Provenance is the trick

Provenance is the trick. Provenance, the history of where a work of art has been, leading to a pronouncement as to its authenticity, determines whether a particular work of art is inside or outside an artist's canon. Provenance thus determines the value of a work of art. 

Provenance only ever really talks about -- not art,-- but other provenance. Though it always is apparently pointing to this art, provenance is just about provenance. Provenance is not about the thing, really, it is about what you can call, the thing. 

Words and reality.Thoughts and -- everything, are exemplified here. 

Taking a step back

As long as people assume themselves a single and singular unit, then their thinking will propose a cellular divinity, as part of a cosmological diagram. The point is not their belief, but how they picture the game. This applies to atheist and believer alike. To the extent their ego coincides with their self, then their model of god will include omnipotence. 

Possibly.

I had a dream

What if the emphasis on rationalism is a necessary corrective to religiousity (thus explaining  modernity, ahem) and the third leg of the stool is not extant or apparent yet. I am tempted to say this third aspect, the always dependable but never obvious, third flow, is what you hear in Gurdjieff and Jan Cox, but I don't know that. 

Link Love

Many commentators discuss how the internet is making people stupider. This easy observation has evidence for it, and yet misses the point and actual growth dynamic of which cyberspace is merely a symptom. That is a topic to be sketched more fully at some later date. 

But since a basic characteristic of stupidity is thinking you know something you do not, I cannot resist pointing out how much easier it is now to appear well-informed rather than actually be well-informed.  In the older olden days, before we were even a speck in anyone's eye, people could create a visual demonstration of their intellectual interests. The book shelves weighed down with books which could be taken in at a glance. The faded colored bindings hardly need their titles to be scanned to convey a picture of their seriously intellectual owner. As Jan Cox pointed out, this common practise, says nothing about whether the books are actually read. Most likely they are not, they exist to bolster the self-image of their owner.

Now you can do that with much less effort. I call it link love. You do not have to expend money at all, certainly not on books, on book cases, on floor space for such furniture. Now you can save money and convey the same impression, of an intellectual gravity which may, very well may, be unearned. I refer to the artfully referenced link to a certain subject, or even to a list of links regarding some topic. You needn't even spend money or TIME, creating this impression: you use a search engine to compile a list, find an apt sounding reference. As with everything modern, creating a good impression is easier now. The timeless of course bolsters, nourishes, invisibly, and can temporarily be disregarded. The dimensions of reality  continue fresh with an attitude to constantly learn more. Such makes referencing links trivial. 

Jan's point about books made the same point I do here, analyzing not -- links, but the use of links among ordinary people. You cannot put your credibility in the cloud, you cannot put it in the eyes of your peers. You cannot put ii in any interior speech or picture. You can only put a real worth in a quiet place, where 

no one 

will 

see it.

But that realization of course does require effort. As Jan Cox said decades ago; I call this enterprise the W.O.R.K., because that is what it is--- work. Not a job for the ordinary.

How We Forget, (an example)

The interesting topic today is superficially about a subject Jan Cox found  enthralling,  as indeed, he found all things he encountered or sought out, worth pursuing to understand how they work. I refer to cellular structure. 

The link below is to an article discussing a new approach to understanding the cell. This approach involves taking old but valuable words, and giving them new antithetical definitions. When this happens, especially at the rarified intellectual level, the loss in the possibilities of learning may outweigh any gains. At least in this article, and the part I will quote, there is an  awareness of the shift, though not the significance of it.

So from the article at this link,

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/597334/?sc=swhn

we excerpt--

"What's new about our ontology is that it is created automatically from large datasets. In this way, we see not only what is already known, but also potentially new biological components and processes – the bases for new hypotheses," said Dutkowski.

Originally devised by philosophers attempting to explain the nature of existence, ontologies are now broadly used to encapsulate everything known about a subject in a hierarchy of terms and relationships. Intelligent information systems, such as iPhone's Siri, are built on ontologies to enable reasoning about the real world. Ontologies are also used by scientists to structure knowledge about subjects like taxonomy, anatomy and development, bioactive compounds, disease and clinical diagnosis.

The original purpose, the whole inquiry, denoted by the word ontology, is lost. 

How now should we inquire about existence per se?  Now instead of the edges, the source of existence itself, we mean, if we are a scientist, simply, that which is known about a topic. Any exploration must happen within a verbal framework.

This loss happened before the new approach outlined in the article to which we link. Still, this misuse of a valuable tool, the word, 'ontology', makes any recovery of the original purpose even more challenging. Insights are lost. Yes, the crucial insights must always be won again, by the individual knower. Yes words are a hindrance in real effort. Yet, it helps to be able to point, to have certain words. You never communicate to another, over any expanse of time, without -- words. Even if, as with the works of Jan Cox, what is being communicated, is the ways verbalizations can hinder, sincere effort. 

Pig Man

This quote from a wikipedia article about a religious figure is relevant in our discussions here about the mysticism of Jan Cox. It is relevant because of the etymology of Swithin, Jan said that if you did not understand the etymology of a word you did not understand the word. I point to the meaning of pig man for this saint. It may reflect a genuine apprehension of what is necessary to continue on the path Jan Cox pointed to.


Swithun (or Swithin, Old English: Swīþhūn; died c. 862) was an Anglo-Saxon bishop of Winchester and subsequently patron saint of Winchester Cathedral. His historical importance as bishop is overshadowed by his reputation for posthumous miracle-working. According to tradition, the weather on his feast day (15 July) will continue for forty days. The precise meaning and origin of St Swithin's name is unknown, but it is largely considered to mean 'Pig Man'.^[1] Another possible meaning is "strong".

Platonic perfection and plastic saucers

How man came up with words and writing is a topic some find fascinating and no doubt part of that is the insoluble aspect to the question. But seeing the full moon, made me wonder if our planet had had no moon, would the lack of what seems a perfect sphere, in a world so obviously not, have resulted in our missing this -- a lack impossible to imagine, that we never made the evolutionary leap, to a cerebral stage.