A) Since ancient times, several schemes have attempted to classify sciences. Some of these have been presented in the form of “trees”. Others have appeared in the form of tables.

The Greeks and the Orientals knew these forms and used them to teach how one science originated others and, at the same time, how all of them were inter-connected. The Western Middle Ages knew limited classifications and tended to discard sciences that had already emerged in previous times. The work undertaken by the Encyclopedists intended to give a coherent idea of the relationship between the sciences (which at the time had considerably expanded) and at the same time compiled and synthesised the current knowledge.

Presently, epistemologists work hard to establish relations and differences amongst sciences. We are going to present the present state of sciences in an enunciation mode, leaving aside the problems of classification.

In the first place we are interested to understand what we call “scientific background”.

The background, of course, cannot be considered as a science. It has never been taken into account for it is the base upon which the sciences of an epoch are developed. The background is the system of epochal, cultural assumptions and, although never observed, it is however the undercurrent upon which the scientific “image of the world” is constructed.

After considering the ‘background’ let us enunciate the sciences that, in our understanding, have today the greatest importance.

• Firstly, the Mathematical sciences.
• Then, Physics ... without distinctions between Theoretical Physics or Pure Physics and, Applied Physics with all its diverse branches.
• Further on we place Biology, also without distinction between human, animal and plant Biology.
• Let us now consider the Control Sciences, i.e. Cybernetics, Ecology, Genetics, etc.
• The Inter-sciences, i.e. Astrophysics, Biological Chemistry, Team Sciences (Multidisciplinary), Archaeology, Meteorology, etc.
• Then, Human Sciences, i.e. Psychology, Law, Sociology, Anthropology, Ethics and Aesthetics (these latter as branches of a sort of General Philosophy, nowadays of little importance and with undefined boundaries).
• Next, Space Sciences, i.e. Astronomy, General Geography, etc. Lastly, Time Sciences, i.e. General History, Historiology, Prospective, Futurology, etc.

B) Schematically, and from our point of view, the present state of the arts is as follows:

• An aesthetic background that corresponds to the Arts in the same way as a scientific background corresponds to the sciences.
• Firstly, we consider Music.
• Then, Painting.
• Afterwards, Dance.
• Later, the Control Arts. We understand as such the arts with or related to ideological objectives (economical, political, and religious). Any art, thus seen, takes for us the name of ‘Control Arts’. There are on this, many examples. Their main expression is through the mass media.
• Then we consider the Inter-arts, i.e. Architecture, Team Arts, etc.
• Then, Representation Arts.
• Then, Sculpture.
• We finalise with Poetry.

The enunciation of the Crafts is very large but in order to complete our general perspective, it is important to add that there is also a technical or craft background; a system of Control Crafts and numerous tools of Inter-Crafts.

Relation between sciences, arts, crafts and The School

Sciences in general have the function to accumulate, clarify and, develop knowledge. The Arts, the function to socially interpret and transmit emotional intuitions about reality. Finally, the Crafts have the function to ordain, purify and perfect techniques, sometimes related to sciences, sometimes related to arts.

The scientific crafts constitute activities called ‘techniques’. The artistic crafts are usually considered as crafts. An electrician works with a craft of the scientific type and such worker is conventionally called a ‘technician’; a goldsmith is considered as a craftsman, probably due to the acceptance of a traditional classification line. Now then, within the School, the traditional divisions between sciences, arts and crafts do not exist. In fact, there are only differences between what is called “Disciplines” and what is called “Crafts”.

The disciplines are different from conventional sciences in that they do not have as objective to accumulate or to develop knowledge, but rather to produce direct transformations in the operator that works with them. It may be said that also science transforms the operator and this is so, indeed. However, the transformations produced by science in the world and in mankind manifest through technologies and these are indirect transformations. An important distinction on the transformative action of the disciplines is that they are related to the essential change in man, whilst sciences and techniques only change the human being periferally. The classification of the Disciplines of the School is as follow:

• Morphologic Discipline: produces transformation by the action of Forms.
• Transcendental Discipline: transforms through the action of the Mind.
• Yoga Discipline: transforms through the body itself.
• Alchemical Discipline: utilises external elements to produce the essential transformation.

There exist these four and only these four possible Disciplines. One can act through the forms, or through the mind, or through the body or through external objects.

Besides, the work with the Disciplines progressively incorporates wisdom and science into the operator. But that science and knowledge develops as a consequence of the Work, not the other way around. Moreover, in the Disciplinary work the goal is not scientific but the transformation of the operator. The intention is not in the production of a specific type of transformation that could be anticipated before the beginning of the Work... such a thing would be improper and contradictory. On the other hand, the Disciplines do not produce a temporary change in the operator, as is the case, for instance, with the conventional arts.

Finally, the Disciplines are not fixed techniques for change but rather process guidelines determined in each case by the previous steps, by the development of the operator. To consider a Discipline from a technical point of view is to distort the idea of process.

Regarding Crafts, from the point of view of the School, they have as function to create conditions of permanence, exactness and, neatness in the operator. The character of the School’s Crafts is educational and technical, and of course, not only technical.

The Crafts can be learnt and their techniques can be developed whilst within the operator a right, correct attitude and a precise ‘tone’ towards the Work develops.

The Disciplines are not learnt; they are re-created in their practice, the correct treatment of the problems that are encountered at each step, being of paramount importance. His work modality and problem solving measure the progress or level of the operator of a Craft. The range of questions that arise at each step measures the operator of a Discipline.

The teaching of Crafts and Disciplines is personal, but whilst in the former the education of the operator is oriented technically, in the latter the processes are explained, limiting who explains to correcting deviations that may occur in the sciences of this work.

To finish comparisons between these two activities, let us underline once more that the Craft educates, prepares and is condition of the Discipline. On the other hand, the Discipline transforms, and re-creates itself in the Work of the operator.

The School considers as Crafts not only the conventional ones but also almost all the traditional arts providing that the Work with them corresponds to the intentions enunciated above. Therefore, excellent gardeners, engravers, or perfumists do not necessarily have the School education nor the working ‘tone’, but only the external operational techniques.

To speak of ‘schools’ of crafts is a frequent mistake that arises from considering the schools as separate entities, without understanding that they only represent branches or orders of the same School. Such orders appear different only due to the preferences of their Instructors rather than for their particular Work. In that sense, there can be observed in different epochs and places the manifestation of symbolic, mentalist, devotional, etc. ‘schools’ that specialise in characteristic crafts and in only one of the known disciplines.

Now, let us re-group the numerous crafts in four large branches and let us say that:

• Symbology and Iconography direct towards the Morphological Discipline.
• The Representation Crafts (that are used to ‘represent’ and to work upon the mechanisms of conscience) lead towards the Transcendental Discipline.
• The Ritual Crafts, towards the Yoga Discipline.
• Spagyry and Natural Medicine, towards Alchemy Discipline.

Now then, a single subject or object can be treated in a symbolic sense, or representational, or ritual or spagyric sense. Therefore, the crafts do not appear defined by the subjects or objects of work but rather by the function that those objects are intended to accomplish. Equally it can be observed that some crafts are more linked to activities than to physical objects, as is the case for instance of the so called martial arts, or dance, where the activities can take the character of any of the crafts of the four branches. In the case of Dance, this can have a gymnastic sense that corresponds very well to craft practices known as ‘Natural Medicine’. However, one can also dance with ritual sense or with representation sense, where the concern of the operator whilst dancing is to attend to some mental excersises to trigger some unusual mechanisms of consciousness. Finally, one can dance with a strict symbolic sense making reference to phenomena the understanding of which is only of a morphological type.

Nonetheless, let us simplify all the previous explanations by saying that we consider as main crafts Symbology and Iconography, Ludism, Perfumery and Ritual Decoration, Spagyry and Natural Medicine. Many other crafts are taken into account, but the aforementioned are enough when working with a qualified instructor, to start building up the ‘tone’ in preparation for the corresponding discipline.