[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Enough of science and art
How are others "reading" Dewey's answer to Wordsworth's "enough of science
and art" ?
Notice how he is shifting to matters of the "heart" as a romantic image of
What about the "truth-value" of this romantic notion?
This topic as what to include and what to exclude as "primary mover" seems
to move in the realm of the "imaginal" but does not acknowledge that
science and art are also moving within this same primary realm of "having"
Beth's beautiful rendition of the responsibility [and
response/ability] embodying the living experience of a preschool teacher as
expressions of "heart" is as truthful as Wordsworth's notion of "heart"
within the "natural"
I will only add that two possible synonyms closely resembling "heart" are
"hearth" and "focus" [all notions of home] and finding our "place".
The unity of the immediate and mediated as consummation [not conclusions]
within a mood/befindlichkeit/experience.
What is at the heart of experience is the "subject matter" [unity of mind
and world] For example [a case in "place"] is Beth's preschool "experience"
and what she "perceives" [not recognizes] at the "heart" of the "matter".
This under/standing and under/going of source and re-source [what is in the
back "ground"] is a much more extended notion of "cognizing" including both
focusing and reflecting as phases [never conclusions] Always uncertain and
fallible and open [within constraints and completions]
If "organizing" is the "key" it must include these aspects of the heart.
Is it mis-guided to leave out "science and art" as imaginal paths of living
experience as aspects of "having" an experience?. It is also mis-guided to
leave out the heart and taking "care" of what "matters"