The Organization of Energies

"Cumulative progression toward the fulfillment of an experience in terms of the integrity of the experience itself-something not to be measured in external terms, though not attainable without the use of external materials" (p. 171). 

"The meaning of 'wind, rain, sheep... is a function of the whole situation expressed, and hence is a variable of that situation and not an external constant" (p. 171).

I think that what Dewey is saying here is that the integrity of a work of art comes from the whole working together, and although it must exist materially those materials should not be used to judge the artwork.  He gives the example from Wordsworth's Prelude to illustrate that those words have original meanings in that work, mainly that together they work to create a feeling, or a quality to that poem rather than a literal dictionary definition.  I think we could say the same for colors, shapes, sounds, and timbres in paintings and music, that works with integrity barrow from the materials of the external world to serve a purpose for that piece in a unique way. 

Later in the chapter Dewey writes about perception and its object, but he argues that objects belong in perception, not to them.  The distinction sounds similar to Wittgenstein, as Dewey writes, "objects of most of our ordinary perception lack completeness.  They are cut short when there is recognition; that is to say when an object is identified as one of a kind..." (p. 184).  This comes after he discussing seeing the cloud, or the object with a name, rather than "this individual thing existing here and now with all the unrepeatable particularities..." 

In a previous post I wrote something about destroying the idea of the "essence" as some property belonging to things which we cannot observe, that hides beneath perception, but that makes them unique.  Wittgenstein replaced the essence with the "family of relations."  I then wrote, I think, about the problem with programs in education, such as reading programs or math programs.  I'm not sure that I can make the logical argument but I see the ideas in this post as being related.  The connection comes from taking a mechanical, or technical approach to what I view as an integral experience.  When following a program (planned experiences as external materials?) I think we put some external constant, a definition of what should happen, between ourselves and the meaning of what is happening with our students (all of those individual things existing here and now.)  Not of course that we should teach without plans, but that those plans should grow from the experiences of the group, "by virtue of what has gone before and what is [musically] impinging or prophesied" (p. 191).