something i posted somewhere else -- on meaning

[abu nuwas]

  This discussion reminds me of a poem by Bukowski:
 
 
      I Met A Genius
    
    I met a genius on the train
    today
    about 6 years old,
    he sat beside me
    and as the train
    ran down along the coast
    we came to the ocean
    and then he looked at me
    and said,
    it's not pretty.
    
    it was the first time I'd
    realized
    that.

Ha! There is definitely a tinge of that, in my original post.

---

I don't think it is divorced, it is just not applicable. The idea of universal truth in art has nothing more to do with human actions than does the awe that the Himalayas inspire. Would you link mankind's ability to be awed by grand sites to human morality and say, well since I can find no universal in terms of human behavior then it must also be true that humans can not experience awe of marvelous things. It is in human behavior, or human thinking that we find universality, it is in our ability to respond to things in the same way. If you wish to credit God with the wonders of nature, then art has nothing on God, because nothing has near the universal response that wonders in nature elicits. However, it is a similar ineffable response to art that we refer to as universal, where something beyond the powers of man to plan have been imbued into a piece of art. We assume, that unless somehow flawed, all humans possess this ability to respond in this way to certain things. The more that respond to it, the greater we say is it's universality. When we speak of universal truth, we speak of this common response to the art. We know it, we feel it, but what we experience is beyond words to describe, but we know it is beyond doubt genuine and true. In the "Declaration of Independence of the United States of America" the founders spoke of truths:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Why did they say "We hold these truths to be self-evident"? Why did they not offer a proof of them? It is because, even though we can apprehend them, we cannot dissect them. Reductionism will never find their essence. They are beyond fact and beyond proof. Truth is not related to fact. Are Shakespeare's plays historical fact, did those events actually happen as they are presented in the play. No, of course not. We acknowledge that the plays are a fiction, yet we find truth in Shakespeare. When we experience truth, we recognize it for what it is and have to nod our heads and say, "yes!"

"Divorce truths from people, and the perceptions and beliefs of people" Truth is divorced from people. We have the capacity to apprehend truth, but it is not within us, at least not in the us that generally is in charge of our bodies. Finding the truth within ourselves is called inspiration, but most do not claimed to have created that inspiration simply of themselves. From the Greeks on down, we have a long tradition of acknowledging that this comes from something other than ourselves. We coop the Greek term "Muse", for lack of a better term, and by doing so we are acknowledging that we and the muse are not the same. We are not the repository of these truths. The very words we use speak to a source other than ourselves. Inspiration comes from the Latin "inspīrātiō" which comes from the same root as the word enthuse: "en theós". Literally that the god comes into me. The truth is of course separate from us, it is by that separation that it can guide us to become more than we currently are, and just as we have slowly become more than we were. We are different than these very same Greeks. Only the psychopaths among us would be able to survive in their world, where it was an expectation that you should not only enjoy, but glory in hacking limb from limb of another human being. So although the truth may be separate from us, it's impact is not. You wanted a list of truths. I'll give you one. One truth that has changed us from what humans were as Greeks, to what we are today. It permeates our ideologies and moral codes in western society, and has informed our laws and punishments for violating those laws. We are evolving in relation to it at this very moment, as we witness country of country decided it is unjust to take the life from someone because they have killed. Unlike the Greeks, today we believe that life is sacred. We believe that it is a precious thing, to not be cast off in a frivolous manner. Not only do you not hear someone brag about washing himself in his enemy's blood, no one will even admit to enjoying killing animals. They will say something like, I like to hunt". If asked what is it about hunting they like. They will usually respond that they enjoy getting out in nature, blah, blah, blah. Even though they like killing things, they know that it has become unacceptable to say so.
So Ed, it is not that Truth is divorced from humans that causes the problem, it is that humans are divorced from truth. Manifesting that truth so that other humans may apprehend it has always been the sole province of the arts, because truth cannot be described, it can only be shown. The art that shows such truth the clearest we call great, and the degree to which a work of art does this, we call its universality. So it is not the truth that is being described as universal, it is the degree to which the art expresses that truth. Such truth is always available should we choose to access it and make us of it. The problem is not that the truth is divorced from our morality, out morality is the offspring of truth. The problem in our moral codes and in our behavior is not due to the truth being divorced from us, it is that we have divorced ourselves from it. The truth can only advise, it can not force. In fact, the more anger and hatred we hold in our hearts, the less able we are to apprehend beauty in the world. Think on this, if I am in a state of anger, fear, or jealousy, am I more or less likely to notice the beauty in nature? If I am less likely to notice beauty in the world, am I less likely to be inspired?

I would hope the answer self-evident.

Dale

Dale, old top, at risk of being seen to be obtuse, just so that I can 'rattle on', a couple of things strike me.

First, it is axiomatic that if A is divorced from B, then B is divorced from A.

Secondly, 'inspire' in no wise has the same root as 'enthuse'. It comes from the Latin word for 'breathe' as in the tag : 'Dum spiro, spero'. (While I breathe, I hope'.) So 'expire' means 'breathe out', and 'inspire' means breathe in'.

As for the American Constitution, it seems wrong on all scores. Nothing of what it says is in the least self-evident, as worthy as it may be. Men are not in any way created equal. Some people, for example, are born with severe physical handicaps, and will never develop mentally beyond the age of an eighteen month old baby. Glossing over the ludicrous assertion that men were made by any sort of Creator, one must then recognise that the various rights are also non-existent; power grows from the barrel of a gun, and each moment of each day demonstrates that the right to life is trumped by someone else's right to bump some guy off; most of the world is not free, and in poverty and oppression, pursuing happiness is probably a dodgy business.

I do not think that anyone out shooting grouse would be the least ashamed of doing so. And life simply is not sacred. Men can be shot, by states, and the pro-life brigade, will tell you quickly enough how many children are murdered daily.

But I still don't quite comprehend my own initial question...... E