Atelierartisanal's Blog

I want to talk about something that Western Philosophy, for all its wisdom and logical acumen, has difficulty defining. Yet for all that it’s an essential part of human being-existence. I’m using the Dutch phrase for it in the title above so that the English language speaker has the chance to consider that they are not entirely sure what I am talking about. Imagine then, that this is something new (in terms of conceptual definitions) though in fact it is something quite old or rather, simply deeply innate to human nature. “Gevoelsmatig”, refers to the feeling capacity of a human being. And “bewustzijn” refers to consciousness. Joined together, as a concept-phrase, it suggests that there is feeling dimension to consciousness, or alternatively, that there is a consciousness dimension to our feelings. How can that be? If you image consciousness as an expansive realm and at the same time you imagine the feeling body of a human being to stop at the edges of the skin, it appears to be an insoluble contradiction. Yet our own experience demonstrates otherwise; we expand on extremely refined levels in our feeling-sense every day – and in a myriad of different ways.

For myself, as a native English speaker, it has taken me years to wrap my head around the phrase “gevoelsmatig bewustzijn”, to understand it, to relax into it and see examples of it in my own experience. At first it required a certain kind of linguistic de-programming. That is, language was a deterrent and then later an aid. There were a number of reasons for this, so I’ll try to explain. My difficulties may be helpful others?

Firstly, “gevoelsmatig” as a stand alone term does not have a one-to-one translation from Dutch to English. It requires a few words to define it. I currently use “feeling-sense” or “felt-intuition”. A Dutch friend of mine (who is also fluent in English) suggested “feeling-wise” as an adjective for a kind of knowing. Google translate uses “instinctively” or “emotionally” while VanDale (one of the main Dutch-English dictionaries) suggests “instinct” or “instinctively”.  Thus, gevoelsmatig can refer to the kind of knowing that a bird experiences when it “knows” it’s time to fly south. In the world of nature there are a multitude of examples. Animals “know” all kinds of things and this kind of knowing is not based on language. It is not rational, neither is it irrational; it’s a certain kind of embodied intelligence.

But what about humans? How does this instinctive feeling-knowing manifest in human beings? As instinct? As intuition? As insight? A mixture of all three? Notice, in any case, that all three suggestions contain the prefix “in”. Thus, this refers to the internal, subject dimension of knowing. The objectifications of language are not its medium, nor its method of cognition, though the knowledge it acquires may later be expressed that way. As noted above in the animal world, it is not rational, yet neither is it irrational; for us too, it is not rational, neither is it irrational. It’s a certain kind of embodied intuitive intelligence. For example, a friend walks into the room and you immediately know they are sad. From one point of view, it’s that simple. Over thinking it (which of course philosophers love to do) just makes it more complicated. This explanation then, is not a logical proof, instead, it’s based on recognition.

Secondly, what about “consciousness”? As a stand alone term Merriam Webster defines it as “sentience or awareness of internal or external existence”. But problems quickly multiply when we try to define it further. Notice first that in the Webster definition, the contrast of inner or outer is presupposed – and the edges of our skin provide that all important dividing line. Further, Western culture and philosophy speak of “consciousness” in terms of “consciousness of”. Consciousness then refers to that aspect of ourselves which knows of internal or external events as objects and because of that, consciousness sits in contrast to those objects. There is an unquestioned/presupposed subject who is aware of all these internal or external events. When the Western philosopher states: “I am conscious of my thoughts” he or she projects an egoic- consciousness as the the unquestioned knower. And due to this division, within Western philosophy, it’s not possible to speak of the subject dimension (the “I” part) of consciousness without reference to its internal mental objects (the ego and its objects).

Additionally, in a world where the “objective” scientific method-of-knowing reigns supreme, Western philosophers are busy contemplating the “Hard Problem of Consciousness”. This involves the problem of explaining why any physical state is conscious rather than not. This problem begins from the presupposition that matter precedes consciousness, that it is dead, inert, non-living. That it is not conscious, is not intelligent in/or to some degree. To truly step outside of that problem would require an inversion of it: to propose instead that consciousness precedes matter. For this, a different method-of-knowing is required, something other than the object oriented, language based methods of knowing. Is there/are there such methods?

In German and  Dutch “bewust”, means aware, and “zijn (in Dutch)” (or “sein” in German), means being. That is, being-awareness or aware being. If it were possible to take the meaning of these compound elements full stop, there could be a recognition of an indwelling, pure, non-object oriented being-awareness. Being without fixing, fixating, on an object – any object, even ourselves. We rest in this sphere every night in deep sleep. We revert to it (absently or not) in-between thoughts. It forms the basis and goal of every meditative technique or inquiry. It is infinitely expansive, like space itself and provides the substrate for all our perceptions and inceptions. As before with the term “gevoelsmatig”, this explanation is not a logical proof, rather it’s about recognition.

A third reason for my difficulty in grasping the meaning behind the term “gevoelsmatig bewustzijn” is the strong mind-body dualism present within Western culture (and philosophy). For people (like myself) who have embraced a spiritual path, there may be a strong impetus to encounter the more refined aspects of our subject-consciousness through meditation and prayer, free, or free-er from the unrefined impulses of our material nature. This can lead to their suppression and/or repression (spiritual bypassing). The instinctive impulses of the body then might be placed in various shadowed categories. To suggest philosophically that the gevoelsmatig impulses of our nature are vitally important in order to progress spiritually might appear blasphemous or simply difficult to accept. Further, even though this (apparently) shadowed side of human nature cannot be denied, it might sit outside the norms of accepted cultural behaviour, making its recognition difficult. Art can play a large role in bringing these shadows to the surface, creating a field for acknowledgment and acceptance.

Thus at this point you might counter and say that this expanded feeling-sense capacity of consciousness is not at all unrecognised or absent from Western philosophy or culture. Of course not. We do recognise that as human beings we joyfully expand in many non-rational and yet still deeply intelligent ways. One primary example of this is the world of art: the visual arts, but also music, dance, film, literature, poetry etc…  Another is the overwhelming love we experience by allowing ourselves to fully open up to the beauty of the natural world, in all of its micro and macrocosmic majesty. But are these venues considered to be knowledge bearing? Are they included within a standard approach to Western Epistemology? No, not really. Any self-respecting Epistemology 101 in any department of philosophy around the world concerns itself with the truth bearing possibilities of propositional statements. There, young epistemologists are encouraged to be clever enough so as to one day propose the next Gettier problem. Yet, to be fair, Western Epistemology, does indeed present the possibilities of a radical skepticism, but if so, this is done as a negative pole only without a recognition of the life enhancing properties of a subject-based non-conceptual method-of-knowing.

Now, since the recognition of art has become an important venue for non-conceptual methods of intelligent communication, we might think of gevoelsmatig bewustzijn as equivalent to “aesthetic consciousness”? Is it comparable? And what does Western philosophy have to say about that? Is it knowledge bearing? And if so, what kind of knowledge?

See Gevoelsmatig Bewustzijn Part II.