(BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(7)])[5th April 1987]

[Redbook3:124-125][19870405:1057g](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(7)])[5th April 1987]

19870405.1057

(Sunday)

[continued]

*Inner Direct Knowledge is therefore** a process or part of Inner Experience (and incidentally, recognition is not generally a problem: I know it is xP because of her quality). Inner Experience is a broader term, however, and may be misleading***. A crucial element of of Inner Direct Knowledge is that it may be invited (one way or another) but is never willed, or forced. This is presumably why it is particularly characteristic of Inner Circle developments or types of Individual (to whom it may occur elsewhere): the reduction of self-importance, at least at the time of experience, allows it to occur.

Inner Experience is at the root of all true Art – and some Scientific discovery.**** It includes# [sic] Inner Direct Knowledge but may involve an element of deliberate shaping or forming (which Inner Direct Knowledge does not), to which extent it detracts from the absolutely true and becomes, perhaps, relatively true. It is still possible for the Artist to say truthfully: 'I have painted a girl I saw in my mind's eye', but the chances are that he imagined the girl in order to paint her, rather than painting what he saw without thought of painting.#* Possibly this is why painting from the imagination became so unfashionable, because contrived, and therefore, although relatively true (to the Artist's own willed imagination), not absolutely true.#**

And here we come to the impossible leap – not for the first time. Faced with this dissatisfaction with relative truth, Artists seem to have reacted by abjuring all inner vision as subject matter: by concentrating on interpretation and re-interpretation of external scenes, or of form and technique.#***

*{Speculation starts here.}[See [Redbook3:132][19870406:1710](MORBIDITY))[6th April 1987].]

**[See last previous entry.]

***in a religious context.

****Why all true Art and some (true) Science? Perhaps because there is more room for accident in Science. <870816>

#[In the sense, I think, that the concept of Inner Direct Knowledge is a subset or type of the concept of Inner Experience: not that all Inner Experience includes Inner Direct Knowledge. <20151206>]

#*{Nature of fantasy?}

{cf. [[Redbook3:184][19870414:1003](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{2})[14th April 1987]]185}

#**{This is rather a harsh judgement: is the statement not, still, absolutely true? Or is external validation of absolute truth creeping in??? No. It is not absolutely true because it omits acknowledgement of the deliberate influence of the Artist in what he 'saw'. To be literally true is not necessarily to be absolutely true. The whole truth is required.}

#***Have they? <890930>

[But see [Redbook3:132][19870406:1710](MORBIDITY))[6th April 1987].]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger16for17022016]