(BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(8)])[5th April 1987]

[Redbook3:125-126][19870405:1057h](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(8)])[5th April 1987]

19870405.1057

(Sunday)

[continued]

The implication* that inner vision can only be relatively true is not necessarily correct. To avoid it, one has to make the connection between the absolutely true and the Absolute Truth, the former being manifestations of aspects of the latter. In other words, one has to believe in God,** in order to come to know God by Inner Direct Knowledge. It is perhaps no coincidence that the heyday of contrived imaginative painting – in Victorian times (as I understand it) seems to have coincided with the apparent formalisation and externalisation of God in Victorian Christianity; and that the reaction away from inner vision in Arts coincided broadly with the general loss of belief in God. It also perhaps explains why to many modern minds, seeking for that lost inner dimension, so much 'modern' art seems so superficial: the worst is meaningless, the best is merely excellent; rarely is there any sign of inspiration.***

*[See last previous entry.]

**(or at least in the possibility of God – I should think.)
[See next entry, final para. <20160218>]

***Rothko? <930418>

But 'modern' (i.e. recent) abstract art may be seen as a legitimate part of the development from blank page back towards blank page. <880806>

[continues]

[PostedBlogger18022016]