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

La Belle Dame sans Merci

        I found this poem my favorite out of Keat's poetry. I know we haven't discussed this, but I was hoping maybe I could.

This poem was very romantic and saddening, in my opinion, just at first glance. You find a brave knight at arms who is pale and sad. When he asked why he still at arms, when the war is over, why is he so sad; you find the romantic tale.

The knight goes on to tale of how he was out riding when a fair maiden of wild beauty met him in the meadows. It tells of their love for each other(or so you think). Then the maiden of beauty lolls the knight to sleep. When he has a dream, no he has a nightmare. He sees(from my impression) all of the fair maiden's past lovers. Princes, kings, all pale and death-like staring at him warning him of something, all still in love with the fair maiden.

our brave knight awakes on the cold hill's side to find himself alone, and there he stays pale and sad.

Though I know this is just mostly surface reading, I'm hoping to re-read it and find the hidden meaning. And I know 'tis is very late for me to be posting. Hopefully I will be given some grace, if not I guess I'll use one of my passes.

Anyways I commented on Tori's post

Aye.

Poetry truly is the language of God; it is beautiful, infinitely packed with meaning, constantly revealing new things the more we read it. Words are so powerful, yet we underestimate words’ impact and the weight they carry. Perhaps this is cliche, but I believe it’s biblical, for John said “In the beginning was the Word.” I’ve been reading through John recently, and it just fascinates me that for whatever mysterious, marvelous reason, Jesus is specifically called the Word. From the short life I’ve lived, I have some how wound up at the conclusion that words are of utmost importance--like they were meant to be a sort of extension of the soul. So a poem, a composition of many words, is in a way divine because it contains so much complexity and a sense of immortality.

However complex these poems may seem upon the first read, I find the more we delve into them the deeper they resonate with something within me.

For I have learned

To look on nature, not as in the hour

Of thoughtless youth; but hearing oftentimes

The still, sad music of humanity,

Nor harsh nor grating, though of ample power

To chasten and subdue.

There’s more to understanding this life than just mere logic and formulated responses. Sometimes understanding comes in the form of something much darker and far more intricate. I think the Romantics got that because they knew the nature of the soul. The soul is critical. Why is it that we neglect it?

So basically, everything we’ve been talking about in class for the last few days, my soul gives a hearty ‘Aye!’ to.

I commented on Kelsey Parrish's blog about the Nightingale.

URN't you glad to see me?

*pun*

Due to mandatory theatre workshops this week, I haven't been able to come to class. However, I did get a chance to actually read the material beforehand this week! Yay for doing things that are expected of you? Anyway, I digress.

I want to talk about the 'Ode to a Grecian Urn' in this blog. After the initial read-through I said to myself, "What did I just read?", so I read it again. After the second read through I was slightly confused, as my brain wanted to interpret the poem in two different ways.

The first of which is that all of the artwork represents eternal things. The love of the youth under the tree, the growth of the tree, etc. are all memories that symbolize the different aspects of the deceased person inside the urn so that they can be remembered, and will last forever.

The second of which is that all of the artwork on the urn is frozen in time. The lovers are close, but can never kiss. The tree will never grow fruit, the instruments will never play and the sacrifice will never take place. All of this could represent how no matter what is going on when a person dies, everything stops. You can't kiss your lover when you're dead, just like you cannot sacrifice a cow when you're dead. When your life ends, so does your possibility of action.

I'm not sure which meaning was intended, or if any of this was discussed in class, but I thought I'd share my thoughts.

So, what did we learn today? Always make a fanfare out of doing the work that's expected of you? Always read poetry at least twice? Urns are cool? All good answers. Tune in next week for your regularly scheduled broadcast of 'The Procrastinator' ...eventually….

P.S. I commented on Nick's

Unheard Melodies

“Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard

Are sweeter; therefore, ye soft pipes, play on;

Not to the sensual ear, but, more endeared,

Pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone...”

As a musician, I started thinking about this a lot after we began discussing this section of Keats’ text Tuesday. I began to think about all the things that were said in class. I want to echo some of the things that were said and interject some other things. When we hear music that has been published and over played, we can become desensitized to it just like we pointed out how Voltaire showed us that we can become desensitized to the bad things that go on around us.

I don’t know many people who don’t enjoy music of some type, but we change what we like when something new comes out. As music gets old, it becomes less “sweet” to our ears. Essentially, once music is out for people to hear, that piece can’t be changed, and it begins that downward spiral. Therefore, the only music that stays sweet is the music that is never commercialized. Just like Lucy said in class, some of my favorite music is music that I have written, but never shared with anyone. This is mainly true because it still has all the meaning to it that I have held onto.

Whether or not that was Keats’ original intent, that seems like a great application for today.

P.S. I commented on Cameron White’s “The Next Moment.”

I have no idea what I'm talking about but I tried...

Fair youth, beneath the trees, thou canst not leave
Thy song, not ever can those trees be ate;
Bold lover, never, never cast thou kiss,
Though winning near the goal – yet, do not grieve;
She cannot fade, though thou hast not thy bliss,
For ever wilt thou love, and she be fair!

Dr. Mitchel told us to think about these lines of poetry and whether they relate to Heaven or Hell. Well, the way I see it is that this particular picture on the urn is portraying that pivotal moment right before the first kiss. I think the great “heavenly” part to this picture is just the passion and youth behind it. The fact that they are frozen in such love depicts the timelessness that is shown throughout the poem. However, it also has a little bit of “Hell” in it where they can never kiss even though they are so close! So, in a way they are suffering. I gotta say that I honestly don’t know which one it is but I’m leaning toward Heaven because of how even though it seems as if they are suffering, it’s really only for the glory of the urn (God).

All Dogs Go to Paradise

"Many years ago when an adored dog died, a great friend, a bishop, said to me, "You must always remember that, as far as the Bible is concerned, God only threw the humans out of Paradise." -Unknown

It is certainly interesting that Wordsworth's hermetic hero describes himself in his youthful days as a labrador, because it certainly brings up a lot of interesting connotations. Joyous, simple, laughing, happy, and overall content with his lot in life. Wordsworth is naturally going for these words because it'll make all the more sense when he is knocked out of his labrador phase and into consciousness. Life, pain, but moreover the prescence of God's reality in his life awakens him to a new form of awareness where he ultimately realizes it is better to live not in constant joy and bliss, like a dog, nor is it better to constantly be weighed down by the burdens of life. No, the best thing is a combination of the two, where he is rooted in reality and pragmaticism but has joy akin to that of a puppy dog, all tied intogether with the knowledge of God's truth.

That's not good enough for me, though, because if Wordsworth wants to compare himself to a puppy dog, I'd like to compare the whole thing to Paradise Lost. The story goes that Adam and Eve were perfectly happy and blissful in Paradise, until they sinned and were banished from the Garden into the wilderness. The problem is, instead of finding truth, they actually ruin truth forever by staining it with sin. Instead of living in a true awareness of who they are and who God made them to be, they destroy the beauty God had planned and stain their lives and the rest of the world with evil. What was once a complete, logical world becomes completely wrong and illogical, and the rest is history.

Of course, and we discussed this in class last year, just because Adam and Eve were living in Paradise in complete innocence does mean they were nothing but mindless labradors. They lived in full consciousness of who they were, the order of the world, and knowledge of the prescence of God. Sinning simply meant that confusion entered their lives and they lost sight of who they were meant to be. Wordsworth, however, states it was after the fall of innocence that he gained true recognition of himself, so who is right? Who can truly say? I just find it interesting that two seemingly unrelated writers could parallel, yet opposite ground, and it all has to do with labradors!

Anyway, that's my blog, feel free to comment with praise or poison, either works. Thanks for reading! BTW, my blog post is on Bethan Morgan's Kubla Kahn's Kibbles and bits.

I can see what you mean by the woman's impassioned longing for what is essentially Satanic. Things suddenly get really dark, really quick, and I can almost see a gothic, vampiric scene taking place. No, not Twilight, but more like Dracula in that the woman has an intense lust for her temptation that she should be avoiding, but embraces it anyway and loses herself in it. The big kicker, though, is that it's not an ordinary force of nature but a man-made disaster like a dirty bomb or a dam demolishing, which only makes it all the more evil. Good observation!

Schleiermacher's got beef with the French...

"For other reasons I turn from the French. On them, one who honours religion can hardly endure to look, for in every act and almost in every word, they tread its holiest ordinances under foot."

First of all I just want to say that I definitely didn't understand a whole lot of what Schleiermacher said, so this may just be completely ignorant to what he was actually trying to say, I hope not, but just in case, consider yourself warned.

When I first read this part I almost laughed because I thought he was going to make a joke or some metaphor or something. The last thing I expected was a very enthusiastic and in depth explanation of why he actually doesn't like french people. I couldn't help but thinking that this whole paragraph wasn't really a christian mindset for a guy making a ridiculously long speech about religion.

Matthew 9:36 "But when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd."

Something that organized religion has always had a hard time of doing is meeting people where they are. Far too often, we as christians will pass judgement on other people before so much as meeting them. And in doing so, we immediately abandon any semblance of a Christ like mindset. This is an extremely challenging practice to take hold of. However, we also have to realize the importance of doing so in order to be able to meet people where they are. Whenever I don't know how to handle certain situations with my non-christian friends, its always an extremely challenging thing for me to realize that Jesus was friends with the worst of the worst in his society. He lived his entire life absolutely contrary to societies judgements and preconceived notions about people.

While the Schleiermacher reading was much longer than I had anticipated, it had some great stuff in it. Personally the part I thought the most interesting was the discussion of two opposing natures; that of the soul and of sinful desire ("insatiable sensuality"). "Swinging eternally between desire and enjoyment, such persons never get beyond consciousness of the individual,.." This line really sums up, for me, the sickness indwelling in all of us. We spend so much time trying to fix the problems of the world when in all reality the problem is our self-absorption, these global problems are just effects of a greater cause. What we seem to be afraid of is the realization that, "I am the problem." Such a simple realization but with so many implications.

p.s. commented on Susan Berner's post

Forever Young

The Ode to the Garden Urn is truly a fantastic and creative piece. The writers way of personifying the picture on the urn are the work of a truly talented poet. The poem makes known that because these subjects are portrayed on the urn they have become timeless. In what ways are timeless images displayed in a positive way and in what way are images like these that are made timeless negative? Is this even possible. Take for example a picture of a new family. This would seem to be an awfully good memory of the family at a nice Sunday picnic. One would think this would be a memory to last forever... Just by glancing at the picture one may begin to envy this seemingly perfect family. But, what this timeless picture does not tell you is that the 10 minutes after this photo was taken the man receives a phone call from a friend who confesses his 4 year affair with the man's wife. Not such a happy memory now. This awful memory becomes timeless, but it a horribly negative way. Does this effect anything? Does this make the memory less valid? Take the lovers in on the urn. Caught in the middle of a kiss. Forever longing each other, never to know the disappointment of a bad kiss or the hurt of a break up. They are forever in between. I think that is the only way a timeless picture can be completely positive.... when the action caught in time is perhaps in the making but has not been completed... I'd like to know what you think about this.

commented on Rachel's- as always. :)

Loss of what to say...

So I'm basically sitting here searching for what to say. Of all the things that I read, I liked Kubla Khan the most, but even then I didn't really "pull much from it". I'm personally not a fan of Coleridge. His writing doesn't really appeal to me. I would have loved to have read some of Percy Bysshe Shelley or Lord Byron. Their writing is more structured and organized. To me Coleridge is the ramblings of someone whose high. Oh wait... Didn't he write Kubla Khan after coming out of a moment when he's high? Funny how that works. I hope this works for a post. I know its not the best ever, but its the best that I can do right now.

P.S.-- I commented on "Kubla Khan Kibbles" by Bethan Morgans

VIII

Discloser: (This is my personally interpretation and is not to be taken seriously, because I know that I'm totally missing the point that Coleridge is trying to make. READ AT YOUR OWN RISK.)

I think that the woman that he is talking about is a close friend of his that has gone out on a limb and made her true feelings for him known. However, Coleridge politely and respectively tells her that he just wants to be friends without crushing her heart into a million pieces. Unfortunately her feelings still get hurt and she runs off. So now he is writing this poem to express his hopes and wishes for her to be happy again and not be depressed and gloomy all the time. In the poem he asks sleep to visit her and let her rest because I'm sure she's spent the whole night up crying her eyes out so far. Then he wishes for her to be happy again and for things to be the way they once were and for her heart to mended. This all expresses how much her truly cares for her, even if it is as a sister or something like that. I would hate to be in the situation that he was in.

-Samuel A. Oliver

P.S. I commented on Susan Berners. Bright Star, Brighter Flame

Bright Stars, Brighter Flame

While I love the idea of Keats’ poem “Bright Star”, I am not sure if I completely agree. I don’t know anyone who at first thought would say that they would not want a love as constant and burning as a star like what Keats mentions in his poem. However, I believe that the best part about being in a relationship is the way that it is always changing as the years go on. I would not want my love for a boyfriend or even husband to just stay at one place all of our lives. I want to have little fights so we can make up and be even more in love than before, or go through trials and come out stronger than before. If everything was perfect all the time and there was no passion life would be boring. I want to be in love with the same person for the rest of my life, but I want us to grow and mature and constantly love each other more every day. I think I would rather be like a flame that just keeps getting brighter and more powerful the more time and care is put into it.

-Susan Berner

P.S. I commented on Anna (Nightingale)

Kubla Khan

The one part that popped out to me was the woman and her demon lover. That was kind of freaky. Most of Kubla Khan kind of confused me. But the place Kubla Khan is sounds pretty nice. However, all I got from the poem was how it shows off creativity by creating this world.

"Where Alph, the sacred river, ran

Through caverns measueless to man...

The shadow of the dome of pleasure

Floated midway on the waves...

It was an Abyssian maid

And on her dulcimer she played,

Singing of Mount Abora"

By creating such a crazy world from the dream, it allows readers to be creative in their thinking as well.

PS.Tori Burger "Two young lovers painted on an Urn..."