This is one of the clearest applications of Vladimir's writing on the faculties I've ever seen.
A very small semantic concern: When Sri Aurobindo was writing in the early 20th century, there was (dating back to the late 1800s) a school of psychology called "faculty psychology."
By the 1920s, with the emergence of the Gestalt school, the use of the word "faculty" in scientific psychology was abandoned. This was (correctly I think, in this case) because the way the scientists used the word "faculty" was to denote a very rigid boundary between one cognitive/perceptual function and another. The Gestalt school showed that our senses, perceptions and cognitive/conative functioning were all interdependent and intermingled.
I understand that Sri Aurobindo's use of the word "faculty" is far more profound, and perhaps if someone didn't know the history of the use of this word it wouldn't matter. In any case, I still find, every time I read Vladimir on the "Faculties," having to take a moment to set aside my knowledge of the prior use of this term.
Vladimir is also an excellent linguist, and maybe there's some other justification for using the word "Faculty" to describe this deeper Upanishadic vision. However, given the difficulty he has in communicating this understanding, I wonder if the way you've described the process (the essential powers of seeing, hearing, etc of the Spirit?) might be helpful?
Yes, I agree that nomenclature matters. An improper use of words may lead to confusion. But I'm not sure whether the word "power" would be more correct. Because, as I understand it, there is a distinction between power and knowledge. The faculties can express powers, but also knowledge. Oh, wait... but knowledge is also a power of consciousness. So, I don't know for sure. Maybe we should ask @vladyatsenko.
Excellent, Marco! Well said and thank you for these important insights.
Although a novice reader, this made good points and accessible writing.
This is one of the clearest applications of Vladimir's writing on the faculties I've ever seen.
A very small semantic concern: When Sri Aurobindo was writing in the early 20th century, there was (dating back to the late 1800s) a school of psychology called "faculty psychology."
By the 1920s, with the emergence of the Gestalt school, the use of the word "faculty" in scientific psychology was abandoned. This was (correctly I think, in this case) because the way the scientists used the word "faculty" was to denote a very rigid boundary between one cognitive/perceptual function and another. The Gestalt school showed that our senses, perceptions and cognitive/conative functioning were all interdependent and intermingled.
I understand that Sri Aurobindo's use of the word "faculty" is far more profound, and perhaps if someone didn't know the history of the use of this word it wouldn't matter. In any case, I still find, every time I read Vladimir on the "Faculties," having to take a moment to set aside my knowledge of the prior use of this term.
Vladimir is also an excellent linguist, and maybe there's some other justification for using the word "Faculty" to describe this deeper Upanishadic vision. However, given the difficulty he has in communicating this understanding, I wonder if the way you've described the process (the essential powers of seeing, hearing, etc of the Spirit?) might be helpful?
I'm looking again - and I see you use the word "powers" of consciousness.
This seems to me to be so much better a term. "Power" is not a thing; "A" faculty conveys the sense of a "thing."
"Names' and "Forms' also convey (Nama rupa) a process (naming and forming) that is not a thing.
The fundamental Powers of Consciousness, through a process of naming and forming, eventually "evolve" as the senses we are familiar with.
That to me feels like an evocative description of the process of evolution.
I wonder how much the feeling that we must be true to Sri Aurobindo's use of words gets in the way here??
Yes, I agree that nomenclature matters. An improper use of words may lead to confusion. But I'm not sure whether the word "power" would be more correct. Because, as I understand it, there is a distinction between power and knowledge. The faculties can express powers, but also knowledge. Oh, wait... but knowledge is also a power of consciousness. So, I don't know for sure. Maybe we should ask @vladyatsenko.