Stupid titles...

And all who heard should see them there, and all should cry, Beware! Beware!

His flashing eyes, his floating hair, weave a circle round him thrice,

And close your eyes with holy dread,

For he on honey-dew hath fed, and drunk the milk of paradise.

My question of the day is: why would people close their eyes and be scared if they could tell he drunk the milk of paradise? Does that mean he has come back from the dead and he is a ghost? I unfortunately, missed the Kubla Khan enlightenment class apparently. :(

Is the “phantom-world” the after world?

personally, i prefer sweeter

"Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter."

When I think about life and what happens and things that give us happiness, this statement seems to hold a profound amount of truth. If I were to paraphrase it, I would say that its not what's typical or on the surface thats really important but rather what is rare and meaningful. In this way I think we can, in a sense, classify certain experiences in life as either simply "sweet" or on the contrary "sweeter." With some exceptions, common tourist attractions are very interesting to see and usually make good memories with family and friends. These things that are obvious and well known are "sweet," but if you take some of your closest family and friends and hike for three days to find a massive, beautiful waterfall in the absolute middle of nowhere, miles from any civilization, then I would venture to say that that is the kind of experience we would value far above any simple tourist attraction and that we could easily classify as "sweeter."

I know that seems like a pretty far fetched example, so I'm going to try and put it in more understandable terms. Think of the quote "go not where the path leads, but go where there is no path and leave a trail." I see where the path leads as the heard melody, as a dream or experience that has already been experienced by someone else. On the contrary, where there is no path seems to me like an unheard melody, a journey not taken, or a dream not yet realized. With that, I think its fair to say that the path may very well lead to good things, that it may be "sweet," but also that where there is no path holds far more potential to be amazing and thus, "sweeter."

HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY LOVE (Blog about self reliance.)

"To believe your own thought, to believe what is true for you is true for all men- That is genius!"

I found myself reading this quote over and over again for comprehension and i've just been struck dumbfounded. From what i've learned throughout my life is that if you believe that your beliefs are the same as everyone's beliefs than you are foolish. Not vice versa. I've never been convinced that what I believe is true to everyone. Everyone has their different thought processes. I can't grasp why Emerson would say that thinking what you believe is what everyone believes is genius. every time I read it, it sounds foolish.

Anyone care to explain?

Josh
p.s. have a good fall break. :)

Love and Other Drugs

I too see the connection between drug usage and the ecstatic union that we spoke about in class. But the way I see it, instead of there being this high point and then having it peter out into a bottomless, hopeless pit of dispair in which all there is left to do is die.........I see it more as the high point being this drug/love induced memory, sort of hazy and faded. What makes it so sad is that one who is in love "happy, happy love!" or one who is on drugs, is so intoxicated and inebriated at this point of ecstasy that they cant seem to remember what the high point was. This is the downfall, not the knowledge that they cant ever reach that high point again, but that they cant exactly remember what all it was. This is what makes them want to die, for only then does it become truely unattainable and unachievable. Also, there is a lot of talk of depression coming after the high point of love or the first high off of drugs. But how do you know what depression really is? How do you know you werent depressed before? You did have to reach a high point after all, so whats to say you werent already at a low point?

still wont let me comment so here is my comment on Jamie Kilpatricks post:

I have always loved the fact that some things are left "unfinished". When I was younger it always seemed to leave the rest up to my imagination. I agree comletely when you said : When the work is incomplete, there is no limit to what a person’s mind can make it and to what it can become. It is limitless, boundless not confined to societys ideas or even really our own...it is all kind of up in the air.Although, sometimes it is interesting to think about it from the artists point of view. Maybe they were just too lazy to finish and thought it would be a bit tongue in cheek to leave it that way and let us make up this fantastical reason why they would do it so they dont look bad. Hmmm, I guess we will never really know!

Mrah hah.

It’s interesting to think that after working your way up to this high point of ecstasy or happiness the only thing left is a decline. If I think about it in relation to relationships, like the lovers in Ode on a Grecian Urn, I feel like this concept messes with my idea of what romance is. If it’s inevitable that the relationship will fade into something completely lackluster then why even try? I really wonder what it is that we’re searching for if all we can do is await the breaking point; all we can do is try to convince ourselves the love is still there. I really loved the explanation of that annoying line of “oh happy, happy love” cause reading it was truly annoying, and I like to think it did serve some importance to the poem. But even beyond relationships what’s the point of working your way up to this ecstatic union, or this moment of ecstasy, if all that’s left is to fall (As I typed that The Climb by Miley Cyrus played in my mind.) It seems awfully pessimistic to think that once you reach your happiest point you’ll only lose that happiness, It’s reminds me of the board game Sorry when you make it into safety but get the ‘go back 4’ card and have to move back out onto the board where you’re instantly “Sorry’d” by the player who’s been in home the entire game. And that’s how I feel about it.


Commented on "too bust to title this"

Alien Corn!

This is unrelated to my blog, but related to the title. I literally spent five minutes after Dr. Mitchell said 'Alien Corn' drawing alien corn. Not corn possessed by aliens, but aliens that are ALSO corn. Their leader is known as the A-corn and they have been known to stalk people.

Now that we have that out of the way, let's talk about Kubla Khan. The situation regarding Coleman's aversion to the man reminds me that history always repeats itself. With everything we discussed on the hillside yesterday about how he was against the man and for freeing the mind, it's nearly impossible to miss that the 60's-70's are almost an exact parallel. My question is, if you're using an outside substance to alter your mind, how free are you? You're under the control of whatever hallucinogen you have consumed, as opposed to 'the man'. That doesn't sound like freedom to me. It sounds like the person in question is being oppressed by another outside source that they have willingly chosen to go against the masses. Which, since the masses all chose to follow 'the man', and the other person's decisions are anti-societal, they have no other choice but to delve into some outside source for control. Which means that in a roundabout way, going against the crowd is technically allowing the crowd to make decisions for you. That sounds about right.

So what did we learn today? That drugs are awesome? That hipsters' decisions are actually made by the general masses? History repeats itself? Ben loves wibbley-wobbley-timey-wimey-stuff? All good answers. Tune in next week to read this post again due to fall break.

PS. I commented on: Katelyn Osbourne's "Ecstatic Union and Drugs"

Why Can't I Leave My Paper Half Finished?

Yesterday in class (or technically outside) when Dr. Mitchell was talking about the state of completion of Kubla Khan, I was instantly taken back to middle school. When I was in the 6th grade, my gifted class was doing a study on art, and my teacher was showing the class a painting by some famous artist. (Picasso, maybe? I really don’t remember) This painting was of a young boy, but it was obviously unfinished, and an entire corner of the painting was still a sketch drawing. I immediately asked my teacher why the painting was incomplete, but she only looked at me, smiled, and said that it WAS finished in the artist’s eyes.

I didn’t understand then, and part of my brain still doesn’t understand, why someone would purposely leave something unfinished. At some point today, though, something it hit me. Maybe the purpose in leaving the painting, and Kubla Khan, unfinished was simply to make us wonder. Sure, the painting of the little boy may have been finished the way a person would assume it should be... but on the other hand, the missing leg in the painting COULD have been a mermaid’s tail. When the work is incomplete, there is no limit to what a person’s mind can make it and to what it can become. Or, maybe Coleridge, in an egotistical mindset, just wanted you to be left with the image of himself as the one who "drunk the milk of paridise."

A Happy Place

So this week we talked about poetry by Keats. Ode to a Nightingale stuck out to me the most. In this poem the speaker is in a state of utter numbness. He refers to this numbness as if he has taken some sort of drug. Much like us today, we get lost in our own suffering. Now I can be totally off, but I believe that the nightingale represents our "coming out of the cave". It is like we live in a world where we know nothing of its reality. As we learn about the truth of reality, we begin to wish we could dwell in the state of nothingness due to our own pain. Things that once made us happy then become of no value to us. The nightingale sings a beautiful song. As the speaker hears this song, it sparks a desire of our before happiness! The speaker is somewhat jealous of the happiness of the nightingale. The nightingale is too happy. Just as the speaker envies the nightingale's happiness, he then seeks to leave the world unseen. I believe we have all or will all reach this point of the truth about reality and therefore we are similar to the speaker and desire to leave this place.

ps. i commented on Meghan's post

light bulb...

I think that I finally understand what we've been talking about in class for the past forever. I am curious, however, about what the next enlightenment will be about. If the last one was a transition from Law and Order to a Chaotic order, then where are we headed next? Maybe it will go back to the way it was before. Just like trends cycle throughout the years and things become popular again, maybe the way we think and how we work socially will do the same. Scary.

P.S. I commented on Katelyn Osborne's "Ecstatic Union and Drugs"

Ecstatic Union and Drugs

I keep thinking about ecstatic union and how much it relates to drugs. The first time you take a drug you reach a high, then once it hits its peak, you start to get depressed. The next time you take it, you try desperately to reach the top again, except this time you have to take even more. With experiences in life such as love or excitement, the journey of reaching the peak is the fun part. It just keeps getting better. It's like always imagining how perfect it will be once you reach the top or when fairy tales end with happily ever after. But once you actually get there, it is completely different. Yes, being at the top is amazing, but it doesn't last long. Soon after, is the decent. You start to feel "withdrawal symptoms" and do whatever it takes to once again reach that high.That could mean replaying exactly what you did to get it the first time or pretending that you never left. Everyone does it. Maybe we should just accept that the "mountaintop experience" is over for that period of time and patiently wait for another to come along.

Words

"See to it, friend, that you have not lighted upon those who merely follow, and collect, and rest satisfied with what another has furnished: with them you will never find the spirit of the art: to the discoverers you must go, on whom it surely rests."
This quote by Schleiermacher seems to me to fit perfectly with Honors. I am no longer content to hear something from someone else- I want the source, the "discoverer." We are on a journey to find truth, as the title of this blog conveys, and the only way we can do that is to go to the literature itself and work through what it means. This week that meant picking apart a peice of a poem line by line, word by word. Through this process I learned the importance of words. That sounds silly, but words have so many different meanings when you examine them, and simply the context and time period in which they are said can change the meaning. I had several lightbulb moments when writing my paper, because I would read the word in the poem, then look it up in the dictionary, and see a whole new meaning that tied in a previous idea to the current movement. I know I'm a nerd for getting excited about something like that, but I was just happy it made sense to me and I could expound on it! However, my roommate probably thought I was crazy when I started jumping up and down said "It's the Eye!!!!" Fun times. But thinking back to the importance of words makes me think of the importance of the Word. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1 NIV) How cool is that? Words are what we use to communicate, to understand each other, and to shed light on what is not understood. John 1:4 says, "In him was life, and that life was the light of man." So, the Word (which is God) brings life and light. On a much smaller scale, our language brings life- think how boring and lifeless we would be if we didn't communicate because words are what relationships are built on. When we finally understand something we didn't get before we say the "lightbulb" came on, because we saw what was previously hidden. Anyway, this was just something I had been thinking about...
P.S. commented on Danielle's "too busy to title this"

Too busy to title this.

One thing I’ve definitely agreed with as far as Romantic philosophy goes is the idea of negative capability. When I first read Schleiermacher, I agreed with him perhaps a little too much--only later did I see the downfall in taking his theology as completely correct. Schleiermacher walks a fine line when he criticizes religion for becoming a mere list of doctrines; this is true, but if taken too far it may cause people to throw out the importance of doctrine and biblical interpretation. It becomes easy to ignore things that we don’t like about religion by claiming that it is too restrictive in its doctrines. There’s a delicate balance we have to maintain between order and mystery. We should not attempt to analyze everything until we exhaust it, but should acknowledge the fact that there will still be questions unanswered at the end of the day. It’s ok to remain in that doubt, that uncertainty, as Keats would say. Schleiermacher would agree, and perhaps add that this feeling aids us to realize our complete dependency on God, which leads us to experience redemption. I couldn’t agree more. When it comes to understanding why things happen in this life, or waiting for answers on what will happen, we are asked to live in this ambiguity that could either separate us or draw us nearer to God. It’s a beautiful thing--something I’m trying to appreciate more than dread.

Danielle

Commented on Cameron's 'It's a long way down'

It's a Long Way Down

--------------------------Ecstatic Union----------------------------
-----------------------_------------------_---------------------------
---------------------_---------------------_--------------------------
--------------------_-----------------------_-------------------------
-----------------_---------------------------_------------------------
__________-----------------------------______________
In the last two classes we spent a good bit of time talking about this point of excitement.
Today we spent a little more time on the other side of the hill; the descent. We talked about this side being a gradual event. First with denial, then desparation to try and climb back to that moment. I believe that as soon as you hit that high point, the first knock down is sudden, and probably the worst blow. To me, the realization of never being able to reach that high point again is what sparks this desparation. It comes to the point that we see it's going to be a long way down, that it does not get any better, and that there is no light creeping through the hole in the cave we fell back into.

p.s meghan j

Keats and Coleridge in Narnia!

I love how it seemed everything we discussed today seemed to lead right to Narnia. First there was the description in Ode to a Nightingale:

“Charmed magic casements, opening on the foam
Of perilous seas, in faery lands forlorn.”

The first thing that popped to mind was the picture in Voyage of the Dawn Treader through which Edmund, Lucy, and Eustace enter the Narnian Sea. And to Edmund and Lucy, Narnia was a land they wished to be in, but one that they despaired seeing for a long time. To Eustace, it was a silly fairy tale his childish cousins had made up. Once he had visited and seen for himself the wonders of Narnia though, he too began long for the beautiful, fantastical land.

Kubla Khan seemed to me a Narnia in and of itself. It was a fantastical land, with fantastical inanimate objects, that weren’t so inanimate. Standing on the sidelines today, waiting to call “Beware” to Kubla Khan, I was able to appreciate the fantastical elements of the poem, the magic that was penned. And the fact that every inanimate object, and animate objects, were cast today, made it that much more intriguing.

These two poems make me wonder how much influence the poets had on C.S. Lewis when the Narnia series was penned. Perhaps the line in Ode to a Nightingale was the inspiration behind the picture of a ship that swallows three children whole. Perhaps the landscape in Narnia has its roots in the fantastical land penned by Coleridge. Perhaps they are all completely unrelated and the fact they are so similar is a complete coincidence. I don’t think we’ll ever really know, but it’s a fun thing to mull over.

Now, back to my regularly scheduled programming, procrastinating when I should be writing my paper…

I hope everyone enjoys their Fall Break and come back refreshed and ready to get back to work! Until next time,

~Meghan

P.S. Commented on Danielle's Too Busy to Title This

Blog 6

“Beauty is the mark God sets upon virtue.” “Prophet and priest, David, Isaiah, Jesus, have drawn deeply from this source.” “God never jests with us,” “Nature is made to conspire with spirit to emancipate us.” “The aspect of nature is devout. Like the figure of Jesus, she stands with bended head, and hands folded upon the breast. The happiest man is he who leans from nature the lesson of worship.” “The problem of restoring to the world original and eternal beauty, is solved by the redemption of the soul.”

These are just some of the passages that stood out to me while I was reading. I want to be careful not to make too blanket a statement, but I also want to express some things that ran through my head when I read Emerson’s works. First off, there are things that he expresses very well, you have to give him that. However, while he may express things very well he seems a bit contradictory. What I mean by that, is he seems to mix truths of scripture with things he “believes”. So in essence he is changing the meaning of things. Does that make any sense? I do not agree with some of the things he has said, one being, Jesus as a prophet and priest… I believe Jesus is Christ, Lord, Savior, Son of God etc. This mans theology does not seem to be accurate. It was just an interesting reading this week…

PS - Will D.

Tempus Fugit

My title has absolutely nothing to do with the following. I was merely stating so in light of midterms and the reality of the words in my life at the moment.

"My friends, in these two errors, I think, I find the causes of a decaying church and a wasting unbelief. And what greater calamity can fall upon a nation than the loss of worship? Then all things go to decay. Genius leaves the temple to haunt the senate or the market. Literature becomes frivolous. Science is cold. The eye of youth is not lighted by the hope of other worlds, and age is without honor. Society lives to trifles, and when men die we do not mention them."

As far as I can tell, this is the world as we Christians know it. Worship is dead. Genius leaves the church to join the ranks of her opposers. Literature turns to Stephenie Meyer and her band of vampiric conspirators. Science is confined to itself, no longer allowing question to lead it to further greatness. We youth in general have lost our hope for the nations, contented to watch them fall apart on our TV screen and mock them for it. And who honors their elders; who seeks to know the past?

"Now man is ashamed of himself; he skulks and sneaks through the world, to be tolerated, to be pitied, and scarcely in a thousand years does any man dare to be wise and good, and so draw after him the tears and blessings of his kind. [...] They cannot see in secret; they love to be blind in public. They think society wiser than their soul, and know not that one soul, and their soul, is wiser than the whole world."

My problem with any of this is that the masses do not even know they have a problem; we don't realize we have a problem, until we are introduced to our problem appropriately. I did not realize I was lacking until something I thought I was passionate about was attacked with something foreign--upon the attack I realized I had placed my trust in the secondaries rather than the primary, which according to Emerson is dangerous territory. But how can we introduce this problem to the masses? Am I making sense?

I knew a few people in high school whose daily mantra is: "God is in yourself." Perhaps they adopted this from Emerson; I would not put it past them. I disagree, of course, to an extent. The Holy Spirit is with us because of Christ's intervention. But this does not make us God. Emerson seems to neglect the rest of the story. I think he attacks Christians for taking Christ's words out of context, but I believe he is equally as guilty. I do not see in Christ an estimate for the greatness of man, for Christ while He dwelled on earth was wholly man and wholly God.

COMMENTED ON WILL'S

P.S. Feel free to destroy everything I just said. I am mindlessly ranting; welcome to midterms.

Kant

Thursday's class was rather intriguing to say the least. Covering Kant, Descartes, Locke, and Schleiermacher all in one day can be quite a roller coaster.

Now, in dealing with Kant, and how he merged empiricists' and rationalists' views, I've noticed it very necessary to try to understand the intentions of the author. There are a few times I've admired Kant for his apologetics. I am afraid, however, that he holds the human logic too highly. I noticed this especially with his Categorical Imperative philosophy. In summary, this philosophy is that morality and all moral choices should be based on the thought that, "If this action I am about to take were performed on a universal level, would it maintain order?" or, "If everyone performed this, what would happen to society." As Dr. Olsen stated, "I want to cut in line, but what if it were made a rule that everyone could cut in line? What would happen after that rule?"

I have problems with this philosophy because of two ideas:

1) The idea Mashburn wrestles with is true: the gods love something because it is good (as opposed to the idea that something is good because the gods love it)

2) The survival of society is the most important thing

In rebuttal to idea 1: Kant's philosophy reinforces the theory that God acts a certain way because there is an intrinsically good set of laws in the universe that are not established by God. This, therefore, means that God is controlled by something other than Himself, which in turn makes Him limited, destroying His sovereignty.

In rebuttal to idea 2: If society were the most important thing, Swift's ideas and plans regarding the avoidance of economy collapse by killing babies and using them as supplies and food is a perfectly acceptable. This, of course, would save the society as a whole. But who is willing to step up and say that the murder of babies is acceptable, other than the hit men who work in abortion clinics.

I agree with Kant that there is an existence of morality, but to say that this morality can be found with this philosophy sounds more like an oversimplified way of keeping children who have grown up in line. It is a good way to conserve order, but not to define morality. Loving God and loving people should be the first two criteria in finding morality. Because God is the author of morality, moral obedience falls into place after these two issues are addressed.

Ad augusta per angusta,

Will Drake