and spectators? Was there a real message(s) encoded within his works that had any real objective significance speaking to the present condition of man’s lopsided psychological development in relation to his objective higher possibilities? These are just some questions that come to my mind. Shakespeare wrote tragedies but then what? Did he show a way out of this subjective quagmire with anything objectively significant in his works?

'The unsuspecting child first wipes the tablet
And then writes letters on it
God turns the heart into blood and desperate tears
Then writes the spiritual mysteries on it'

(Sufi poetry) from the Mathnawi

 

[Nathan]

Shakespeare did posess an active imagination along with keen powers of observation.

I think NormaRegula hit the nail on the head here. Actors and fiction writers can create convincing and engaging characters because they really focus observing others. It is likely that Shakespeare closely analysed the personalities of those around him (be it friends or complete strangers). As for whether he knew of little I's, I guess a close reading of all his work could reveal this, but I haven't read anything of his so far that suggests he has a clue one way or the other. And plus, you can easily observe little I's in others and still absolutely suck at observing your own.

 

[Mr. Premise]

I would say that the person, Shakespeare, will never be known. There is so little known about him or able to be known about him as a person, that it would be impossible for anyone to answer questions about him as a person. I would even say that it is beside the point.

The important thing is not the person but the works. The works of great subjective artists can be useful, I think, even for those who are looking for objectivity. For one thing, they can illuminate the limits of subjectivity better than anything else, for example. It is up to you who may have some idea of what you call objective higher possibilities to make the connection between the "present condition of man’s lopsided psychological development" and those higher objective possibilities. It's not the artist's job to do all the work ;)

I think there is room in the world for great subjective art even if it doesn't point out the way out.

But if you are not drawn to studying those kinds of things, than there would be little point, I guess. But there are depths there much greater than just suiting "wisearcring personalities of fans and spectators." Or the body of work wouldn't have lasted so long.

I have not studied Shakespeare but I gather from what little I have read is that he was a subjective man and as asleep as anyone else and is what Gurdjieff called "a man in quotation marks." Did he know what he knew with the entirety of all his being or did he know what he knew with only a part of himself? Are his plays designed for different subjective interpretations so as to only suit the ‘wiseacring’ personalities of his fans and spectators? Was there a real message(s) encoded within his works that had any real objective significance speaking to the present condition of man’s lopsided psychological development in relation to his objective higher possibilities? These are just some questions that come to my mind. Shakespeare wrote tragedies but then what? Did he show a way out of this subjective quagmire with anything objectively significant in his works?

 

[anart]

Hi, I must admit that your posts in this thread have me a little confused...

What I said was that, for the reader, it really doesn't make a difference whether Shakespeare had a unified 'I' or not. If I had to guess I would say he didn't but he did have a good knowledge, probably because of acting training, of the fact that there are lots of 'I's bouncing around in each person.

Actually, what you said was:

The ability to write fiction probably doesn't but the ability to write fiction or drama at the level of Shakespeare might. Big difference. To write at that level requires a level of observation and grappling with the issues that might make it close in some sense to forging a unified 'I' and might help us to do so, I think.

Which relates to your understanding about whether or not Shakespeare had a 'unified I' - which is the context of the (diverted) discussion.

So - I'm curious as to why you are now steering the context in a different direction. Another example:

I would say that the person, Shakespeare, will never be known. There is so little known about him or able to be known about him as a person, that it would be impossible for anyone to answer questions about him as a person. I would even say that it is beside the point.

Perhaps I missed something, but where was it mentioned that Shakespeare could ever 'be known'?

The important thing is not the person but the works.

Hmmm - well, the context of the (diverted) discussion is that the works indicate who the person was - accent on the person - so, again, I'm afraid you've lost me.

The works of great subjective artists can be useful, I think, even for those who are looking for objectivity.

No one suggested that they cannot be useful.

I think there is room in the world for great subjective art even if it doesn't point out the way out.

Again, no one suggested otherwise.

But there are depths there much greater than just suiting "wisearcring personalities of fans and spectators." Or the body of work wouldn't have lasted so long.

Considering what we know about things that 'last so long' in this reality - this wholly manufactured and manipulated reality - do you have any data to support this statement?

Apologies, but your posts in this thread seem to indicate that you're rather emotionally invested in Shakespeare being 'esoterically developed' - - yet - - you divert the conversation into areas previously not even suggested to deny or obfuscate that fact - which is really rather odd.

I could be wholly mistaken and totally misunderstanding what you have written and, in that case, sincere apologies - but perhaps you can clarify that?

 

[Mr. Premise]

Hi, I must admit that your posts in this thread have me a little confused...

What I said was that, for the reader, it really doesn't make a difference whether Shakespeare had a unified 'I' or not. If I had to guess I would say he didn't but he did have a good knowledge, probably because of acting training, of the fact that there are lots of 'I's bouncing around in each person.

Actually, what you said was:

The ability to write fiction probably doesn't but the ability to write fiction or drama at the level of Shakespeare might. Big difference. To write at that level requires a level of observation and grappling with the issues that might make it close in some sense to forging a unified 'I' and might help us to do so, I think.

Which relates to your understanding about whether or not Shakespeare had a 'unified I' - which is the context of the (diverted) discussion.

So - I'm curious as to why you are now steering the context in a different direction.

The keyword in the second quote was "might." Shakespeare MIGHT have had a unified I. Probably didn't. I didn't think I was "steering" the discussion, just responding and having a conversation. Then I noticed some were thinking I was saying something I didn't want to say (great artists have a unified 'I' or some level of advancement). I don't think that is true for the most part. So I just wanted to clarify. I don't see the first and second quote as contradictory. But I can see that it could be confusing to read. Because I was kind of working my thoughts out on it.

Sorry for any confusion.

Another example:

I would say that the person, Shakespeare, will never be known. There is so little known about him or able to be known about him as a person, that it would be impossible for anyone to answer questions about him as a person. I would even say that it is beside the point.

Perhaps I missed something, but where was it mentioned that Shakespeare could ever 'be known'?

The important thing is not the person but the works.

Hmmm - well, the context of the (diverted) discussion is that the works indicate who the person was - accent on the person - so, again, I'm afraid you've lost me.

I guess I misunderstood what the context of the discussion was. I apologize if it was a problem to shift the discussion from if the works reflect the person, to are the works useful to others.

The works of great subjective artists can be useful, I think, even for those who are looking for objectivity.

No one suggested that they cannot be useful.

I must have misunderstood what kenlee said, then.

I think there is room in the world for great subjective art even if it doesn't point out the way out.

Again, no one suggested otherwise.

But there are depths there much greater than just suiting "wisearcring personalities of fans and spectators." Or the body of work wouldn't have lasted so long.

Considering what we know about things that 'last so long' in this reality - this wholly manufactured and manipulated reality - do you have any data to support this statement?

Apologies, but your posts in this thread seem to indicate that you're rather emotionally invested in Shakespeare being 'esoterically developed' - - yet - - you divert the conversation into areas previously not even suggested to deny or obfuscate that fact - which is really rather odd.

Then I didn't communicate well, because I don't actually think Shakespeare is esoterically developed. He might be, who knos? Just that his works might be useful to those trying to esoterically develop. So I don't agree necessarily with Webglider but I found Webglider's post really interesting and enjoyed thinking about Shakespeare and "many 'I's'" so there might have been some investment in my enjoyment there. Leading to an investment in the idea that reading this stuff could be useful to develop objectivity. But no investment in him being esoterically developed.

I could most certainly be wholly mistaken and totally misunderstanding what you have written and in that case, sincere apologies - but your responses are, currently, rather confusing. Perhaps you can clarify that?

I hope this clears it up. I apologize for the lack of clarity and any identification or emotional investment. Been having trouble on those fronts today in general.

 

[webglider]

Kenlee wrote:

"I have not studied Shakespeare, but from what little I have read that he was as asleep as anyone else and what Gurdjieff called "a man in quotation marks."

"I have not studied Shakespeare...."

If you have not studied Shakespeare on what do you base your opinion if it isn't your own response to his work?

"...but from what little I have read that he was as asleep and anyone else..."

From the little you've read, whom did you read and what makes THEM an expert on the subject of the possibility that Shakespeare may have had a unified "I".

....and what Gurdjieff called "a man in quotation marks".

Did Gurdjieff mention Shakespeare in particular? Did he mention anyone in particular?
Does this quote come from any book in particular?

The point really isn't about Shakespeare, it's about the possibility that Shakespeare's works are concious "B" influences thrown out into the great whirlpool of LIFE. Since LIFE is governed by "A" influences, everything in life becomes mechanical and subject to the Law Of Accident- even conscious art.

Those with a magnetic center are affected to "B influences" if those influences can reach them under a series of specific conditions:

1. That these "B influences" can slide through the obstacles designed by Life to keep
humans asleep.
2. That the person they reach has a "magnetic center'.
3. That the magnetic center is developed enough to be influenced by the "B influence"
If it comes at the wrong time it may have no effect at all.

There are certain time periods, in specific places, under specific conditions which foster the creation of these influences. These works of conscious art consciously insert esoteric teachings into the work so that some of humanity may begin to awake.

To be conscious art, it must be created with a specific aim, use objective principles, and have the effect that it intends to have on what we would today call its "target audience", those with a magnetic center.

Under these circumstances, each person will initially respond to "B" influences according to his/her own level of being. Without studying the principles that went into their creation, opinion is only that - a conclusion based on subjective reasoning without any basis in objective reality.

 

[Renaissance]

Hi webglider, would you mind in the future using the quote boxes: http://www.sott.net/signs/forum/help.php#bbcode

It makes things less confusing.

"I have not studied Shakespeare...."

If you have not studied Shakespeare on what do you base your opinion if it isn't your own response to his work?

"...but from what little I have read that he was as asleep and anyone else..."

From the little you've read, whom did you read and what makes THEM an expert on the subject of the possibility that Shakespeare may have had a unified "I".

I think you're misunderstanding Kenlee. It looks to me like he's saying he hasn't studied Shakespeare but has read some of his works. It also looks to me like you're having a bit of an emotional reaction on the issue and that probably helped skew your perception of Kenlee's post.

I think we can probably know the level of development Shakespeare was at without knowing exactly who he was historically. I haven't studied Shakespeare either but I've read enough of his work to know he used death consistently as a major theme. "Attitude towards death" was one of the factors Dabrowski used to determine the level of mental development a person was at:

(d) The attitude towards death.
On a primitive level there is no understanding of the problem of death and consequently complete inability to face death. The death of others might evoke a superficial, impersonal form of reflective thought. A primitive individual does not believe in the reality of his own death. In case of an immediate danger of death naive attempts are made to escape it in panic, there is sheer terror, fright, and violent defensive reactions.

On a higher level, i.e., that of unilevel disintegration, there is an ambivalence in one’s attitude towards death, ranging from uncon­trolled fear, phobias and suicidal tendencies, up to mental rigidity and indifference. This relation to death is an expression of inner insta­bility. There appears certain awareness which is, however, without any hierarchical elements. These reactions express a tendency to think of death as something external to the normal order of life, consequently there is no significant effort to integrate the problem of death into the personality structure.

On the level of the first stage of multilevel disintegration, ambiva­lent states of anxiety, heroism, rationalization, and the like lead to a slow integration and hierarchization of the problem of death into the personality structure. This problem, then, is considered within the context of all human dilemmas. An individual on this level of develop­ment shows towards death a dramatic attitude, at times tragic, entering into all personality problems. Inclinations towards suicide are accom­panied by some reflection, but suicide itself is possible. The value of many things is approached and defined from the point of view of death. The sense and meaning of life is seen in connection with matters of death.

On the level of the organization of multilevel disintegration the problem of death is placed in a definite correlation with other problems and aspects of life. The development of a sublimated attitude towards death often causes the activity of the disintegrative dynamisms to increase in order to destroy residual structures of primitive levels in the inner milieu which are unwanted by the developing self. This conscious and willful program of eradication of the lower structures of personality can be called the instinct of partial death. The problem of death is placed within the hierarchy of values; it is incorporated into the personality structure; it is clearly “interiorized.” Without being made less important or less dramatic it is placed in the context of other basic problems of equally high or even higher values such as responsibility for others, charity, permanence and unrepeatability of one’s spiritual values.

On the highest level of human development, i.e. that of secondary integration, there appears a still more precise definition of one’s personal relation to death. The death of others and their own attitude towards death become as important as our own view of it. The problem of death is not only subordinated to other problems and developmental values but enriches them in turn. When the individual becomes responsible for the totality of his own development and for the development of his external environment, he takes the problem of death as a part of the general process of inner development.

From the above, it looks to me like Shakespeare was at the first level of multilevel disintegration, that is to say he probably didn't have a unified I. If it's possible that someone at the 1st level of multilevel disintegration could convey B influences, it's probably not worth the time as I imagine it would be a rather weak signal.

 

[anart]

It also looks to me like you're having a bit of an emotional reaction on the issue and that probably helped skew your perception of Kenlee's post.

Yes, it appears webglider is quite emotionally identified with the idea of Shakespeare having had a 'unified I' - and, thus, is not seeing the situation objectively. Perhaps a limited or skewed understanding of what, and how rare, a 'unified I' really is is contributing to the identification and rather clouded view - as is an apparent understanding that 'resonating' with an idea or piece of art instantly determines it to be of 'B' influences - which is most certainly not the case, since until one has formed a 'unified I', that response to a piece of art can be coming from any of a million little 'i's within the viewer.

 

[mudrabbit]

Shakespeare did posess an active imagination along with keen powers of observation.

I think NormaRegula hit the nail on the head here. Actors and fiction writers can create convincing and engaging characters because they really focus observing others. It is likely that Shakespeare closely analysed the personalities of those around him (be it friends or complete strangers). As for whether he knew of little I's, I guess a close reading of all his work could reveal this, but I haven't read anything of his so far that suggests he has a clue one way or the other. And plus, you can easily observe little I's in others and still absolutely suck at observing your own.

Just my two cents here, but it seems psychopathic individuals are very good at observing others. It's one of the ways they move through this reality. And from what we have learned so far, they seem to be very good at it.

 

[webglider]

Anart and Shane are both correct that I am having an emotional reaction post to some of these posts: but it's based on frustration. I don't care if Shakespeare has a unified "I"; it's impossible to prove and therefore any opinion concerning whether he does or not can never be verified and is a waste of time.

My frustration is that most of the responses to my posts and other people's postsseem to focus on this issue, and not on Shakespeare's work itself. Kenlee's sources are identified as "...from what little I read." Shane's source is Dabrowski and specifically Dabrowski's theories on death.

The argument seems presented in the form of the following syllogism:

A. Shakespeare used death as one of his major themes.
B "Attitude" toward death is used to determine level of development.
C. Therefore because Shakespeare used death as one of his major
themes, and because attitude toward death is used to determine
level of development, Shakespeare "was at the first level of
multilevel disintigration, that is to say that he probably didn't have
a unified "I".

Shane then goes on to add: If it's possible that someone of multilevel disinteration
could convey "B" influences, it's probably not worth the time because it would convey
a rather weak signal."

My frustration is that I don't understand the connection between A, B, C and beyond.

Anyone can choose anything for a theme, death being one among many possibilities.
But isn't the point, not the theme, the level of understanding brought to the theme of death?

Shakespeare created many characters who die in his plays, but isn't it possible that each character's death reveals the character's level of consciousness?

Macbeth doesn't die with the same consciousness as Hamlet, but each of those deaths lead to a total disintegration of the corrupt cicumstances of the societies in which the plays are set. In this way, a whole new society can replace the corrupt one; there is the possibility that the new society, purged of the psychopathic influences of Macbeth, and King Claudius, (in Hamlet), will be able to align itself with natural and spiritual laws.

When King Lear dies, his whole world has disinterated, but what has happened to his individual level of understanding?

I wouldn't be so frustrated if someone actually mentioned some specific work or character in the response.

My frustration is that most the references are based on secondary sources, (some not identified,) , and unquestioing acceptance of the validity of the authority of the author of these secondary sources as a basis for evaluation of Shakespeare. (I would be just as frustrated if these methods were used for evaluating any other subject.)

At this point the issue isn't about Shakespeare and his works at all. It's about the process of coming to a conclusion without even referring directly to the works of the subject under discussion. Present a specific character in a specific play and analyze his level of development using Dabrowsky's system. Give examples of the character's actions, words, and effects on the other characters. Then I can understand where you are coming from.

If that can't be done with fictional characters which are totally objective and outside of the readers LIFE, how can anyone do that work on his/herself in the totally mechanical influences of LIFE?

(I'm also frustrated because I'm having difficulty with creating quote boxes.
That's why I really limited my quotes in this post).

 

[anart]

If that can't be done with fictional characters which are totally objective, how can anyone do that on him/herself?

Hi webglider, you're making some enormous leaps of logic and are so identified with these works of fiction that you apparently cannot see the forest for the trees. How can a fictional character be totally objective?

There is a difference between fiction and reality - and no fictional character can ever be anything other than a facsimile - a cardboard cut out of a real human - your attachment to this fictional world and these fictional characters - as if they were REAL - is a bit disconcerting.

You stated:

It's my belief that the ability that Shakespeare has to create so many characters with so many different psychologies is because he must have done the work of self-remembering.

How could he not have had a unified "I' to be able to really SEE all the little "i"s of all the characters he creates and demonstrate the effect that each of the "i"s has on the social and political network of their situations?

and then state:

I don't care if Shakespeare has a unified "I"; it's impossible to prove and therefore any opinion concerning whether he does or not can never be verified.

My frustration is that most of the responses to my posts seem to focus on this issue, and not on Shakespeare's work itself.

So - getting to the bottom of why it is so important for you to be 'right' in this discussion and why these fictional works have taken such a central role in your focus - why you are so identified with your subjective view of their importance - might actually be productive for you, if you are sincere about waking up.

If, however, you are only sincere about being so identified with works of fiction that you cannot see past that, then that is your choice.

Ultimately - there have been literally thousands of artists throughout time who have created works that have impacted humanity and thought - some positively, some negatively, some to promote sleep and some to promote awakening - but these are works of art - or works of fiction - and NOT reality - can you see the difference and can you understand that you can argue all day long for the next two months about Shakespeare and how valuable his work is, but that this is likely nothing other than dreaming that you are awakening? It is distraction - almost entirely due to your level of identification with it. If you were not so identified, then it could serve as a mildly interesting hypothetical discussion over coffee, at best.

The value in this discussion is found in glimpsing and understanding your identification with 'being right' and with these fictional works - which, ironically enough, would actually constitute self-remembering and bring us back on topic - osit.

 

[webglider]

Anart wrote:


"webglider wrote:


If that can't be done with fictional characters which are totally objective,
how can anyone do that on him/herself?

Hi webglider, you're making some enormous leaps of logic and are
so identified with these works of fiction that you apparently cannot
see the forest for the trees. How can a fictional character be totally
objective?

There is a difference between fiction and reality - and no fictional
character can ever be anything other than a facsimile - a cardboard
cut out of a real human - your attachment to this fictional world and
these fictional characters - as if they were REAL - is a bit disconcerting.

Dear Anart:

I can see how my choice of "objective" could lead to your observation. I think you were reading "objective" in the way the WORK defines. I wasn't intending it to be taken that way, so I am at fault for my choice of that word.

I agree that all fictional characters are facsimiles. I meant to say that we can look on fictional characters objectively, with detachment because they do not interact with us in life. They don't get activated by our programs while we are reading about them. They get hooked into the programs of other characters and some of the interactions that ensue may mirror our own interactions with the people in our own lives.

The very nature of fiction is that it is not real, the stakes are much lower, and hopefully people leave the fictional world when they have concluded their experience with it. Hopefully also, if the the work is a conscious work, it will inform the person's life in a positive way.

I can also understand how you may interpret the two references I made to the possession of a personal "I" by Shakespeare as contradictory and a desire to be right.

I actually meant that it was beside the point if anyone agreed with me on this matter or not. I'm not trying to convince anyone to take my word for it. This is obviously a personal belief for myself and not an objective fact to be imposed on others.

What I really want to say is this: Take your understanding of esoteric principles, and apply it to any work of art in a disciplined way. Study how it was created. Are there principles involved in its creation? What are those principles? Are they objective or subjective? Compare it to your own understanding of Life and of yourself. Does it provide any insights?

This process is extremely personal, and it is between the viewer/reader and the work of art.
It may very well be that some of the material comes from a source outside the artist. Homer invokes the muse at the beginning of the Iliad and the Odyssey asking her to assist him in the telling of the story.

Art at one time was sacred in service to something higher than the artist who created it.

During the Romantic period it was debased into operating from personality.

I don't feel a need to be right. I do however have a desire, or a great feeling of need to be understood, and the frustration that I was feeling that I wasn't being understood informed the tone of my last two responses.

Obviously this is one of my programmed responses, so I appreciate that you turned the discussion back to the Work on myself, and away from Shakespeare.

This particular program is not confined to the topic of fictional characters, but to many aspects of my life., and I guess everyone sees how off-putting it can be.

It's very hard to stop this program. Thanks for pointing it out. The process of writing this post has banished its power over me for awhile.

Thanks Anart

 

[mudrabbit]

Hi Webglider, just an assist.

If you will note, at the bottom right of each comment are categories that read "Report | Delete| Edit | Quote"

If to reply to a particular quote, click on quote. On the part that comes up, you will see (as an example)
[ quote=webglider] at the beginning of the post. The words typed between the bracketed instructions is what comes up in the box. (I added a space on the example here after the first bracket for the purpose of this example so it would not cause problems with what I'm trying to explain.)

If you are quoting several things from several posts, you can type it in at the beginning of each quote with the particular name of the person who posted it, and they will come up inside the white boxes you see in other posts. Don't forget to end each quote you are using with the [ /quote] - without the space, of course.

Just hit "Quote", study beginning and end of the post, and you'll see what I mean.

Peg