Time-Art

Emilie Wapnick in a TEDtalk explored the notion of having a calling and identified what she calls multipotentialites.  I can identify with this but not from a backdrop of frustration, but good old fashioned wonder.   If we feel frustration it maybe because we are trying to force-fit ourselves into an economic view of meaning, in that the Industrial Revolution took meaning away from the home and made meaning about the work we do i.e. what do you do for a living?  This is also what Wapnick saw as she discusses "calling" 

Time as art is not just about our personal identification with renaissance, it is how we see with our own eyes.  Do we wait for objects of beauty to appear before we determine that they are beautiful, or do we see appreciate what it is we see.  At any given moment, we can have a great moment of appreciation if we are given the gift of sight.  A blind person can have moments of appreciation in what they can imagine.  This is all time-art.  The chief reason we fail to see beauty with our own eyes i.e. that which we look upon on a daily basis is because we don't have time to fit it into our busy schedules.  Personally for me, that is not the way I want to sense or respond to my own world. 

So Time-Art slowly evolved into many things that have eventually found its way onto BeBee but which I am still evolving.  Can we engage in an evolution without others wanting a part of it?  Are they wanting a part of this because they do not have any other context, other than the one which looks for models, formulas or templates for making a living?  It does not follow that this following of others rather than observing of what one see's in their own life creates Time-Science.  It would be nice if we were scientific about our time - mostly we are irrational.

If I chose to engage a specialism I would engage time-science but as I am engaging renaissance I choose time-art.  There are a few on the time-science side of existence and a handful on the time-art side of existence, but a huge mass in between for whom time is neither a science or an art.  On either side is thinking but in-between thinkers are huge amounts of followers.  Why would I want to master in how to be a great follower when it is default reality of our society? 

Since meaning derived from work is buried so deep we naturally think follower requires a leader, such is the master-servant mindset.  If we are not remunerated for followership then surely this is a master-slave relationship?  We don't think that the alternative to following is thinking.  We are know we are a follower when we know that thinking for ourselves is too dangerous or is most likely to hurt or damage us.  I might not have engaged time-science but I am here to think and following is not thinking, it is just more following.