Had I not saved my WordPress info here, I could never remember how to log in. Thank you Clipperz.com !!!

When we dwell as pedestrians in a land, we behold the scenery from the most intimate detail and perspective, but that very closeness and intimacy in perspective prevents us from seeing symmetry, intention and design on a grander scale, bearing profounder implications. If we ascend to a mountain peak, we lose discernment of much of the finer details, but we can begin to recognize the “lay of the land” and its geography. From an orbiting space station, we can perceive global structure. And from vantage point of another galaxy, we may comprehend cosmic design.

When we seek Divine intention, design, laws, and principles in Nature, we consider NUMBER to be the highest authority of truth. We seek mathematical certainty. Mathematical proof is the hallmark of modern science.

The Bible also associated “wisdom” with “number”. We find “wisdom” and “number” mentioned together in three verses of the King James Bible:

Job 38:37 Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven,

Psalms 90:12 So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom.

Revelation 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

In Job, it is our inability to number and measure creation which exhorts us to humility and surrender to the Divine Will.

In the Psalms, it is the measure of our temporal finitude which gives us pause for the reflection which leads to wisdom.

In the Book of Revelation, it is a precise number which reveals to us that person who is an embodiment of evil.

We never find “wisdom” and “measure” mentioned in the same verse in the Bible, not even in the Books of Apocrypha. Measure is a human activity and not a Divine activity.

We first encounter the word “measure” conjunction with “cubit” in Exodus 26:2 “The length of one curtain shall be eight and twenty cubits, and the breadth of one curtain four cubits: and every one of the curtains shall have one measure.” When King Solomon is in the act of consecrating the newly finished Temple, he suddenly exclaims: 1 Kings 8:27 “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded? ”

A “cubit” is the length of a man’s forearm, which is subjective and variable, not objective, absolute and unchanging.

In Hebrew, cubit is ‘ammah; i.e., “mother of the arm,” the fore-arm, is a word derived from the Latin cubitus, the lower arm. It is difficult to determine the exact length of this measure, from the uncertainty whether it included the entire length from the elbow to the tip of the longest finger, or only from the elbow to the root of the hand at the wrist. The probability is that the longer was the original cubit. The common computation as to the length of the cubit makes it 20.24 inches for the ordinary cubit, and 21.888 inches for the sacred one. This is the same as the Egyptian measurements. A rod or staff the measure of a cubit is called in Judg. 3:16 _gomed_, which literally means a “cut,” something “cut off.” The lxx. and Vulgate render it “span.”

The earliest mention of “measure” is in conjunction with the precise instructions for building the Tabernacle: Exodus 26:2 The length of one curtain shall be eight and twenty cubits, and the breadth of one curtain four cubits: and every one of the curtains shall have one measure.

The third mention of “measure” occurs together with the first appearance of the word “unrighteousness” in relation to dishonesty in trade: leviticus 19:35 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.

Mathematicians consider “Number Theory” to be the Queen of all Mathematics. Number Theory deals with such properties of number as Odd or Even, Perfect numbers (which are the sum of their prime factors), and with such properties as “excess” and “deficiency” in multiplication.

The number Nine is a number with several very interesting properties. Nine is a Trinity of Trinities, in the sense that it contains the number three thrice times. In a Greek Orthodox liturgy, the priest or deacon will incense a Bishop NINE times, but the icon of Christ only three times because the Bishop, when vested and serving in his sacerdotal capacity, is considered to be the “Living Icon” of Christ.

Hindus consider NINE to be a divine number, because it may interact with any other number in multiplication, and yet somehow, retain its identity. Two times Nine equals 18, and 1 + 8 = 9. Three times Nine equals 27, and 2+7 = 9. Four times Nine equals 36, and 3 + 6 = 9. So Nine is perfect in this respect, whereas the other numbers are sometimes “excessive” in this respect and other times “deficient”. Two times Seven equals 14, and 1+4=5. Three times Seven equals 21, and 2+1=3. Therefore Seven is deficient in these equations. Three times Five equals 15, and 1+5 = 6. Five times Five equals 25, and 2+5=8. Number Five is excessive in these equations.

If you look at all the sacred scriptures of all the Religions, you will discover that there are only certain sentences or phrases in which is a WHOLE WORLD OF THEOLOGY.

For example, Mother Theresa put Christ’s final words from the Cross, “I thirst”, on her convent wall.

John 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, “I thirst”.

How many times in our lives might we read this verse, and pass it by, not seeing the entire world hidden in two words?

A world hidden in a word is a pearl hidden in a field.

Hidden, amidst all the other verses of the Gospels, “out of context”, is something which opens up a whole world in the mind.

In a certain way, the very nature of our thought processes, is a non-sequitur. Hence, structure and form in writing is, in a sense, illusion, or maya. But we come to think of that ordered “structure” as the nature of reality.

Regarding the “I Thirst” of Mother Theresa, Jallaladin Rumi once said, “Do not seek water, for water is EVERYWHERE! Seek THIRST!” For without the THIRST the water is of no value to you.

In the Psalms, “O Lord, I have thirsted after Thee like a deer in a waterless land.”

I have written the preceding as a prelude to the consideration of the motif of “hunger” and “thirst” in the Scriptures.

It is most curious that there are a total of NINE verses in the entire King James Version which mention “hunger” and “thirst” in the same verse. The word “hunger” always appears first, followed by the word “thirst”.

It is significant that the word hunger should always appear first in these verses. We know that thirst will afflict us much sooner than hunger, and the pangs of thirst are far more intense and severe than hunger pangs. We can endure a much longer period of time without food than we can without fluids. Why is it that Hunger is always mentioned first, and not Thirst? Perhaps “thirst and hunger” is the human order, whereas “hunger and thirst” is the Divine order.

The word “hunger” makes its first appearance in Scriptures (Exodus 16:3) PRIOR TO the first appearance of the word “thirst” (Exodus 17:3 ).

This same consistent word order may be observed in the Apocrypha as well; “hunger” always precedes “thirst”. In the Apocrypha, we also find this most unusual verse: 2 esdras 15:58 “They that be in the mountains shall die of hunger, and eat their own flesh, and drink their own blood, for very hunger of bread, and thirst of water.” We may see in this verse the beginnings of the imagery of the Eucharist.

Because NINE is an ODD number (rather than an EVEN number), there is a mid-most verse, the FIFTH of the verses: 5.) John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Indeed, this is a most central verse, portraying Jesus as the Bread of Life and the Living Waters.

The first occurance of hunger, (which appears BEFORE the first occurance of THIRST), Exodus 16:3 “And the children of israel said unto them, Would to God we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots, and when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger.

The first occurance of thirst, which inspires murmuring against Moses and God: Exodus 17:3 “And the people thirsted there for water; and the people murmured against Moses, and said, Wherefore is this that thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst? ”

We see here the totally Human aspect of hunger and thirst, the fallen nature of humanity, driven by appetites and desires.

The second occurance of “hunger and thirst” is 2.) Nehemiah 9:15 “And gavest them bread from heaven for their hunger, and broughtest forth water for them out of the rock for their thirst, and promisedst them that they should go in to possess the land which thou hadst sworn to give them.”

This is the totally Divine aspect of God, who provides food and drink, and sustains all creatures.

The third occurance of “hunger and thirst” is 3.) Isaiah 49:10 “They shall not hunger nor thirst; neither shall the heat nor sun smite them: for he that hath mercy on them shall lead them, even by the springs of water shall he guide them.”

Here we see a prefiguring of the Book of Revelation, the New Heaven and New Earth, where there are no more tears, no more hunger or thirst or desire.

The fourth occurance is 4.) matthew 5:6 “Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.”

We see a UNIFICATION of hunger and thirst as ONE, no longer two, and the object of the desire is no longer physical food and water, but Righteousness. But what or Who is that Righteousness?

The fifth occurance is 5.) John 6:35 “And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”

Remember that this is the MIDDLE-MOST of the nine verses, about which the other eight verses are symmetrically balanced. This verse answers our previous question “Who is that righteousness for which the blessed hunger and thirst.”

We may note that at the Last Supper, or Mystical Supper, the Institution of the Eucharist, Christ offers the broken bread FIRST, and afterwards the Cup. It is logical that the Bread or Body must be broken first, before there is Blood.

The sixth occurance of “hunger and thirst” is 6.) Romans 12:20 “Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.”

This is the fulfillment of seeing the Divine Image of God in all others, even enemies. And it is We, the Mother Theresa, who now assume the role of the God-Man Christ, as we minister unto our enemies and are perhaps rent asunder, bleeding. St. athanasius said “God became man, so that Man might become God”.

The seventh occurance of “hunger and thirst” is 7.) 1 Corinthians 4:11 “Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place”, which is the Disciples/Apostles in “imitation of Christ”, taking up their cross.

The eight occurance is 8.) 2 Corinthians 11:27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.

The ninth occurance is 9.) Revelation 7:16 “They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.”. Here we see that time and space, heaven and earth, pass away, and all souls dwell in the very fabric of God, which now becomes their space, light, raiment, sustenance and all things. These souls dwell in “the bosom of abraham”.

The verses ‘The Kingdom of God is WITHIN’ and ‘in my Father’s house are many mansions’ are thought provoking verses. I recently learned that it may also be translated “the kingdom of heaven is AMONG you” , which has very different implications.

If we look at the Book of Revelation, in the chapters surrounding ch. 10…. (where it says…’God shall wipe away every tear’)…. we see that THERE SHALL BE TIME NO LONGER (CH 10, verse 6), and “heavens and earth shall be rolled up as a scroll” (no more SPACE).

So, time and space ceases, and God becomes raiment, light, air, food, etc. An image which is faithful to St. Paul’s words, “..in HIM we live and move and have our being–Acts 17:28” and, Acts 17: 27 “That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us.”

This passage, Ch. 10:6 in Revelation, depicts time and space itself passing away, and all dwell WITHIN God, within the “fabric of God” so to speak.

We do see in the parable of lazarus and the rich man that Lazarus is “in the bosom of Abraham”, which is metaphorical, but supports the notion of what is described in Revelation

What is interesting is that Christianity condemns notions of Pantheism, that God IS the universe; yet in the final analysis, based on what the Book of Revelation describes, God literally BECOMES the Universe, once the Universe passes away.

In light of the above understanding of Revelation, it would seem that the “many mansions” are WITHIN God Himself.

(a reader’s reply):

Interesting study! Indeed

John 4,10

10. Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knowest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

11. The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep; from whence then hast thou that living water?

12. Art thou greater than our father jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?

13. Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:

14. But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. (!)

I have come across a nine pointed form of star. It could be called a master blueprint.

The Seal of Solomon (six pointed star) is said to be all time and space.

Is not the manifest universe a great cycle arising out of the Source? Is not this cycle eternal? Who could count the number of mansions within Gods creation?

William: I have spent countless hours fine tuning my Ubuntu 10.4 LTS (long term support). I know it will have support for another year or two which is obviously why they call it LTS. But I am wondering IF there is any way to back up or extract all the tweaks and installations so that when it becomes unavoidably necessary to upgrade then I will not have to install everything from scratch. I realize that the more I have in “the cloud” in places like Google then such things do not have to be reinstalled but are simply always there and available through a browser.

I suppose if Ubuntu perfects some type of update in place, sort of an upgrade, then re-installation would not be necessary. Someone remarked that upgrades in place are less reliable/advisable than doing a fresh install.

Is there in fact some way to export all the installs and configurations and tweaks and then reapply them to a new Ubuntu install.

I pity the people who do not choose LTS for they must be reinstalling everything every six months. On the other hand power Linux users seem to enjoy installing new things. Thanks for any advice!

Mike: Following the upgrade path inside Ubuntu isn’t so bad. The admonition for fresh install has historical merit, but since 9.x most of the bugs have been worked out.

In fact, I’d suggest staying on the upgrade path only after trying the live CD of the newer version; make sure it looks right for you. 11.04 introduced some video changes, along with Unity, that my older system didn’t like. Off came Unity, back to Gnome.

William: That is great news. I did just search youtube and found a demo of AptToCD which can back up a list of all installed applications. The only weird thing is that when you go to restore/install, the last part is not so automat…ic and you must to into TERMINAL and enter some obscure commands. Doing that sort of thing makes me nervous. Someone on Google Plus could not understand WHY I would want to take a Windows machine and make it all Ubuntu. He thought I should leave a Windows partition. I explained why I loathe and despise Microsoft and would prefer to find a way to live life using only Ubuntu and open source. The main thing is that I dont have the money or the skills to reinstall Windows or have an install disk. Yesterday I was able to install WINE and then install Windows Quicken 2005 and it seems to work fine. I was also able to run a Windows Chinese Pinyin Tone program which is simply an .EXE which is not “installed” but that also worked fine.

That might be APTONCD because that is what I found in the synaptic manager.

https://aptoncd.sourceforge.net/

Ok, here is the crap you have to type in TERMINAL to finish a restore. I guess it is not TOO bad.

The .deb packages will be copied to /var/cache/apt/archives. Now you can install them running this command in a Terminal:

sudo dpkg -i /var/cache/apt/archives/*.deb

Yes it is fun to learn Ubuntu and see things actually WORK. Yes, I would like to escape from the tyranny of proprietary software and into the world of open source. I breathe a sigh of relief when you give me hope that upgrade in …place is becoming a viable option. I realize that there do exists ways to backup data applications and configurations but I am not a rocket scientist. I need step-by-step instructions with screen shots if there is not an automated process.

Yesterday, I installed WINE because I NEED to get Quicken 2005 running and it DOES run. But then I went to backup my Blackberry on the Windows machine and I thought about installing the Blackberry Desktop on Ubuntu under WINE. Then I found …some articles which hit at all sorts of extra things to add. I said to myself that I can live without Blackberry Desktop in Ubuntu and I dont want to add things that may crash my system. Someone commented that RIM (Research In Motion) Blackberry is not about to develop applications for the Linux community. I wonder if there will ever be a TIPPING POINT were all efforts suddenly converge upon one operating system? I see Ubuntu and all the Linux flavors as “too big to fail”. Some countries (e.g. Switzerland) have mandated that all educational institutions make Linux a standard.

I meant to stress that while I am having FUN, I obviously want to protect my investment of time and effort with some reliable backup. I think it is one.ubunto.com that is giving my 5 gigs of free cloud storage which I gratefully… use. I just started to experiment with Tom Boy Notes and synced them with a folder I created on my desktop. I looked into syncing them with DropBox which is highly praised. I am hesitant because it looks like I have to add a lot of stuff which might crash my system. My understanding is that if I have synced with a local folder and if I back up that folder to usb flash drive then I may simply restore folder and resync and that should serve my needs, so why risk crashing the system or slowing down with periodic synchronizations with dropbox or one.ubuntu. I suppose I should search in youtube for a how to tutorial on Tom Boy Notes sync (and no wise cracks from the LGBTQ in the Peanut Gallery!)

I made myself curious about one.ubuntu file syncing so I found this tutorial and went to synaptic manager and saw that I needed to install some more ubuntu.one tools to access the ability to sync the tomboynotes folder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=LV7Blv5YJkw

I found THIS link explaining how to sync with one.ubuntu.com cloud and I am following the simple instructions but it is taking a LONG time to sync!! at least what seems like a long time https://one.ubuntu.com/help/tutorial/install-and-setup-ubuntu-one-7/

Geeze!!! I enabled this one.ubuntu sync BUT I do hope it does not just go ahead and automatically sync ALL my files… I would hope that it ASKS me which files I want to sync because I have MORE than my 5 gig cloud limit on my drive and I only want to sync tomboy notes and a few other things….!!!

This is annoying as hell. one.ubuntu.com does not make clear whether it will automatically attempt to sync EVERYTHING or whether I have control of which folders will be synced. I have an 8 gig archive on the desktop. If I right click on th…at archive there is an option to SYNC, but there is no option to UNSYNC. So I am moving the damn thing back to my usb flash drive and deleting it so that at least IF I have to suffer with everything on the desktop getting synced, then at least I wont exceed the 5 gig cloud limit!!!

So NOW my big question is: IF I can get one.ubuntu synchronization to work then how do I control WHAT gets synchroniced and what does not and if EVERYTHING on the desktop IS AUTOMATICALLY synchronized, then where in my filing system can I shove an 8 gig folder that I do not want synchronized??!!!

I am finding some information about controlling which files get synced but they make it SO DIFFICULT AND OBSCURE !!! https://askubuntu.com/questions/22961/how-to-sync-folders-selectively-across-computers

Meanwhile you can access the functionality via u1sdtool: to list all the folders syncdaemon knows about, enter u1sdtool –list-folders; then you use the folder ids listed there to enter the id in u1sdtool –subscribe-folder=folderid (or –u…nsubscribe).

The default behavior is for syncdaemon to subscribe to folders automatically when they are created; you can change this by editing /etc/xdg/ubuntuone/syncdaemon.conf (or ~/.config/ubuntuone/syncdaemon.conf to do it per user) and add a line udf_autosubscribe = False to the [__main__] section.

Oh GREAT! Now I learn that there is a folder called Ubuntu.One and in that folder I find that it did begin to sync what I had in their cloud storage. I am almost finished backing up the 8 gig folder that I do NOT want synced. In a desperate…d effort to see if I could OMIT it from syncing I right clicked on it and it had a place to click and say SYNC with one.ubuntu so I DID CLICK ON THAT hoping I could turn it OFF, but then I see that it is a ONE WAY STREET…. there is no toggle for OFF, …. so now that I have backed the damn thing up to the usb… my only option is to delete it from the desktop. MY GOD why cant these propellor head linux people tell a beginner in PLAIN ENGLISH up front what to expect!!!

OK, I deleted the 8 gig folder on the desktop, having backed it up to the 32 gig usb drive. I rebooted my machine, went to system preferences and clicked on ONE UBUNTU. I was taken to a browser screen which prompted me to RE-ADD my desktop …… and synchronization resumed. NOW I think I understand that all it is doing is making a copy of the few files which are ON the cloud account to the folder named one.ubuntu… (damn I cant keep these names straight perhaps it is ubuntu.one) … and nothing will get synced outside of that folder UNLESS I right click and ADD it to the synchronication process but GOD HELP me if I synchronize a folder and then want it UNSYNCHRONIZED…!!

Ubuntu One resynchronization is in process. I right clicked on my desktop folder TomBoyNotes which is already locally synced with Tom Boy, and I requested that it be synchronized with Ubuntu One Cloud storage and I added the following NOTE – to test whether the sync works. Supposedly I can install tomboy notes on my windows xp and sync it with Ubuntu One Cloud storage:

Ubuntu One Synchronization

Test of One Ubuntu Synchronization. I right clicked on the TomBoyNotes folder on my desktop and requested that it be synchronized with Ubuntu One.

Aha, this is an encouraging sign! I look at the browser where I am logged into ubuntu.one.com cloud storage and it says 107.6 MB used and I look at the Ubuntu One Preferences which shows sync is in progress and it TOO says 107.6 MB used so it is syncing the files on the cloud with that folder in DESKTOP called Ubuntu One. My initial fear was that it was scoop up ALL files on my local machine and would soon gobble up my 5 gig limit and then demand that I pay more for monthly storage.

I arrived outside the building and waited in a public place near the Vietnam Memorial.

I was standing some distance from the building but in full view of the security desk.

It is my understanding that building security works for

https://www.mulligansecurity.com/management.htm

Security at the desk STARED at me non-stop for ten full minutes as if I were some kind of security risk.

A roving security guard passed right by me and smiled and then entered the building and approached the security desk.

The man at the desk POINTED at me to the other guard.

By that time my step-daughter had arrived.

I entered the building and asked the security to give me his name so I can lodge a formal complaint.

Even though he was WEARING a name tag it was too small to read and he would not show it to me. He explained that he DOES NOT NEED to give me his name. He called his supervisor who claims that his name is Charles Holliday (Halliday) but he wore no identification so I cannot be certain.

I asked him why the guard is staring at me and pointing at me. Just because I am elderly and wearing a baseball cap and not a $1000 suit and tie does not mean that I am a security risk.

The supervisor was rude to me and said his time was being wasted.

My point is that:

1.) The building has an expensive and elaborate camera system SO if I seemed suspicious they should simply alert whoever monitors the cameras.

2.) IF I were some kind of criminal or derelict I would not be standing in front of the building in full view of the security desk holding mail, a pen, and a cell phone.

3.) Does the man at the security desk really have NOTHING better to do than to stare at an elderly man with a cane and a cell phone.

4.) Once it escalated to the point of my approaching the desk and lodging a complaint the would it not make sense to be diplomatic, apologize, voluntarily give me their names and their employer and then PERHAPS I would not go so far as to blog about this.

I grew up in the era of the 1950s when people of color were stereotyped and profiled simply because of their appearance.

Certainly if security or police feel that someone is suspicious they should be more diplomatic than to stare and point.

Employees should not be required to wear illegible name badges if the are going to refuse to identify themselves to people who have a complaint.

I was waiting in a public garden and memorial site which is frequented all day long by many well dressed business people who smoke and listen to their ipods.

I shall compose a more detailed letter to express my outrage and I shall copy the management of Cromwell and Sullivan as well as the head of Mulligan Management who I believe hires and trains the security people at the building which may be 100 Water Street.

I feel the supervisor handled the situation poorly.

1.) SINCE I was requesting THEIR identification they could have PROVIDED it to me and in turn asked me for MY identification since it is not unusual for Building Security in NYC to request identification and then they would have a valuable piece of information should it turn out that I am some sort of security risk.

2.) I would not be surprised if the Mulligan Security Management Company does not have a proper handbook of Company Policies and Procedures and/or does not exert themselves to guarantee that each employee has studied that handbook and understands what is expected of them.

Everyone who works at security is required to pass an exam and possess a current license. I wonder if all the security employees are in compliance with that law.

Every security employee should wear a badge which is LEGIBLE clearly showing their name and the Company name of the employer.

Forms should be available upon request for anyone to submit a complaint or a suggestion for improvement.

COMMON sense should make anyone realize that if they are working in security and they see someone suspicious the last thing in the WORLD they should do is stare and point.

In the world the I grew up in, the customer and the public is always right and even when they are wrong it is politically correct to humor them so as to avoid a grievance escalating to this level.

Every employee of ANY Company is a representative and spokesperson for that Company and when their conduct makes a negative impression then they tarnish the reputation of their employer.

Junior Essay, 1970

“Nature, the art whereby God has made and governs the world, is by the art of men, as in many other things, so in this also imitated.”

Hobbes’ Leviathan

Much of men’s intellectual endeavor is divided among scientists, historians, and artists. Let us look at some authors which fall under these broad categories:
Scientists Historians Artists
Aristotle Herodotus Homer
Euclid Plutarch Plato
Appolonius Thucydides Aeschylus
Ptolemy Tacitus Sophocles
Copernicus Gibbon Euripides
Kepler Virgil
Descartes Bible
Newton Dante
Galileo Chaucer
Lucretius Rabelais
Lavoisier Shakespeare
Dalton Cerventes
Avogadro Milton
Galen Swift
Mendel Fielding
Darwin

Any such generalization as this is a problematic one, to be sure. Some will complain that Lucretius wrote in dactyls, that Galileo wrote a dialogue, that Thucydides availed himself of poetic license in recording the plague of Athens, that Homer was an historian, that Plato was a philosopher, or that the Bible is a work of divine revelation. Others will ask “Where are the philosophers and the theologians?”. But this classification must be regarded as a device by which I will familiarize the reader with the subtle and delicate problem which has goaded me into this writing. I think the reader will soon see the great utility of this generalization and will forgive it for any secondary difficulties which it may introduce.

Scientist attempt to render understandable those things which are outside of men’s authorship and whose laws are not obvious. Such things have traditionally been called nature, a term which is difficult to use with precision.

Historians record those factual events which men are authors of, but authors only in a partial sense of the word. For though these events are indeed products of men’s wilful actions, men are not full masters of these products, neither always anticipating their outcome nor always understanding the reason for their outcome. Historians speculate upon the thoughts and motivations of men in order to gain some knowledge, not of the art of causing events to happen as they ought, but of how and why they happened as they once did, in order to recognize the signs of present change.

Art is concerned with those things which men are author of in the full sense of the word; poems, novels, plays, and dialogues. The artist is free to create whatever he desires; characters, events, moral codes, and deities, He is in full control of their behavior.

The endeavor of art is divided among the few authors who create works and the countless numbers who read and interpret them. Men see art as more than mere narrative, description, and beautiful language. To them a work of art is a seeming diversity which has been organized by the artist with great design and intention. men study and write upon works of art in the hopes of explaining the design and intention of the author. The problems which a work of art presents are problems of the artist’s own invention It would seem that men could most easily find solutions to problems which are other men’s inventions.

My assumption is that men do not persist in that which is hopeless nor dwell upon that which is obvious. In any intellectual endeavor, men seek that which they may call true and certain. Sciences grow and are accumulative in these truths. QUestions, once answered, need no longer be asked again as other than rhetorical questions. A majority of men can be persuaded of the truths which the sciences possess. Several scientists will arrive at the same conclusions independently of one another. The enterprise of art is dissimilar from that of science in these respects. In a period of forty years, four men, Mendel, de Vries, Correns, and Tschermak, independently of one another discovered the basic laws of heredity. Yet the two thousand years of uninterrupted conjecture upon Homer, Plato, and the Bible show none of the striking examples of such independent concurrence which the sciences have to offer but, on the contrary, considerable discord and schism. The circulation of the blood has been proved. We know that the earth moves. We know that matter is composed of atoms. But why do Aeneas and the Sibyl leave Hades thought eh gate of false dreams? Were such questions in a work of art answerable, as those who write upon works of art presume, then such a writing would be a science of which one could say “Learn it and it will convince you irresistibly and irrevocably of the truth.”1 Yet writings upon works of art bear no such irresistible and irrevocable character. If such questions in a work of art were unanswerable, men would cease their efforts. Intelligent men no longer attempt to square the circle. Yet men study art and nature with equal zeal. The fact that men continually endeavor to interpret works of art indicates that they consider art to be comprehensible and see hope for success. I have been lead by all of the above considerations to ask of those who would write upon works of art the question which Kant asked of Metaphysics. “If it is a science, why can it not, like other sciences, obtain universal and permanent recognition? If it is not, how can it keep the human mind in suspense with hopes, never ceasing, yet never being fulfilled.?” 2

At this point, the reader may accuse me of having made the foolish blunder of asking of art “Why are you not a science?” or of asking that works of art be treated scientifically. With what right do I ask writers on works of art if they have a science? I shall appeal to the distinction between implicit and explicit writing in order to vindicate myself.

Of the scientists, the historians, and the artists; the works of the scientists are the most explicit and unequivocal, the works of the historians are in some places explicit and in other places equivocal and implicit, and the works of the artists are the most implicit and equivocal. In fact, it is by considering the degree of explicitness and implicitness in a writing that I judge it to be scientific, historical, or artistic. The scientist and the historian stand before their work as its author and openly admit that they are asserting in their work what they believe to the the truth. The artist does not stand before his work as its author. The artist may present his work anonymously, or present himself as the witness of a dialogue, as the narrator of an event, as the mouthpiece of a divinity, or as the translator of someone else’s work. One reads an explicit book in a manner different from that in which he reads a book which he believes to be implicit and veiled. One takes the explicit author seriously on his major assertions and pardons any small peculiarities and variations in his language. The implicit author makes no assertions for the very reason that he has written in an implicit style. One scrutinizes with the greatest care the smallest peculiarity or variation in his language in order to form an hypothesis as to that to which the author is alluding. And explicit work makes one uniform assertion. A work of art, in one sense, asserts nothing, and, in another sense, asserts may things. In light of today’s knowledge, Aristotle is in error in certain of his assertions concerning astronomy and biology. Plato, however, is in no way wrong by today’s knowledge, nor can any conceivable discovery place him in error. This is because the Dialogues do not admit of error in the same manner that De Caelo or Historia Animalium. The author of a treatise is subservient ot his subject. The burden of explaining the subject rests upon him. He must make overt assertions and denials concerning his subject and then must account to us for any inadequacies which we ay find in thim. The artist is first creator and then master of his subject. The burden of understanding his work is upon us and it is we who must account to ourselves for our own inadequacies in the face of his artistic perfection. If we cannot comprehend the designs which a mortal has woven in words, so much less can we hope to comprehend divine designs woven not in words but in objects, space, time, and in ourselves. Paradox, which is awkwardness in a science, is beauty in a work of art. Self-contradiction, the downfall of an expository writer, is for the artist, being at his height. Nature and works of art are both veiled creations. Those who write on works of art are in the same relation to the work as scientists are to nature. Both take that which appears to them as diversity hidden laws which may be uncovered and articulated in an explicit fashion. It is by this that I justify myself in asking of those who write upon works of art whether they have a science.

I will now investigate the realms of the explicit and the implicit in order to determine the possibility of writing a paper which must be explicit upon a work which is implicit, a work of art. I choose Pascal as my Virgil, to lead me through these realms, because he was a man capable of moving through both science and art. The very fact that he articulated the difference between l’esprit de geometrie and l’esprit de finesse indicates that he was a rare man endowed with both spirits.

Laboring to show that Christianity is the one true religion, Pascal set himself three tasks in the Pensees; to determine the nature of man and his ills, to reconcile both by literary and historical means the Old Testament with the New Testament, and to show how a true religion provides all the necessary remedies for man’s ills. In all three tasks, Pascal employed the concept of opposing extremes as a device to aid him, much as a physicist employs calculus to aid himself in the study of nature. I am laboring to show that a genuine thesis cannot be written upon a true work of art. I must determine the nature of man, reconcile the works of art with the theses, and show how a true work of art best serves the nexus of human nature. I too, as I draw my conclusions, will resort ot the concept of extremes. This concept of extremes might be called a calculus of art. It is an exceedingly important concept which should be studied in great detail by anyone who would write upon a work of art. We may begin this study as I accompany Pascal on his journey.

The Nature of Man

(72)-“What is is man in Nature? A Nothing in comparison with the Infinite, and All in comparison with the Nothing, a mean between nothing and everything.” Pascal sees man as the bastard offspring of an illicit affair between beauty and ugliness, heir to opposite qualities at war within hi sbreast, abandoned to aimless wandering through a wilderness of extremes. Even the virtues within him, such as courage and gentleness, are in conflict with one another. Virtues themselves may become vies when carried to extremes: courage becomes mania, gentleness becomes cowardice. In order to avoid such extremes, man must possess both a virtue and its opposite. The mean is best.

Man looks at nature and sees the beasts of whom he is lord. And yet he knows he is not lor of nature. He sees only one half of a proportion clearly. Man is a divine among beasts. But he is also an animal. Is there something which stands above man in the same ration with which man stands above the beasts, so that one may say “As man is to the beasts, so is this to man?” He searches nature for something to complete the proportion. This third term could only be a god. He looks to nature and sees neither the manifest presence of a god nor manifest evidence that there is no god, but only the implications of a god who hides himself. “Perhaps there is not third term”, he says. “Perhaps I am only a beast. But if I am only a beast, what despair! What can I hope for? All my striving for virtue is to no avail. I remain a beast and there is no one to see me in my righteousness. The road to virtue is such a painstaking journey to make. Why deny myself the pleasures which other beasts enjoy?” But in thinking himself a beast, man falls prey to appetites more insidious than any beast knows. They gnaw at his soul. “I have no proof that I am not a beast. But I still I know I cannot be a beast, for to believe so gies rise to so many evils. Perhaps I am a god, the only god of which feeble nature is capable.” elieving that he is a god, he refrains from every sin except the greatest sin of all, pride. It gnaws at his heart. “I have no proof that I am not a god. But still, I know I cannot be a god, for to believe so gives rise to the greatest evil.”

The implicitness in nature is imitated by the implicitness which the reader finds in the work of art. Man’s search for God in nature is the reader’s search for the author in the work of art. There are strong analogies between the author of a work of art, which is an imitation of reality; God, who is the divine author of reality itself; the reader, who searches the work for the intentions of the author; and the scientist, who searches reality for those laws placed there by God. These analogies may be expressed in the following two proportions: author : work :: God : nature , reader : work :: scientist : nature.

Now art is a unique imitation of Nature. The degree of perfection in the words, deeds, and circumstances of a work exists in the world only in such isolated and unconnected instances as are sufficient to suggest to the artist that higher degrees of perfection could exist in a work. One generally thinks of an imitation as having a lesser degree of perfection than its imitation, the work of art. By the above criterion, nature would appear as an imitator of art rather than as it’s model. This is the deceptive quality of art to which a reader easily and perhaps fortunately may succumb. I say fortunately because I believe that morality is more important to man than the truth to be found in science. The truth of an hypothesis or theory lies in how accurately it accounts for the phenomena, say the setting of a star. The truth of an history lies in how accurately it corresponds to and accounts for actual events, say the decline of a nation. The truth of art lies in how it affects the man who cherishes it, whether it leads him to a better or a worse way of life. We must consider whether art may afford a device to maintain man in a mean-extremes relationship.

It is a wondrous empirical fact that the mean-extremes relationship manifests itself in several authors. Homer portrays Odysseus as the mean between swift-footed Achilles and Ajax, “The Wall”, 1 . Plato portrays Theaetetus as the perfect blend of quickness of intelligence and gentleness of spirit.2 Socrates is both the gadfly who stings the despairing with myth, and the “narke” (stingray) who numbs the pretentious with refutation.3 The mean is implicit in the inscription at the Delphic Oracle, “Meden Agan”.4 Virgil places Aeneas between the arms and the man , the alternatives of fighting in defence and of fleeing for self-preservation.5 Dante’s Divine Comedy is a journey through hell, purgatory, and heaven. The Inferno is set into motion by three beasts; a lion, a spotted leopard, and a she-wolf.6 Satan has three heads whose jaws hold Judas, Cassius, and Brutus.7 Each book consists of thirty-three cantos. Pascal initially presents the Bible as a problem of extremes and the mean. Milton’s Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained is patterned after Pascal’s notion of Adam-Christ.8 Heaven is at thrice the earth’s radius’ remove from hell.9 One third of the angels fall with Satan. 10 Swift placed Gulliver as a mean both between the Lilliputians and the Brobdingnagians and also the Yahoos and the Houyhnhnms. The various mechanisms of innuendo at the artist’s command do not prescribe or limit the sorts of things which may be connoted. Each author might employ this machinery to imply any number of relationships which might together bear no characteristic similarity with one another. We must therefore consider why it is that this mean-extremes relationship manifests itself in this way, never neglecting the possibility that the mean-extremes relationship may be not only an empirical fact but also an intellectually necessary law for human nature, and so fundamental a law that all worthy authors must address themselves to it in their works.

Pascal finds a strange inversion in human nature. Man dwells upon trifling problems and is insensible to those of the greatest concern, such as death and afterlife. He desires peace from striving after all his desires and yet the few moments of peace which he can achieve are filled with the melancholy of self-contemplation. And yet self-contemplation and the consideration of great problems are necessary for his well-being.

Poetry has often been called an idle pursuit. Men look upon art as a diversion. Men turn to art to escape their trifling problems. Yet when men seek diversion in art, their gaze is unwittingly turned to the greatest problems and to introspection. Art, in distracting man from himself and his petty problems, turns him to himself and his greatest problems.

Pascal asks, “What remedy is there to maintain man in this mean?” He turns to philosophy but finds no answers. Philosophy too is plagued with extremes; the dogmatists and the skeptics, the Stoics and the Epicurians. He turns to religion for an answer. I turn to works of art, for works of religion are unique productions of mortal and, perhaps, divine art. “But which is the true religion?”, he asks. I ask, “What is the true work of art?”

The true religion must be the center to which all things tend historically, it must not be at odds with itself, if it is to be comprehensible. It must teach man his ills and their cause, and it must provide a remedy for his ills. Pascal turns to the Bible in search of the true religion.

Historical Justification of the Bible

The jews are a people who have existed longer than any other. They are the most persecuted race of men, and yet they have miraculously survived longer than any other. Their preservation was foretold in prophesy. They have always prophesied the coming of a savior who would redeem them. Christ was born in the manner prophesied and proclaimed himself their savior. The figure of Christ is an historical center. The majority of the Jews rejected Jesus as their true savior.

Literary Justification of the Bible

The old Testament is filled with obscurities, contradictions, and paradoxes. We must see through the obscurities, find one meaning which resolves all contradictions, and be taught the necessity for the existence of paradoxes if we are to rely upon the Old Testament as a testimony to the Christian religion. Why was the Old Testament written in this manner?

Pascal shows the Old testament to have two levels of meaning, a carnal and a spiritual. David foretold that a Messiah would deliver the people from their enemies. The carnal meaning of the word enemies signified the Babylonians. The spiritual meaning signified mens’ sins, which are also their enemies. Without the carnal meaning, which the Jews loved, to conceal the spiritual meaning, which they hated, the books would not have been preserved. It was necessary that the Jews not see the spiritual meaning, in order that they might reject Christ when He came, thus fulfilling the prophesy. Otherwise the testimony of the Jews would not have been credible. But the spiritual meaning could not be hidden to all, for then it would not have served as a proof of the Messiah. The figures of the Old Testament, with their explicit carnal meaning and their implicit spiritual meaning, act as touchstones for the hearts of these men who read them. He who supposes the carnal meaning has a carnal heart. He who supposes the spiritual meaning has a spiritual heart. Why are works of art written in an implicit manner? Men have a need to exercise the faculties of their minds. THis need may be satisfied through discovery in art. The sensation of discovery in science is what art imitates. Discovering an interpretation in a work of art gives a feeling of satisfaction which is an imitation of the sensation of discovering order in nature in the form of a physical law or a geometric proposition. Physics and geometry are less available to men than art is, for those two disciplines require long, difficult study. Few may participate in science and mathematics and yet many have a need for insight and discovery.

Any who doubt the Bible’s status as a work of art will understand why I have placed it in this category if they consider Pascal’s treatment of the Old Testament; (690) “The Old Testament is a cipher.” Jesus and the Gospel writers are to the old testament what thesis writers are to the works of art. (677) “How greatly then ought we to value those who interpret the cipher, and teach us to understand hidden meaning, especially if the principles which they educe are perfectly clear and natural! This is what Jesus Christ did, and the Apostles, they broke the seal; He rent the veil and revealed the spirit.”

All contradictions are resolved in Christ. He is typified by Joseph. Both are betrayed and sold. Both are between two criminals. (552)”Jesus is in a garden, not of delight as the first Adam, where he lost himself and the whole human race, but in one of agony, where he saved himself and the whole human race.”

Christianity as the Remedy for Man’s Ills

It is for our best interests that we both see and do not see God. For in seeing and not seeing we recognize both our former greatness, and the fact that we have lost it. The obscurity makes man sensible of his corruption. Knowing God without knowing his wretchedness makes man prideful, knowing his wretchedness without knowing God causes his despair. Adam and the mystery of the Fall teach man both his former greatness and his present wretchedness. Christ keeps man in the mean between pride and dispair.

We are subject to pride as we feel ourselves approaching an understanding of the subtleties of a great author and to dispair as our certainty disappears.

Whenever, in the Old Testament, God manifests himself to the Jews, they would become prideful, seeing His glory and their likeness to Him. This would anger God and He would withdraw from the Jews and conceal Himself. They would then fall to dispair and sin. The Psalms are a succession of praises and lamentations. There was no middle ground for man and God. Christ was a union of God’s glory and man’s wretchedness. Man could praise Christ’s glory without falling prey to pride, for he would also see His wretchedness. Man could humble himself before Christ without falling into dispair, for he would also see His greatness.

Pascal summarized the remedy of Christianity tersely. (435) “So making those tremble whom it justifies, and consoling those whom it condemns, religion so justly tempers fear with hope through that double capacity of grace and sin, common to all, that it humbles infinitely more than reason alone can do, but without dispair; and it exalts infinitely more than natural pride, but without inflating; thus making it evident that alone being exempt from error and vice, it alone fulfills the duty of instructing and correcting men.”

I must now answer my own question concerning the true work of art and show how the true work of art, if it exists, can serve man’s needs.

One may imagine three kinds of works. A work of art may be so obscure as to render no hope of comprehension. Such a work would be the foolish product of an author who had not meaning to convey. If all works of art were like this, men might resort to the beauty of their language as a pleasant source of diversion from themselves and their troubles, but few would attempt to articulate a meaning which is not there. However, men timelessly study and write upon works of art.

A work may be like a jig-saw puzzle whose pieces a clever author has disassembled and scattered in the hopes that some clever reader will collect and reconstruct them. If all works of art were like this, men would be perfectly capable of writing theses upon works of art. The thesis would consist in the reconstruction. But then different men would surely arrive independently at the same discovery concerning a particular work. Their theses would be irrevocably and irresistibly convincing to all who read them. This is certainly possible with minor works which have been composed by lesser authors. But I am considering the greatest works which have been cherished through the ages. Diotema said that we do not love something which we possess. If men have written final definitive interpretations of these works, the work of art would have been reduce to the interpretation. If we could completely explain the work, we would possess it and would no longer love it. Men would no longer read Homer, but would read some scholar’s thesis upon Homer. Perhaps this is why St. John’s reads the Great Books rather than commentaries or texts written about them. Perhaps this is why the enterprise of the seminar consists more in asking questions than in giving answers.

If a work of art is to be neither a foolish obscurity nor a clever puzzle, it must occupy the middle ground between them. This third kind of work must offer the ope of profound meaning and yet must never completely yield it. It must tantalize, as did the gods poor Tantalus.

We must decide what our criterion for a true work of art will be. The obscurity and puzzle are poor candidates. But this third kind of work is doubtful. What would be the value in creating such a work as this?

Man’s nature requires a continuing process, not an end achieved. His vision must be turned in a certain direction by question which he may always ask himself. In many respects, the unanswerable question is the unmoved mover of the soul. Consider the question “What is virtue?” I challenge anyone to write a genuine thesis answering this question. And yet a great dialogue, the Meno, has been constructed around it. The foundations of our morality rest upon our continually asking ourselves these unanswerable questions. A true work of art maintains man in the mean by providing him with a process which is an end in itself. It is only be regarding a process which is an end in itself that I am able to understand Christ saying (552)”Thous wouldst not seek me if thou hads not found me.”, “Thou (554) woulds not seek me if thou didst not possess me.” Man’s need for such a process is illustrated by the following myth.

There was once a god of ends, a god which all the gods worshipped. Hitherto, he had inhabited the remotest corners of the heavens. But one day the earth and its mortal inhabitants aroused his curiosity. He descended from the sky and found himself in the midst of an athletic field where runners were training for their races and their much coveted prizes. He saw their contorted faces and their sweat-covered bodies and took pity on them. He waved his had over them and granted them the boon which before only the immortals had enjoyed, that wherever they should desire to be, there they would find themselves transported. The athletes lined themselves up for their usual race across the field. No sooner had the signal been given for them to start, when, to their amazement, they found themselves standing at the other end of the field. Throught the day they tried to run. But however short a course they chose, they found themselves effortlessly transported across it. As the months went by they lost their spirit. Their bodies lost their strength and became fat and flaccid. “We have surely committed some great sin,” they said, “for such divine wrath to have fallen upon us.” They prayed ardently for relief. From the heavens, the god of means, the god which the mortals unknowingly worshiped, looked down and saw that tall was not right with his creatures. he gave a nod and undid the mischief which his father had unwittingly created.

I see grounds for arguing that a genuine thesis cannot be written upon a true work of art. This is not to exclude the possibility of writing any number of legitimate essays (or attempts). By thesis I mean a paper which offers successful proof of fact. The word thesis comes from the Greek THESIS, a placing or setting; ekeon th., setting of words in verse, th. nomon, lawgiving, th. anomatos, giving of a name. But essay I mean a paper in which an attempt is made to persuade someone of an opinion. The word essay comes from the French essayer, meaning to try or test, which is related to the Latin exagium, meaning a weighing or a balance. If a thesis could explicitly articulate an exhaustive interpretations, the work would be reduced to the interpretation and would be no true work of art. A thesis might only hope to capture and preserve the essence of the work. Such a thesis would be itself a work of art, preserving the connotative ambiguities of the work by being connotative and ambiguous itself. Thus a work of art can be captured only by another work of art. Not even the poet can have a completely explicit understanding of his work. For if the author were capable of being totally explicit, then surely a reader would someday discover and articulate the explicit structure. The work would then be reduced to the interpretation and would be no true work of art. The ways of God are not completely known to man. Therefore, if the artist is to imitate God in creating a work of art as an imitation of nature, his own ways must not be completely known to himself.

My assumption is that no man has or ever will produce a definitive interpretation of a true work of art which is persuasive to many, but that all who devote themselves to the study of such works see the outlines of some definitive interpretation which may constitute a legitimate essay.

The mind of one man, using similar methods of reasoning, produced both the Pensees and a treatise on conic sections. How ironic it is that so many accept the treatise and so few are persuaded to accept the Christian faith. How appropriate it was for him to write (395) “We have an impotence to prove, invincible by any dogmatism, and we have an idea of truth, invincible by any skepticism.”

END OF ESSAY

St. John’s College, Annapolis, Maryland

Part I: The Method

An Ideal Definition of Art

I consider a poet to be an artist. I consider a poem to be a work of art. There is a certain method of thinking which an artist uses as he composes a work of art. It is this same method which a beholder employs as he appreciates the work of art. By composition, I mean, in a crude sense, putting together. I use the word appreciation in an unusual sense. In saying that the beholder appreciates the work of art, I mean that the beholder goes through a process of thought which is the reverse of that process through which the artist went as he composed. In a crude sense, I mean that the beholder takes apart.

How does the beholder appreciate? He begins by asking certain questions of the text. These questions grow out of one basic precept which the beholder adheres to on faith, as he approaches any work of art. This is the precept that the artist creates nothing without purpose.These questions, which the beholder asks, are questions which the artist intended him to find. The beholder finds answers in the text which the artist intended him to find. When the beholder has answered all his questions, what does he have? A philosophy is what he has. The same philosophy which the artist held and intended to convey.

As the artist is composing, he is enjoying the activity of invention. As the beholder appreciates, he is enjoying the activity of discovery. The sensations of these two activities are difficult to distinguish, and I am inclined to believe that the difference between the activities themselves is only a matter of direction. Invention and discovery are the most pleasurable and important activities of the mind, which is itself in tun the highest faculty of the body. Most men have a need to exercise the faculties of their minds. This need may be satisfied through discovery in art. The sensation of discovery in science is what art imitates.

Discovering interpretation in art gives a feeling of satisfaction which is an imitation of the sensation of discovering order in nature in the form of a physical law or a geometric proposition. The truths of physics and geometry are less available to most people because it requires long and difficult study to be in a position to participate in such fields. Few may participate in Science or Mathematics, and yet many have need for insight and discovery, the need to learn. Examining a text in this fashion is similar to astronomers examining the terrain of Mars in an effort to decide if the complex of lines is an effect of nature, or a system of canals constructed by intelligent beings.

There is an argument which states that the mind has such a drive to find meaning and significance that people given a page of nonsense or gibberish to interpret will fabricate some interpretation for it rather than say that it is meaningless. Many artists of questionable merit have supposed this argument true and have tried to take advantage of that fact. I consider these activities of invention and discovery to be the only important objects or ends in art. The work which the artist composes is merely a vehicle for the exercise of invention and is subordinate to the activity itself. The work which the beholder appreciates is merely a catalyst or agent which excites the activity of discovery in him. These activities and their accompanying sensations are what make art something distinct from both things which are merely pretty and excite the lower faculties but have no content or import for the mind and also from things which have nothing but content for the mind, or, to but it crudely, bare knowledge.

That there is a method of thought which is exercised at least on the part of the beholder.

I have admitted that my definition of art is an ideal definition, that is, in no sense conformable in it s entirety with our experience of reality. And yet, various aspects of the definition are obviously pertinent to our experience with poetry and prose. Although the argument for the validity of those things which I assert about the artist is a vain one to pursue, since the thoughts and motives of the greatest artists are inaccessible to us, it is certainly obvious that people behave as though they believed such things about the artist to be true, when they are confronted with a work of poetry or prose. People habitually make assertions and judgments about works of art which they can only arrive at by means of that certain process of thought which I alluded to above, and which they legitimately maintain only by assuming that the artist shares this same process of thought and creates nothing independent or in excess of this process. And yet no one ever tries to be explicit or exact about this method of thought which is so often employed.

That this method of thought is natural and common among people

An example may be found in Plato’s Ion, which , not in content but in form, is a paradigm for this method of thought.

(543,d) Herein lies the reason why the Deity has bereft them of their senses, and uses them as ministers, along with soothsayers and godly seers; it is in order that we listeners may know that it is not they who utter these precious revelations while their mind is not within them, but that it is the God himself who speaks, and through them becomes articulate to us. The most convincing evidence of this statement is offered by Tynnichus of Chalcis. He never composed a single poem worth recalling, save the song of praise which everyone repeats, well nigh the finest of all lyrical poems, and absolutely what he called it, an “Invention of the Muses”. By this example above all, it seems to me, the God would show us, lest we doubt, that these lovely poems are not of man or human workmanship, but are divine and from the Gods, and that the poets are nothing but interpreters of the Gods, each one possessed by the Divinity to whom he is in bondage. And to prove this, the Deity on purpose sang the loveliest of all lyrics through the most miserable poet.

What Socrates is saying is, in effect, this: The fact that the most miserable poet composed the most beautiful poem is of too high a degree of organization to be accidental or insignificant. The attendant circumstances surrounding the composition of poetry, i.e., the frenzied emotional state of the poet, and the poet’s inability to intelligently discuss his creation, together with this highly significant fact about Tynnichus, create too reasonable a ground for us not to conclude that the idea of poetry coming , not through art, but thou rh dine inspiration, is intentional on the part of some agent. I am calling attention in this passage, not to questions of divine inspiration, but only to the form of the reasoning which constituted the method of thought in art.

The epic poets seem to be explicitly inviting the reader to exercise this method of thought upon their works by including so many examples of the method, such as the following:

(Odyssey, Book XIX) Wherefore listen, and read me this dream of mine. I have twenty geese on the place, wild geese from the river, who have learned to eat my corn: and I love watching them. But a great hock-billed eagle swooped from the mountain, seized them neck by neck and killed them all. Their bodies littered the house in tumbled heaps, while he swung aloft agin into God’s air. All this I tell you was a dream, of course, but in it I wept and sobbed bitterly, and the goodly-haired achaean women thronged about me while I bewailed by geese which the eagle had killed. But suddenly he swooped back to perch on a projecting black beam of the house and bring forth a human voice that dried my tears: ‘Daughter of icarius, be comforted,’ it said. ‘This is no dream but a picture of stark reality, wholly to be fulfilled. The geese are your suitors; and I, lately the eagle, am your husband come again, to launch foul death upon them all.” WIth this in my ears, I awoke from my sleep, to be aware of the geese waddling through the place or guzzling their food from the trough, just as ever.

Odysseus replied to her, “Lady,this dream cannot be twisted to read otherwise than as Odysseus himself promised its fulfillment. Destruction is foredoomed for each and every suitor. None will escape the fatal issue.”

But wise Penelope responded, “Stranger, dreams are tricksy things and hard to unravel. By no means all in them comes true for us. Twin are the gates to the impalpable land of dreams, these made from horn and those of ivory. Dreams that pass by the pale carven ivory are irony, cheats with a burden of vain hope: but every dream which comes to man through the gates of horn forecasts the future truth. I fear my odd dream was not such a one, welcome though the event would be to me and my son.”

Again, what is being said is this. The level of organization in the events of the dream is of too high a degree for the dream to be accidental or unintentional, and, within the context of odysseus’ ab sense and the suitor’s presence, constitutes an overpowering argument for the intentional portentous significance on the part of some agent.

By a high level of organization, I mean that Penelope did not dream just of an eagle landing, which might mean the arrival of Odysseus or telemachus, or of geese dying, which might mean plague or famine or any number of other things, nor did she dream of the milkmaid dropping twenty eggs, which would yield a rather strained interpretation in the context of the Odyssey.

Of course, we do not generally trust to such a method of thinking in matters of the physical world as in the example of Penelope. But in the world of the poet’s creation such a method of thought is the only tool we have to find the physical, ethical, and supernatural laws which are made of nothing other than the poet’s own intention. In the world which the poet creates, there is no reliable future portent other than the poet’s implicit manifestations of his intention.

I may now make a general statement of my meaning. This method of thought which ends in a judgment is natural and common among men. It relies on two criteria. One is organization, especially that which is too carefully arranged to be accidental or unintentional. This first criterion is necessary in order to recognize a point of question in the text. The other is the context, or such a set of circumstances as are adequate to establish that the interpretation of this point was intended by the author and is necessary to an understanding of the work. The existence of an appropriate context together with the existence of a point of question whose interpretation would complete the meaning of the work in that context constitute a special kind of judgment upon the significance of that point of question.

The argument which this method employs is the same kind of argument which science employs in order to believe things which it cannot see. stanislao cannizzaro gives a perfect example of this kind of argument in his Sketch of a Course of Chemical Philosophy.

(Alembic Club Reprint No. 13, pg. 11) “Compare,” I say to them/his students/, “The various quantities of the same element contained in the molecule of the free substance and in those of all its different compounds, and you will not be able to escape the following law; The different quantities of the same element contained in different molecules are all whole multiples of one and the same quantity, which, always being entire, has the right to be called an atom.”

Compare certain repetitive images, whose interpretive significance you have tentatively asserted, with the context of the work itself and if you cannot escape from using this interpretive significance to explain the reason for the presence of these images, then that interpretive significance has the right to be called intentional on the part of the author.

That the relationship between the beholder and the work of art is a dialectical one.

Now that I have presented what I mean by art, and the manner in which art is appreciated, I will consider what effect these definitions have upon the relationship between the reader and the work of art. That is, what is the work of art to the beholder? I will try to do this by means of an analogy. Look at this drawing (facing page). What do you see? You see a farm landscape, a man and his dog, and a huge fly looming in the air. All these things are explicitly represented in the drawing. Now inspect the drawing closely. Examine individual lines one at a time from different perspectives and in relationship with other different groups of lines. Are you beginning to suspect that you are seeing some unusual things? A giraffe or a hippopotamus perhaps? But no, that is silly. It would be a great fault on the artist’s part if he had so little control of his lines that they conspired against him behind his back, forming all sorts of ludicrous animals to mock his ability and mar his pretty drawing. Ant yet, how can we assert that a giraffe or a hippopotamus is actually depicted unless we somehow have a knowledge of or take into account the artist’s intent. If the giraffe or hippopotamus is unintentional on the part of the artist, then we must attribute these figures to accident or chance. They are not significant as figures of animals in themselves and if they are considered at all , they must be considered as flaws and imperfections in the artist’s work.

The problem of the drawing leads us to the most generalized expression of the problems of interpretation and understanding in art; subjective and objective judgments. Look at this drawing:

There are two possible ways of interpreting this drawing. If you focus your attention to the right, it appears to be a rabbit. If you focus your attention to the left, it appears to be a bird with a gaping beak. These first two interpretations are based upon subjective judgment. A third interpretation is that the drawing consists of a dot enclosed in a continuous line, which is smooth to the right of the dot, and angular to the left. This is an objective judgment which precludes the use of imagination. Objective judgment plays no significant role in art. The question we must ask when we are faced with the opportunity for a subjective judgment is “Does this make sense in the context of this work?”

Look at the first drawing again. If you knew that the artist was aware of the presence of these figures, the giraffe and the hippopotamus, you would realize that the purpose of the drawing and the intention of the artist is not beauty or mimetic proficiency so much as this subtle insinuation of one thing by something entirely different and unsuspected. And, of course, this is exactly what this drawing is, a puzzle which conceals dozens of images. When you first look at the drawing, all you see is a picturesque farm landscape. But as you study it over several minutes, you begin to see that the leaves of the trees, the ripples on the pond water, and the clouds in the sky, conceal the shapes of animals and peoples’ faces. Once you have found all the concealed images, you are no longer capable of seeing the simple farm landscape again as you first beheld it. It moves as you continue to behold it. You strain to see all the hidden figures, but you can only see them all together for a moment before a tree or cloud intrudes again upon your vision. You try to see the farm and landscape again as you first saw it, but you can behold it only for a moment before a face or an animal peers out at you through the meadows. The drawing is no longer static, but dynamic. A poem is like this drawing. The poem and the drawing possess the same properties, and problems. But this is the point at which the analogy between the drawing and the poem breaks down. You have now done as much as you possibly can with the drawing. You have seen the gross depiction of a farm landscape, found all the hidden images, and appreciated the drawing’s optically illusive qualities. There is nothing more to experience from the drawing. There are no questions to be asked of the drawing or answers within it to be found. The drawing is not dialectical. When the beholder of the poem reaches this stage, he has only just begun the process of appreciation. he has found all the images in the poem. I spoke of these images in my ideal definition as the questions which the artist places in thew work. The reader must ask why the poet placed these images in the poem. he cannot help but recognize their presence, because they are so carefully wrought. He cannot ignore them if he believes the precept that the artist creates nothing without purpose. If he does not believe this precept, art will be for him a thing too arbitrary and uncertain to convey anything more than pretty sounds and descriptions for the gratification of his lower faculties. Where does the reader find the answers to his questions? He finds them in the context in which the poem is set, in the gross depiction of the drawing; the story or plot. The relationship between the poem and the reader is a dialectical relationship.

The kinds of works of art

Now that I have tried to sketch the relationship between the beholder and the work of art, I find that a difficult question arises. How many different kinds of works are there under the method as I have presented it? I describe a situation in which on the one hand, an artist puts together a work in which he places certain questions and answers, the asking and answering of which constitutes some sort of philosophy, and on the other hand, a beholder takes apart that work of art by finding all the questions, answering them, and discovering the philosophy of the artist. Let us say that such a work of art actually exists. I do not think it would be difficult to create such a work. If one were to make his images extremely overt, his answers simple, and his philosophy homely, I am certain that the process of taking apart would be equal to the process of putting together. Consider this work of art in terms of the definition of love in Plato’s Symposium.

(203,e) diotema: He (Love), is neither mortal nor immortal, for in the space of a day, he will be now, when all goes well with him, alive and blooming, and now dying, to be born again by virtue of his father’s nature, while what he gains will always ebb away as fast. So, Love is never altogether in or out of need, and stands, moreover, midway between ignorance and wisdom. You must understand that none of the Gods are seekers after truth. They do not long for wisdom, because they are wise.

According to this definition, the beholder will not love the work of art because, having taken it apart and understood it, he posses it. The beholder may certainly still be drawn to the work for its beauty or wisdom. He will certainly be more drawn to such a work than to a second kind, a poorly composed work in which the questions are obscure and the answers ambiguous and frustrating. But imagine a third kind of work. In order to describe this work, it must be conceded that there are two kinds of written works, the explicit and the implicit, and that two kinds of ambiguities can arise for the reader in a written work, paradoxes and contradictions. The last page of a written work may embody the ends towards which the work is directed or it may be an end only in the sense that it is the last page. When the latter is the case, the reader must consider the book as a whole in order to try to decide what ends are pointed to or arrived at in the text. In an overtly explicit work, such as a treatise, the task of deciding upon ends which are pointed to or arrived at and of drawing conclusions about their value or validity may be a simple one or it may not, depending on the subtleties of the writer and of his subject In an overt work of art, such as a poem, these ends may lie entirely within the implicit and connotative framework which the artist has constructed. Where connotative ambiguities are present in an explicit work, they may be considered stumbling blocks to understanding and may be criticized in their capacity as ambiguities or may even be considered contradictions, and the writer will be judged by some to have failed in his purpose. When these same sorts of connotative ambiguities are present in the work of a truly great artist, they are almost never though of as contradictions by intelligent readers. For a great artist is the most sensitive of all men to such ambiguities and uses them in an exquisite manner to elicit a dialogue between the reader and the text itself. Ambiguities in such a context are not contradictions, but paradoxes. Some paradoxes are not only very beautiful to contemplate, but also are very fruitful in that this dialogue which they excite demands the kind of careful thought and attention which is prerequisite to the understanding of some problems. Such a use of paradoxes is perhaps the only effective manner of approaching those matters which are most difficult because they are themselves inherent paradoxes which cannot be legitimately resolved but are most fruitfully spoken “about’, the end of such speech being the elucidation of the paradoxical nature of the matter and an understanding of the implications in such a paradox. In order to teach the reader about the paradoxical nature of the problem, the writer imitates the of the problem through the distortion of it brought to life in the of the text. The various aspects of the problems which the reader discovers in the course of his dialectical experience with the text leads him to an understanding of the of the problem itself, which is the author’s true subject and intent.

Now we are ready to imagine a third kind of work. Imagine a work of art constructed around some inherently paradoxical aspect of reality, whether it be physical nature or human nature. Since we are dealing with a paradox, it must have at least two possible alternatives, both equally likely and valid when viewed apart and yet mutually contradictory when viewed together. According to the method, the artist places certain questions in his work. Since he is dealing with a paradoxical matter of a dual nature, he must place in his work the questions and corresponding answers of both aspects of the paradox. This will cause violent argument and dissension within the reader as he tries to answer his questions. According to the method, the reader is depending upon the probability or likelihood that a character, object, or relationship has some level of meaning aside from a surface one. He is led to ask questions by two elements of the work; striking motifs – that is, continual recurrence of an unusual object or action throughout the text – and description, detail, analogy, simile, or metaphor which would seem excessive, odd, or out of place unless the artist intended some greater significance. When, through the entire work, motifs and metaphors grow into a suggestive framework which has too high and fine a level of organization to be accidental, the reader assumes it to be deliberate and questions the text to discover, if he may, the artist’s true intent. But the artist is imitating the paradoxical nature of the problem in the text. This imitation appears in the text as a framework with ambivalent properties and in the reader as a passionate struggle in his dialectical experience. Because the connotations of the work are constructed about eternally unresolvable problems, different conflicting interpretations are equally possible and valid. Camps of contention arise. The reader feels that great meaning, understanding, and insight lie just within his grasp. He is enticed to the work again and again. Only his desire is like the hunger and thirst of tantalus, something is just out of reach but eternally unattainable. His task is the task of sysiphus, simple and definable and seemingly within his abilities, and xxx eternally falling short of completion. In the Platonic sense, this kind of work or art is loved, for there is great possibility for understanding (for nothing is loved which is though impossible of attainment), and yet it can never be possessed. The question remains, which of these three kinds of works is greatest? I believe the answer to that depends upon the tastes and patience of the individual being asked. But I think it is clear that the third kind of work is most lasting.

* The drawing facing the sixth page contains an elk, peacock, shark, butterfly, lion, tiger, rabbit, book, coat, boot, hare, rake, barrel, catapillar, pigeon, yardstick, snail, match, turtle, owl, rhinoceros, antelope, watch, skull, cat, cow, giraffe, priest, mummy, humpty dumpty, squirrel, five fish, two indians, twelve faces, three mice, eleven dogs, three eagles, five letters, five ducks two camels, three elephants, seven men, two monkeys, two cymbals, four birds, four bears, four goats, eight frogs, two seals, three beavers, nine sheep, three ladies, five horses, five pigs, two chickens, four alligators, two boys, two babies, and two combs.

PART II: The Practical Application

Having outlined the method, I will now illustrate its practical application by a consideration of three epic poems; The Iliad and the Odyssey of Homer and the Aenead of Vergil. These choices will prove felicitous in demonstrating the method in two ways. First, the poet vergil, being a careful student of Homer’s works, chose certain aspects of the Iliad and the Odyssey to use in the development of his Aenead. These aspects, which Vergil chose, involve images, questions, and answers in the manner in which I have spoken. In showing that Vergil’s use of these images is compatible with Homer’s use of them, I hope that I will be able to lay firmer grounds for believing that the method of thought commonly employed by the beholder is also shared by the great artist as well. Secondly, Plato, also being a careful student of Homer, came to a certain understanding of the Iliad and the Odyssey. This understanding can easily be demonstrated by examining Plato’s use of Homer in his Dialogues. I will try to demonstrate that two of Homer’s most able students arrived at essentially the same understanding of his work and made similar use of that understanding in their own works as well. I hope that this demonstration will provide a persuasive argument in favor of the method as a meaningful way to approach a work of art.

Examining these three epics, I find certain significant details whose presence leads me to question why the poet placed them in the text. These details are not essential parts of the plot. Their absence would not change the poems at all in the judgment of many people. And yet for me these details are the heart of the poem which gives it life and makes it art. These details could be questioned in any order within the epics. Some details discovered earlier by the reader may later lead him to the discovery of other significant details in consequent readings. The details are the essential lines which sketch or determine the wisdom of the poem.

Iliad:

1. (Bk. I, 135) agamemnon: “Either the great-hearted achaians shall give me a new prize chosen according to my desire to atone for the girl lost, or else if they will not give me one I myself shall take her, your achilles’ own prize, or that of Ajax, or that of Odysseus, going myself in person; and he whom I visit will be bitter.”

2. (Bk. II, 800-875)
(line 801) “Hector, on you beyond all I urge this…”
(line 813)”This men call the Hill of the Thicket, but the immortal gods have named it the burial mound of dancing Myrina.
(line 830) “The strong son of Anchises was leader of the Dardanians, aeneas…”
(line 862) “Phorkys and godlike askanios were lord of the phrygians from askania…”
(line 875)”… and the whirling waters of xanthos.” (Bk XX, 73) “Against hephaistos stood the river who is called Xanthos by the gods, but by mortals scamandros.

(Bk. VI, lines 400-520)
(line 400-402) “…Hector’s son, the admired, beautiful as a star shining, whom Hector called scamandrios, but all of the others astyanax – lord of the city; since Hector alone saved ilion.”
(line 504) “But Paris in turn did not linger long in his high house.”
(line 516) “It was alexandros the godlike who first spoke to him:”

4. (Bk VIII, 220-225) “He (Agamemnon) went on his way beside the Achaians’ ships and their shelters holding up in his heavy hand the great colored mantle, and stood beside the black huge-hollowed ship of Odysseus, which lay in the midmost, so that he could call out to both sides, either toward the shelters of telamonian Ajax, or toward Achilles, since these two had drawn their balanced ships up at the utter ends, sure of the strength of their hands and their courage.

(Bk. XI,5-10) “She (Hate) took her place on the huge-hollowed black ship of Odysseus which lay in the middle, so that she could cry out to both flanks, either as far as the shelters of Telamonian Ajax or to those of Achilles; since these had hauled their balanced ships up at ends, certain of their manhood and their hand’s strength.”

5. (Bk. XXII, 143-153) ” So Achilles went straight for him in fury, but Hector fled away under the trojan wall and moved his knees rapidly. They raced along by the watching point and the windy fig tree always away from under the wall and along the wagon-way and came to the two sweet-running well springs. There there are double springs of water that jet up, the springs of whirling skamandros. One of these runs hot water and the steam on all sides of it rises as if from a fire that was burning inside it. But the other in the summer-time runs water that is like hail or chill snow or ice that forms from water.”

Aenead

6. The title “Aenead”

7. (Bk. I,1) “Of arms and the man I sing…”

8. (Bk. IV, 274-277) Mercury delivering a message from zeus to Aeneas: “Consider your growing ascanius, the hope of your heir iulus, for whom the kingdom of italy and the Roman land are destined.”

9. (Bk. VI,295-310) “There in the center (of Hades) a huge and shady elm spreads out its aged arms in branches; here false dreams, they say, reside and cling beneath all of its leaves, and many shapes beside of strange wild beasts; Centaurs in their stalls, Two-formed Scyllas, hundredfold Briareus, the beast of Lerna, hissing and horrible, Chimaera armed with flames, the Gorgons, Harpies, the shadow-shape of Geryon, with three bodies. Shaking in sudden fear, Aeneas snatched his sword and turned its edge toward their approach, and, if his wiser comrade (Sibyl) had not warned him that they were tenuous incorporeal spirits flitting in hollow semblances of forms, he would have rushed and with vain steel slashed shadows.”

10. (Bk. VI, 905-910) “There are twin gates of sleep. One is of horn, they say, where an easy exit is gi en to shades which are true; the other is white and perfect, of gleaming ivory. Through it the Ghosts of the Underworld send false dreams to light. Anchises, his words completed, went with his son and the Sibyl and sent them out through the ivory gate.

I ask this question: Why did the poets speak in this manner in each of these passages? Any of these passages by itself, with the exception of the tenth, would be unlikely to raise much question in the reader’s mind upon the first hearing of the poem. And yet, when these ten passages are taken together and considered in light of the context in which the Iliad and the Aenead is set, they indicate a pattern which is too carefully organized and made use of in itself, and too necessary for understanding the action and outcome of the three epics to be considered accidental or unintentional on the part of the authors.

Finding a tentative interpretation:

What is it that we are told by the first five passages? The first and fourth passages establish a special kind of relationship between Achilles, Odysseus, and Ajax. The heros Ajax and Achilles are presented as extremes of some kind, while the hero Odysseus represents a mean between those two extremes. Or if one thought in terms of a balance, then Odysseus might be called the fulcrum of a balance with Ajax and Achilles at opposite ends of the balance’s arm. We also know that Ajax is closest to Troy. His ship is the first which the Trojans encounter as they attack, and Hector is the first Trojan to be thrown upon the ship in the attack. These facts orient this relationship between the Achaen heros with respect to Troy and the Achaean hero Ajax with respect to the Trojan hero Hector. Homer is often willing to explicitly weigh one hero against another upon Zeus’ Fate Balance.

(Bk. VIII, 70) “But when the sun god stood bestriding the middle heaven, the father balanced his golden scales, and in them he set two fateful portions of death, which lays men prostrate, for Trojans, breakers of horses, and bronze-armored Achaeans, and balanced it by the middle, The Achaeans’ death-day was heaviest. There the fates of the Achaeans settled down toward the bountiful earth, while those of the Trojans were lifted into the wide sky.”

(Bk. XXII,210) “But when for the fourth time they had come around to the well springs then the Father balanced his golden scales, and in them he set two fateful portions of death, which lays men prostrate, one for Achilles, and one for Hector, breaker of horses, and balanced it by the middle,…”

and Vergil also,

(Bk.XII, 730) “Jupiter himself lifted up the two scales with their balance made even, imposing a different fate on each of the pair (Turnus and Aeneas), which one the struggle would doom and which side destruction would cause to descend with its weight.”

Even Plato seems to have considered the possibility of some kind of relationship between homeric Heroes in the dialogue Lesser hippias.

Hippias: “For I say that Homer made Achilles the bravest man of those who went to Troy, and nestor the wisest, and Odysseus the wiliest.”

The second and third passages make a special distinction between the different names which immortals and mortals give to the same objects. I will denote this binomial nomenclature with the term “dual names” for the sake of convenience, representing such names in a hyphenated form, e.g. Xanthos-Scamandros, Scamandrius-Astyanax, Paris Alexandros, Iulus-Ascanius. “The Hill of the Thicket” in the second passage is our first introduction to a dual name. A few lines above this passage, Hector is introduced, a few lines below, Aeneas. Less than fifty lines beyond this passage, at the end of Book II, a figure named Askanios is mentioned in passing. The book ends speaking about the Xanthos river. In the third passage we are first introduced to Hector’s family. We find that his son has a dual name not between the immortals and the mortals, but between his father and the people of Troy. Hector calls his son Scamandrius, after the river outside Tory, but the people of Troy call him Astu-anax, Lord of the City. In this same passage we see Hector with his brother. His brother is denoted by the ancient name Paris, meaning fighter, and its greek translation Alexander, which may mean either “fighter” or “one who shuns or detests”. Paris’ two names have neither the distinction of godly and mortal nor the distinction of paternal and popular, but are apparently arbitrary. Plato has made note of this phenomena of dual names in his dialogue Cratylus.

(371d-392e) Hermogenes: “Why Socrates, what does Homer say about names, and where?

Socrates: “In many passages; but chiefly and most admirably in these in which he distinguishes between the names by which gods and men call the same things. Do you not think he gives in those passages great and wonderful information about the correctness of names? For clearly the gods call things by the names that are naturally right. Do you not think so?

Do you not know that he says about the river in Troyland which had the single combat with Hephaestus, “whom the gods call Xanthus, but men call Scamander”?

Well, do you not think this is a grand thing to know, that the name of that river is rightly Xanthus, rather than Scamander?

It is, I think, more within human power to investigate the names Scamandrius and Astyanax, and understand what kind of correctness he ascribes to these, which he says are the names of Hector’s son.

Which of the names of the boy do you imagine Homer thought was more correct, Astyanax or Scamandrius?

Look at it in this way: suppose you were asked, “Do the wise or the unwise give names more correctly?”

And do you think the women or the men of a city, regarded as a class in general, are the wiser?

And do you not know that Homer says the child of Hector was called Astyanax by the men of Troy; so he must have been called Scamandrius by the women, since the men called him Astyanax?

And Homer too thought the Trojan men were wiser than the women?

Then he thought Astyanax was more rightly the boy’s name that Scamandrius?

Let us, then, consider the reason for this. Does he not himself indicate the reason most admirably? For he says- “He alone defended their city and long walls.” Therefore, as it seems, it is right to call the son of the defender Astyanax (Lord of the City), ruler of that which his father, as Homer says, defended.

The Dialogue Cratylus debates whether there is any naturalness to names in the world of reality. I debate whether names denote natures in the world of the poet’s creation. Socrates is wrong in saying that Hector’s child was called Astyanax by the men of Troy and Scamandrius by the women. Hector gave the proper name Scamandrius to his son. The people of Troy called the boy Astyanax out of tribute to Hector as the defender of their city. My question is not which name is more proper by what is the distinction which the poet intended the two names to convey. Astyanax is obvious in its meaning, Lord of the City. The significance of the name Scamandrius is a more difficult question. It is the Xanthos-Scamander which battled with Achilles and was beaten by Hephaistos, swearing an oath never again to defend Troy from its fate. It was also the river Xanthos-Scamandros which protected the still living bodies of Trojans in its deep-eddying swirls, preserving them from Achilles’ wrath. I would like to say that the difference between Astyanax and Scamandrius is the difference between fighting and fleeing or, more specifically, between making a hopeless stand against an undefeatable opponent and sailing away from a burning city in order to found a new one. But this statement would be premature. I must wait until this conclusion is inescapable.

The fifth passage intimates that there are some kind of opposites or extremes present either in the scene of Hector’s defeat, in the Scamandros river, or in whatever the Scamandros river represents: Opposites in the same manner that hot and cold are opposites, extremes in the same sense that the hottest spring in winter and the coldest spring in summer are extremes.

What are we told by the second five passages? Vergil patterns his work after the Odyssey rather than after the Iliad. This is surprising when we consider that Vergil draws most of his material from the Iliad. The Odyssey is named for its hero Odysseus, who after a journey which “exhausts the sum of all miseries” arrives at the hope of “coming to a land of happy people and dying a serene old age”. The Iliad is named after the city which Achilles seals his fate to conquer, Ilium, a name which immortalizes the glory of Achilles for all generations to come. Vergil named his work after the hero Aeneas who, fleeing burning Troy, suffers a long journey and dies secure in the knowledge that his son and descendants will build a nation which will enjoy “no limit of time or possession endless power, and peace.” Vergil gives us good reason to compare Aeneas with Odysseus as well as to contrast the two.

It would be a rare person, who, reading the first page of the Aenead, would anticipate basin his entire understanding of the work upon the first three words. It is one thing to say that “arms and man” will be the subject of a poem, which is what the first line of the Aenead seems to be saying on the surface. But it is something very different to make the necessity and vainglory of combat and the prudence and cowardliness of the reservation of self and family into two extreme alternatives between which an individual stands and must choose. And yet these alternatives are established in the Aenead in a very poignant manner.

We see that Aeneas’ son, just as Hector’s son, bears a dual name, Iulus-Ascanius. In a message from Zeus he is referred to as the growing Ascanius but as the heir Iulus. I believe that Zeus is the only figure in the poem who would know the correct usage for these two names. I would like to say that the distinction between Iulus and Ascanius is the same as the distinction between Astyanax and Scamandrius, but again I must wait until this conclusion is inescapable.

In the ninth passage we learn that the false dreams of Hades are all creatures of a dual or manifold nature: Briareus, three monsters with a hundred hands; beast of Lerna, a Hydra with nine heads; Chimaera, a lion in front, a serpent in back; Gorgons, winged creatures with snakes for hair; Harpies, flying creatures with hooked beaks and claws; Geryon, a monster with three bodies. Without the aid of Sibyl or some external agent, Aeneas is unable to distinguish these false dreams from reality.

The import of the tenth passage is the most difficult question of all. Why does Anchises send Aeneas and Sibyl through the gate of false dreams? One answer is that they were not true shades but living beings. Another answer is that dreams which come after midnight were considered to be true while dreams before midnight were considered to be false. This would establish the time of day in which they left Hades. But I believe that it is most meaningful to answer this question in the light of the ninth passage. Aeneas and Sibyl left through the ivory gate because they, like the false dreams beneath the spreading elm, have a manifold nature. The sibyl is at times quiet, at times frenzied as she is ridden by Apollo, howling truths mingled with obscurities and falsehoods. Aeneas is forever between the arms and the man, his own soul a mixture of gentleness and blinding rage.

These images provide us with two propositions. That there is a balance among men implies that theres is a difference among men. That an individual has two natures may imply that he has two forces within him, that he has two alternatives from which to choose, or that he serves in two different capacities. The test of these images is whether these propositions are valid in the context of the work. A detailed interpretation of these three epics would detract from the purpose of this paper. I leave the question of the validity of these images open to the reader. I hope the reader will make good use of this question.

It is evident from the Dialogues that Plato shares with Vergil an understanding of these propositions in Homer. The Republic treats the problem of leading the good life. Plato’s conception of the kind o of education which leads to the good life and his choice of Odysseus as the one fortunate soul in the Myth of er embody Plato’s understanding of Homer.

(Bk. X, 618c-e) “And there, dear Glaucon, it appears, is the supreme hazard for a man. And this is the chief reason why it should be our main concern that each of us, neglecting all other studies, would seek after and study this thing – if in any way he may be able to learn of and discover the man who will give him the ability and the knowledge to distinguish the life that is good from that which is bad, and always and everywhere to choose the best that the conditions allow, and, taking into account all the things of which we have spoken and estimating the effect on the goodness of his life of their conjunction or their severance, to know how beauty commingled with poverty or wealth and combined with what hait of soul operates for good or for evil, and what are the effects of high and low birth and private station and office and strength and weakness and quickness of apprehension and dullness and all similar natural and acquired habits of the soul, when blended and combined with one another, so that with consideration of all these things he will be able to make a reasoned choice between the better and the worse life, with his eyes fixed on the nature of his soul, naming the worse life that which will tend to make it more unjust and the better that which will make it more just.”

(Bk. X,620,c-d) “And it fell out that the soul of Odysseus drew the last lot of all and came to make it’s choice, and, from memory of its former toils having flung away ambition, went about for a long time in quest of the life of an ordinary citizen who minded his own business, and with difficulty found it lying in some corner disregarded by the others, and upon seeing hit said that it would have done the same had it drawn the first lot, and chose it gladly.”

Plato expressed this understanding of Homer in one way in the Theatetus,

(Theatetus, 144b) Theodorus: “The combination of a rare quickness of intelligence with exceptional gentleness and of an incomparably virile spirit with both, is a thing that I should hardly have believed could exist, and I have never seen it before. In general, people who have such keen and ready wits and such good memories as he are also quick-tempered and passionate; they dart about like ships without ballast, and their temperament is rather enthusiastic than strong, whereas the steadier sort are somewhat dull when they come to face study, and they forget everything.”

and in another way, in The Statesmen

(Statesman, 306-308) Stranger: “To say that ‘one kind of goodness clashes with another kind of goodness’ is to preach a doctrine which is an easy target for the disputatious who appeal to commonly accepted ideas. This pair of virtues (courage and moderation) are in a certain sense enemies from old, ranged in opposition to each other in many realms of life. Let us see the principle at work wherever those mutually opposite qualities are manifested. We admire speed and intensity and vivacity in many forms of action and under all kinds of circumstances. But whether the swiftness of mind or body or the vibrant power of the voice is being praised, we always find ourselves using one word to praise it – the word is ‘vigorous’. We constantly admire quietness and moderation, in processes of restrained thinking, in gentle deeds, in a smooth deep voice, in steady balance in movement, or in suitable restraint in artistic representation. Whenever we express such approval do we not use the expression ‘controlled’ to describe all these excellences rather than the word ‘vigorous’?”

If speed and swiftness are excessive and unseasonable and if the voice is harsh to the point of being violent, we speak of all these as ‘excessive’ and even ‘maniacal’. Unseasonable heaviness, slowness, or softness we call ‘cowardly’ or ‘indolent’. One can generalize further. The very classes ‘energy’ and ‘moderation’ are ranged in mutual exclusiveness and in opposition to each other; it is not simply a case of conflict between these particular manifestations of them. They never meet in the activities of life without causing conflicts, and if we pursue the matter further, by studying people whose characters come to be dominated by either of them, we shall find inevitable conflict between them and people of the opposite type.

Men react to situations in one way or another according to the affinities of their own dispositions. They favor some forms of action as being akin to their own character, and they recoil from acts arising from opposite tendencies as being foreign to themselves. Thus men come into violent conflict with one another on many issues. Considered as a conflict of temperaments, this is a mere trifle, but when the conflict arises over matters of high public importance it becomes the most inimical of all plagues which can threaten the life of a community.”

The following diagram represents the understanding of Homer which Plato and Vergil shared and the uses which they made of their understanding.

(Diagram will be inserted when I gain access to a scanner)

What knowledge do these epic poems convey?

In every way of life there are alternatives. There are different goods which may be desired and possessed by men. We learn these things as we come to know the heros of the epic. No one good in itself is goodness, nor does the satisfaction of the desire for ay one good constitute happiness for a man. No excess is good. Certain different kinds of goods together do constitute goodness. The possession of certain of these goods in an appropriate measure does constitute happiness for a man. Which of these goods and what measure of them constitute happiness depends upon the kind of man who is to possess them. No power must be excessively increased, no weakness left unduly deficient. The choice of goods rests upon self-knowledge. The standard of measure is in the balance of conflicting goods which must be achieved. The result of such measure is a stable marriage of opposites. We learn these things from the actions of the heroes and their outcomes. We conclude that it is meaningful for men to speak of a happiness in life but that there may be a different kind of happiness in life for different kinds of men. Is this knowledge any different from the sort of knowledge we acquire from long years of experience with life and human nature? Is this not the most important knowledge for any man, how to live his life well from day to day? Is this knowledge of any different quality whether it is found through experience with men or through experience with works of art created by men who have an intimate knowledge of human nature and its imitation? Is the manner by which we discover this knowledge any different in life than in a work of art; that is, by taking the bare lines which are presented to you, as you meet different people and experience successes and failures, pleasures and pains, and continually viewing them from different perspectives and in relationship to other groups of lines in order to discover the most meaningful interpretations and, perhaps, a method?

END OF ESSAY

Senior Essay – St. John’s  College, Annapolis, Maryland – 1971

To the Rose Upon the Rood of TimeRed Rose, proud Rose, sad Rose of all my days!

W.B. Yeats

“… We must first take a general survey before we descend to particulars, else the whole is not seen for the mere details – the wood is not seen for the trees, nor PHILOSOPHY for mere philosophies.” – Hegel, Introduction to the History of Philosophy

So,

Come near me while I sing the ancient ways:
Cuchulain battling with the bitter tide;
The Druid, grey, wood-nurtured, quiet-eyed,
Who cast round Fergus dreams, and ruin untold;
And thine own sadness, whereof stars, grown old
In dancing silver-sandalled on the sea,
Sing in their high and lonely melody.
Come near, that no more blinded by man’s fate,
I find under the boughs of love and hate,
In all poor foolish things that live a day,
Eternal beauty wandering on her way.

PART I

An answer offered to the uncurious is superfluous. A remedy is useless, and sometimes harmful, to the healthy.

Is there a man who wonders why Hegel wrote the History of Philosophy?
Is there a man perplexed over the purpose of the Philosophy of History?
If there are two such men, I offer them answers.

Is there a man who is melancholy because he desires knowledge but believes it to be beyond his attainment? Is there a man who mourns virtue’s plight in the world? I offer a remedy for these two maladies.

This four-fold undertaking sounds ambitious. But it only appears four-fold to the undiscerning eye. The two curious men unwittingly share the same wonder. One answer will suffice for both. Nor is mine ven a three-fold task. The same remedy treats both unhapy men. It is one task which I undertake. My answer to the first pair serves as a remedy for the second.

I must caution at the outset that this prescription is ony potent for a melancholy which results from a peculiar embracing of the priciple of non-contradiction; for a despair which arises from an ardent belief that the good must prosper. I shall shortly caricature the attitudes of men who embrace this principle and this belief in this way.

The curious might well first wonder at the very titles History of Philosophy and Philosophy of History. These titles are easily confused because of their similarity. Wishing to denote one work, we find ourselves unintentionally invoking the other. These titles are the converse of one another.

The History of Philosophy is concerned with the truth and falsity of words. The Philosopy of History, being a kind of theodicy, deals with the goodness and evil of deeds. For these reasons, the works, beyond their titles, themselves share a certain conversity. We must inquire into the nature of truth and goodness in order to see this relationship.

Where is truth found but in words or good but in deeds? Should you point to actions in which you fid truth, I might say that they are no more than the gestures of a speaker. Should you retort that there is good and evil in words, I could reply that they are no more than the tools and weapons of men of action. If words are the world of truth and falsehood and deeds are the world of good and evil, then words and deeds themselves would seem to be worlds apart.

Jurisprudence rules that a man by thinking an evil deed is not thereby evil, but only if he perpetrates his thought in action. Jocasta expresses a similar sentiment to Oedipus; “Before this, in dreams too, as well as oracles, many a man has lain with his own mother. But he to whom such things are nothing bears his life more easily.”¹ All actions, whether good or evil, are true insofar as they have occured and are described accurately in words. The truth or falsehood of words is incidental to their goodness or evil, for they are good or evil only insofar as they are intended by their author to cause acts to be committed. A false statement may be good insofar as it causes a good action to be performed. A true statement which causes an evil is thereby in itself evil. Aquinas suggests that we not adhere strictly to the law when it would result in discord or scandal.² Nietzsche speculates that there are falsehoods in which it is necessary to believe for the sake of action which results in the believer.³ The statements ‘Cain killed Abel’, ‘Cassius and Brutus assassinated Caesar’, or ‘Judas betrayed Christ’ may be true insofar as these actions were committed. But the goodness of these actions does not follow from the truth of the statements.

Words and deeds seem worlds apart because their truth and goodness are not necessary consequences of one another. Yet words and deeds are intimately related in men, who speak and act. When speech does not avail, a man resorts to action. Men engaged in futile struggle may cease their fighting and settle their differences by arbitration. The conversity which the History of Philosophy and the Philosophy of History share lies in the motion of a man who is ‘converted’ from speech to action or vice versa.

Two realms separate in location may be connected by a road which men build and upon which men travel. A road may be travelled in either direction. Often quoted sayings mention the ‘road to knowledge’ and the ‘road to virtue’. “There is no royal road to geometry.” – Euclid. “There is no road or ready way to virtue.” – Browne, “Religion Medici”. If the perfection of truth in words is knowledge and the perfection of goodness in deeds is virtue, then perhaps there is only one road which lies between words and deeds or between knowledge and virtue. The History of Philosophy and the Philosophy of History are addressed to those who despair over knowledge and virtue, respectively. Despair moves men back and forth along this road between words and deeds. We might say that “the road can be looked on as the path of doubt, or more properly a highway of despair.”⁴

What follows are the attitudes of men who embrace the principle of non-contradiction and the belief that good wins out over evil:

A man speaks the truth if no man can contradict and refute his statements.

Socrates: “I think we should all be contentiously eager to know what is true and what is false in the subject under discussion, for it is a common benefit that this be revealed to all alike. I will then carry the argument through in accordance with my own ideas, and if you believe that what I admit to myself is not the truth, you must break in upon it and refute me.” – Gorgias (506)

To act correctly is to prosper.

Eliphas: “Think now, who that was innocent wever perished? or where were the upright cut off? As I have seen, those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same.” – Job (IV, 8)

If the one possesses the truth, he expects agreement from men to his statements. If the other is good, he expects to prosper in the world. Nevertheless, such men may find themselves refuted by others and plagued by the world. They are apt to regard this refutation or adversity as a sign of failure and subsequently fall into despair.

The History of Philosophy addresses itself to the problem of refutation . The refutation of one philosophical system by another is “a much misunderstood phenomenon… Most commonly the refutation is taken in a purely negative sense to mean that the system refuted has ceased to count for anything, has been set aside and done for. Were it so, the history of philosopy would be of all studies most saddening, displaying, as it does, the refutation of every system which time has brought forth.”⁵

The Philosophy of History addresses itself to the plight of virtue in the world. “In contemplating the fate which virtue, morality, and even piety experience in history, we must not fall into the Litany of Lamentations that the good and pious often, or for the most part, fare ill in the world, while the evil disposed and wicked prosper…. Our intellectual striving aims at realizing the conviction that what was intended by eternal wisdom, is actually accomplished in the domain of the existent, active spirit. Our mode of treating the subject is, in this aspect, a Theodicaea – A justification of the ways of God – so that the ill that is found in the world may be comprehended, and the thinking Spirit reconciled with the fact of the existence of evil.” ⁶

The History of Philosophy and the Philosophy of History need not address two different men. One man may experience the despair both of words and of deeds. The Faust which Goethe portrayed is such a man. Faust felt a futility in the pursuit of truth with words.

(355-365)
“I’ve studied now Philosophy
and Jurisprudence, Medicine,
And even, alas! Theology
All through and through with ardour keen!
Here now I stand, poor fool, and see
I’m just as wise as formerly.
Am called a master, even Doctor too,
And now I’ve nearly ten years through
Pulled my students by their noses to and fro
And up and down, across, about
And see, there’s nothing we can know!
That all but burns my heart right out.

Faust might never have left his study were he to have had access to Hegel’s works. The Phenomenology of the Spirit purports in its last chapter to offer Absolute Knowledge. It is not yet clear what the content of this Absolute Knowledge consists of; or whether a restless, middle-aged scholar would have been satisfied with such knowledge. But Faust did not have the benefit of Hegel’s labors. He resorted instead to the dark works of Nostradamus.

In order to embark upon a life of action, Faust wagers with the Devil and becomes a Job of modern times. The first chapter of Job serves as a model for the dialogue between God and Mephistophiles in the Heavenly Prologue. God sends Satan to Job and Mephistopheles to Faust. Faust’s turning from a life of study to a life of action is figured in his translation of John I,1.

‘Tis written: “In the beginning was the Word!” (1225-1235)
Here now I’m balked! Who’ll put me in accord?
It is impossible, the Word to high to prize,
I must translate it otherwise
If I am rightly by the Spirit taught.
‘Tis written: In the beginning was the Thought!
That your pen may not write too hastily!
Is it then thought that works creative, hour by hour?
Thus should it stand: In the beginning was the Power!
Yet even while I write this word, I falter,
For something warns me, this too shall I alter.
The Spirit’s helping me! I see now what I need
And write assured: In the beginning was the Deed!

There are two kinds of ghosts: the gosts of those no longer living and the ghosts of those yet unborn. Goethe’s ghost haunts the pages of the History of Philosophy and the Philosophy of History. Ghosts of Hegel’s notions haunt the lines of Faust. Goethe and Hegel were not unacquainted. “Goethe sent Hegel a delicate tumbler tinted yellow and containing a piece of black silk which made the yellow seem blue – a kind of symbol of Goethe’s theory of colors. The dedication read: ‘The Primary Phenomenon most courteously begs the Absolute to receive it graceously.’ “⁷ Hegel, perhaps by coincidence, describes Goethe as a kind of primary phenomenon, the phenomenon of a great mind, “A great mind is great in its experience; and in the motley play of phenomenon at once perceives the point of real significance. The idea is present in actual shapes, not as something, as it were, over the hill and far away. The Genius of a Goethe, for example, looking into nature or history, has great experiences, catches sight of the living principle, and gives expression to it.” Perhaps the poetry of Goethe served as a ‘primary phenomenon’ for the philosophy of Hegel. The phenomenon of the Fausts in the world, desperately turning between words and deeds, might have moved Hegel to write the Phenomenology of Spirit, the History of Philosophy, and the Philosophy of History.

The endeavors of poetry and philosophy do not necessarily exclude one another. Philosophy written in the form of poetry is nothing alien to our experience; viz., Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura. And who would not admit the poetic aspect of a Platonic Dialogue? Underlying Goethe’s poetry is a philosophy of a marked Hegelian character. And, although he was not noted for his verse, Hegel’s works contain imagery of considerable beauty. The appreciation of a philosophy’s beauty may justly be called extraneous by those who believe that philosophy has a purpose beyond beauty. But such an appreciation is far from frivelous. Hegel was not frivelous when he wrote such passages. This same man is known to have described the starry night sky as an ‘ugly eczema’ and as a ‘swarm of flies’. Are these the words of frivolity or sentimentality? No! They are an attack upon foolish sentiment. Yet, the Phenomenology of the Spirit verges upon poetry. It may be likened to an epic which describes the development of the spirit of man in this world. This development is a movement from words to deeds. The profundity of this subject may have inspired Hegel to express himself in a worthy style. If so, then it would be a mistake to neglect poetic passages whose imagery sheds light on important problems and their solutions.

In light of the above considerations, it would be fitting if Hegel were the man to cheer Faust out of his melancholy. Such a diversion would seemingly require the life’s work of a jester. But I am hardly guilty of duplicity in saying that Hegel accomplishes this in a trice. “How the deuce does he do that?” you ask. “Triplicity!” I reply.

Anyone who begins to study the works of Hegel will be startled by the frequency with which the number three appears. His use of the number three even influences the style of his writing. A glance at the table of contents in the Philosophy of History will reveal that it proceeds by sections of three. His major lectures, which treat philosophy, religion, and art, comprise nine volumes. The Phenomenology of Spirit is his only major work which is not noticibly ‘triplistic’, although an examination of its table of contents yields a result which is not surprising.

Three “friends” come to “console” Job in his affliction. Hegel offers a three of a different kind to a man like Faust. Surveying philosophy historically and philosophically, Hegel finds “something neither old nor new but perennial, ¹⁰, a coming to be and a passing away that itself does not come to be or pass away ¹¹.”

He finds, in philosophy, that “In point of form Logical doctrine has three sides: (a) the Abstract side, or that of understanding: (b) the Dialectical, or that of negative reason: (c) the Speculative, or that of positive reason¹²… understanding corresponds to what we call the goodness of God. In nature, for example, we recognize the goodness of God in the fact that the various classes or species of animals and plants are provided with whatever they need for their preservation and welfare¹³… We have before this identified Understanding with what is implied in the popular idea of the Goodness of God; we may now remark of Dialectic, in the same objective signification, that its principle answers to the idea of His power. All things, we say, – that is, the finite world as such, – are doomed; and in saying so, we have a vision of dialectic as the universal and irresistable power before which nothing can stay, however secure and stable it may deem itself¹⁴… Speculative truth, it may also be noted, means very much the same as what, in special connection with religious experience and doctrines, used to be called Mysticism.”

If the first moment of Logic is scrutinized carefully, in it will be found the very same principle and belief which afflicts a man like Faust. The principle of non-contradiction is the principle of Abstract Understanding. The Logic states that “Contradiction is the very moving principle of the world: and it is ridiculous to say that contradiction is unthinkable, ¹⁶” and that “Instead of speaking by the maxim of excluded middle (which is the maxim of Abstract Understanding) we should rather say: Everything is opposite¹⁷.” The naieve impression of the goodness of God, which Hegel ascribes to Abstract Understanding, may easily give rise to the belief that the virtuous always prosper in the world. This impression is naieve because it is incomplete. It fails to recognize the power of God. A more complete impression of God might, as the second moment of Logic suggests, assume the form of His two servants. One is created. The other if begotten. Both are necessary. Looking to the third moment, only a divine vision, such as Job’s, can resolve God’s goodness, His power, and man’s virtue into a thoughtful appreciation which is above a mere stoic resignation to fate. Our fancy might envision, as the first moment, the monologue of God in Genesis, creating a garden; as the second moemnt, the dialogue of Christ and Anti-Christ in the wilderness; as the third, the Book of Revelation.

Similarly, in history, Hegel finds that the German World after the fall of Rome comprises three periods. “We may distinguish these periods as Kingdoms of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The Kingdom of the Father is the consolidated, undistinguished mass, presenting a self-repeating cycle, mere change – like the sovereignty of Chronos engulfing his offspring. The Kingdom of the Son is the manifestation of GOd merely in relation to the secular existence – shining upon it as an alien object. The Kingdom of the Spirit is the harmonizing of this antithesis. These epochs may be also compared with earlier empires. In the German aeon, as the realm of totality, we see the distinct repetition of earlier epochs. Charlemagne’s time may be compared with the Perian Empire¹⁸… To the Greek WOrld and its merely ideal unity, the time preceeding Charles V answers ¹⁹…. the third epoch may be compared with the Roman World²⁰.” Having shown a design and a teology in the history of philosophy and of the world, that they are progressing to or have already reached an end, Hegel recociles contradictions and injustices with knowledge and virtue. For contradictions are a necessary part of the means by which philosophy develops into its end. And the end of philosophy, according to Hegel, is Absolute Knowledge. Evils are only necessary parts of the means by which history develops to its ultimate end. And the end of history is literally an end of history, a world which has reached a state whose only annals are the ‘blank pages’²¹ of happy life-ever-after. The Fausts in this world need no longer despair, either when refuted or when they suffer an evil. The despair which has arisen in the world from the nature of truth and falsehood and good and evil may be viewed negatively as defeat. But it may also be viewed positively as the means by which the spirit acheives Absolute Knowledge and a happy State. This despair is not an insurmountable obstacle for the spirit but a trellis which directs its growth. Speaking figuratively, what Hegel does by means of these two trinities in Logic and in history for a Faust is to transform a mountain into a flower. “The imperishable mountains are not superior to the quickly dismantled rose exhaling its life in fragrence.”²² If a man knows why “so mighty a form must trample down many an innnocent flower – crush to pieces many an object in its path,”²³ he is then, as Pascal would say, “more noble than that which killed him, because he knows that he dies and the advantage which the universe has over him: the universe knows nothing of this.”²⁴Hegel literally turns the Island of Rhodes in philosophy and history into a rose.

IDOU RODOS IDOU KAI to phdhma

IDOU PODOS, IDOU KAI TO PEDEMA
Hic Rhodus, hic saltus
Her is Rhodes, here is your jump

“Erasmus quotes the Gree, gives a Latin translation, and continues: the proverb will be apt when someone is asked to show on the spot that he can do what he boasts he has done elsewhere.”²⁶

Pascal noted that “words arranged differently have different meanings, and meanings arranged differently have different effects.” ²⁷ Hegel notes that “Rhodus” may also mean “rose” and that “salta” is the imperative of the verb “to dance”. Hegel points out that, “with hardly any alteration, the proverb just quoted would run: “Here is the rose, dance thou here!”²⁸ This metaphor came to his mind while thinking of the Rosicrucians.

Hegel often conjures the image of a plant when he is arguing about the true meaning of refutation. “…Contradiction appears in all development. The development of the tree is the negation of the germ, and the blossom that of the leaves, in so far as that they show that these do not form the highest and truest existence of the tree. Yet none of them can come into actual existence excepting as preceded by all earlier stages.” ²⁹

The rose is no arbitrarily chosen image. A rose unfolds its petals in time. It is a plant which bears no edible fruit. For men, its only fruit is its blossom’s beauty. Hegel often describes the interation of understanding and reaso as the unfolding of the Idea or Notion in time. The different stages of this unfolding Idea appear to us as different philosophical systems in history. According to Hegel, the spirit bears no other fruit than the realization and description of this unfolding process.

The rose brings happiness to mind. It is also an ancient symbol of secrecy, as the phrase “sub rosa” suggests. The cross is a bitter image of suffering and of sin. It is also a joyous image of redemption and forgiveness. To strew a cross with roses and to dance about it is a metaphorical image of the logical operatoin of turning a negative result into a positive one. This is an important operation in the Logic of Hegel. Perhaps the most important exercise of this operation is Hegel’s definition of finite and infinite. “The things of nature are limited and are natural things only to such extent as they are not aware of their universal limit, or to such extent as their mode or quality is a limit from our point of view, and not from their own. No one knows, or even feels, that anything is a limit or defect until he is at the same time above and beyond it.” ³⁰ According to Hegel, a man becomes infinite simply by recognizing his own finitude in discourse or in action. This is the secret of the rose. “Man, if he wishes to be actual, must be-ther-and-then, and to this end he must set a limit to himself. People who are too fastidious toward the finite never reach reality, but linger lost in abstraction, and their light dies away.”³¹ In a sense, Pascal’s ‘thinking reed’ Pensee exhibits the operation of becoming “infinite” through the recognition of a weakness or limit. Erasmus intended that the proverb be a challenge to the impossible. Such a challenge serves as a refutation of the boastful. Hegel tansforms this refutation into cause for victorious jubilation. “To recognize reason as the rose in the cross of the present and thereby to enjoy the present, this is the rational insight which reconciles us to the actual, the reconciliation which philosophy affords to those in whom there has once arisen an inner voice bidding them to comprehend, not only to dwell in what is subsstantive while still retaining subjective freedom, but also to possess subjective freedom while standing not in anything particular and accidental but in what exists absolutely.”³²

This rose is no ordinary rose but a “thinking rose”. It is the flower of philosophies, unfolding its petals on a morning which lasts two thousand years, as the sun of self-consciousness is rising out of the West; on an afternoon whose evening is the fullness of time, as the sun of history sinks into the West. This flower of philosophies is like Margaret’s flower in Faust. Every petal is antinomous, except the last.

Margaret: He loves me – not – loves me – not
He loves me! (plucking off the last petal)Faust: Yes, my child! and let this blossom’s word
Be oracle of gods to you! He loves you!
You understand that word and what it means? He loves you!

Margaret: I’m all a-tremble!

Faust: Oh, shuder not! But let this look,
Let this hand-pressure say to you
What is unspeakable:
To give one’s self up wholly and to feel
A rapture that must be eternal!
Eternal! – for its end would be despair.
No! no end! no end!

This last petal is Hegel’s own philosophy, or rather Hegel’s description of the motion of refutation as philosophy progresses through the stages of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. For, to be precise, Hegel has no philosophy. Were his works a philosophy, they would prophesy their own refutation, or convict Hegel of being a false prophet. Alexander Kojeve describes Hegel’s work as a synthesis of syntheses ³³ which cannot become a thesis for further attack. Hegel does not have a philosophy because he implies that he is not a philosopher. “To help bring philosophy nearer to the form of a science – that goal where it can lay aside the name of love of knowledge and be actual knowledge – that is what I have set efore me.” ³⁴ He has ceased to be ‘wisdom-loving’ and has become ‘wise’. Hegel’s wisdom consists i knowing the real relation of truth to falsehood and the meaning of the phenomeon of refutation. This knowledge is ‘the dance about the rose’.

The dance about the rose is the bacchanalian whirl. “It is the process that generates and runs through its moments, and this, then, includes the negative as well – that which might be called the false if it could be considered as something from which one should abstract. The evanescent must, however, be considered essential – not in the determination of something fixed that is to be severed from the true and left lying outside it, one does not know where; nor des the true rest on the other side, dead and positive. The appearance is the coming to be and passing away that itself does not come to be or pass away; it is in itself and constitutes the actuality and the movement of the life of the truth. The true is thus the bacchanalian whirl in which no member is not drunken; because each, as soon as it detaches itself, dissolves immediately – the whirl is just as much transparent and simple repose.” ³⁵

The music of this dance about this rose is composed by the spirit of the world and is heard by historians of philosophy who “may be compared to animals which have listened to all the tones in some piece of music, but to whose senses the unison, the harmony of their tones, has not penetrated.” ³⁶ The musician is the spirit itself. I hesitate to call the orchestra a trio. “The content uttered by spirit and uttered about itself is, then, the inversion and perversion of all conceptions and realities, a universal deception of itself and of others. The shamelessness manifested in statingthis deceit is just on that account the greatest truth. This style of speech is the madness of the musician ‘who piled and mixed up together some thirty aris, Italian, French, tragic, comic, of all sorts and kinds; now, with a deep bass, he descended to the depths of hell, then, contracting his throat to a high, piping falsetto, he rent the vault of the skies, raving and soothed, haughtily imperious and mockingly jeering by turns;. The placid soul that in simple honesty of heart takes the melody of the good and true to consist in harmony of sound and uniformity of tones, i.e. in a single note, regards this style of expression as a ‘fantastic mixture of wisdom and folly, a melee of as much skill as low cunning, composed of ideas as likely to be right as wrong, with as complete a perversion of sentiment, whith as much consummate shamefulness in it, as absolute frankness, candour, and truth. It will not be able to refrain from breaking out into all these tones, and running up and down the whole gamut of feeling, from the depths of contempt and repudiation to the highest pitch of admiration and stirring emotion A vain of the ridiculous will be diffused through the latter, which takes away from their nature’; the former will find in their very candour a strain of atoning reconcilement, will find in their shuddering depths the all-powerful strain which gives to itself spirit.”³⁷ I do not hesitate to call this music a waltze to Hegel’s ear. Hegel finds in this bizarre potporri of dissonant tones an hitherto uneard of harmony. These tones are none other than the philosophical systems which ‘such mighty forms’ as an Aristotle, a Bacon, or a Kant have produced.

Who is it that dances this bacchanalian whirl about the rose in three-quarter time? In a temporal metaphor, Hegel envisions the history of the world as the upbringing of a long-lived individual. “Imagination has often pictured to itself the emotions of a blind man suddenly becoming possessed of sight, beholding the bright glimmering of the dawn, the growing light, and the flaming glory of the ascending Sun. The boundless forgetfulness of his individuality in this pure splendor, is his first feeling, utter astonishment. But when the Sun is risen, this astonishment is diminished; objets around are perceived, and from them the individual proceeds to the contemplation of his own inner being (returning to the cave) and thereby the advance is made to the perceptio of the relationship between the two. Then inactive contemplation is quited for activity (turning from words to deeds); by the close of day, man has erected a building constructed from his own inner Sun; and when in the evening he contemplates this, he esteems it more highly than the original Sun. For now he stands in a conscious relation to his Spirit, and therefore a free relation. If we hold this image fast in mind, we shall find it symbolizing the course of History, the great Day’s work of the Spirit.” ³⁸ It is Oedipus who dances.

The metaphor is appropriate. Aristotle observes that “…tragedy endeavours to keep as far as possible within a single circuit of the sun, or something near that.”³⁹ Hegel treats the myth of Oedipus at some length in the Philosopy of Hostory in Part I, the “Transition to the Greek World”. Oedipus has a self-knowledge of sorts. That is to say, Oedipus knows what man in general is. He is able to answer the Sphinx’ riddle: “What is that which in the morning goes on four legs, at midday on two, and in the evening on three?”⁴⁰ But Oedipus subsequently shows “a dire ignorance of the character of his own actions.”⁴¹ Oedipus knows man in general but he does not know man as individual. In order to acquire this knowledge, Oedipus must undergo a palingenesis, a backwards developent. He must experience a second birth. Accordingly, Oedipus enters Thebes on two feet by day. Here, his second childhood commences. Here, Oedipus literally returns to his mother’s womb. Staff in hand, he leaves Thebes on “three feet” in the darkness of blindness’ night. After a night can only come a dawn. At Colonnus, Oedipus, walking which his daughter’s support, becomes a creature of four legs. He here receives an especial and aweful knowledge concerning which Theseus alone is given only a hint. Oedipus is then taken in a terrible apotheosis. It is ambiguous whether he is taken up as a god or down to Hades.

In a section on the classification of historical data, Hegel proceeds to view the history of the world as a prosogenesis and palingenesis similar to those which may be recognized in Sophocles’ plays. The German Aeon is the second childhood of history and, like Oedipus’ palingenesis, results in a second dawn (as a term like Enlightenment, Eclaircissement, or Afklarung suggests) and an especial knowledge. “The Greeks and Romans had reached maturity within e’re they directed their energies outwards. The Germans, on the contrary, began with self-diffusion – deluging the world, and overpowering in their course the inwardly rotten, hollow political fabrics of civilized nations. Only then did their development begin,k kindled by a foreign culture, a foreign religion, polity and legistlation. The process of culture they underwent consisted in taking up foreign elements and reductively emalgamating them with their own national life. Thus theri history presents an introversion – the attration of alien forms of life and the bringing these to bear upon their own… The relation to an extraneous principle… wears the aspect of an internal evolution.” ⁴²

It may not be inappropriate at this point for us to recall that Sophocles is an ancient authority on matters of old age. Cephalus relates this to Socrates, “… I remember hearing Sophocles the poet greeted by a fellow who asked, How about your service of Aphrodite, Sophocles – is your natural force still unabated? And he replied, Hush, man, most gladly have I escaped this thing you talk of, as if I had run away from a raging and savage beast of a master. I thought it a good answer then and now I think so still more. For in very truth there comes to old age a great tranquillity in such matters and a blessed release. When the fierce tensions of the passions and desires relax, then is the word of Sophocles approved, and we are rid of many and mad masters.” ⁴³ Sophocles was also an accomplished dancer, as Hegel would have us know. “This glorious battle day presents the three greatest tragedians of Greece in remarkable chronological association: for Aeschylus was one of the combatants, and helped to gain the victory, Sophocles danced at the festival that celebrated it, and on the same day Euripides was born.” ⁴⁴

The section “On the Classification of Historical Data” best represents the resemblance which Hegel found the history of the world to bear to Oedipus and the riddle of the Sphinx: “The History of the world travels from East to West, for Europe is absolutely the end of History, Asia the beginning. The History of the World has an East kat ezoxen; (the term east i itself is entirely realtive), for although the Earth forms a sphere, History performs no circle round it, but has, on the contrary a determinate East, viz., Asia. Here rises the outward physical Sun, and in the West it sinks down; Here consentaneously rises the Sun of self-consciousness, which diffuses a nobler brilliance⁴⁵… The first phase – that with which we have to begin – is the East… It is the childhood of History…. ⁴⁶ Continuing the comparison with the ages of the individual man, this would be the boyhood of History, no longer manifesting the repose and trustingness of the child, but boisterous and turbulent. The Greek World may then be compared with the period of adolescence, for here we have individualities forming themselves⁴⁷ The Roman state, the severe labors of the Manhood of History⁴⁸ The German world would answer in the comparison with the periods of human life to its Old Age.”⁴⁹

The German WOrld experiences a second childhood in the three periods which are analogous to Asia, Greece, and Rome, respectively. This second chldhood is also a second harmony. “The harmoniousness of childhood is a gift from the hand of nature: the second harmony must spring from the labor and culture of the spirit.”⁵⁰ In part, this second harmony is the harmony which Hegel found in the dissonance of hiplosophy. It may now be remarked that the Absolute Knowledge which Hegel offers a Faust has no content proper. Absolute knowledge is the Idea. “To spea of the Absolute Idea may suggest the conception that we are at length reaching the right thing and the sum of the matter. It is certainly possible to indulge in a vast amount of senseless declamation about the idea absolute. But its true content is only the whole system of which we have been hitherto studying the development⁵⁴ The absolute idea may in this respect be compared to the old man who utters the same creed as the child, but for whom it is pregnant with the significance of a lifetime⁵²… All work is directed only to an aim or end; and when it is attained, people are surprised to find nothing else but just the very thing which they had wished for. The interest lies in the whole movement⁵³… Last of all comes the discovery that the whole evolution is what constitutes the content and interest.”⁵⁴ The Idea of Absolute Knowledge is no goal of positive content which has been reached. It is the account of the process of Understanding, yolked with a law whcih it cannot obey, striving towards a positive content as towards a rainbow which it clearly envisions but ever approaches and a promised land which is never native. Absolute Knowledge is the journey itself from words to deeds. Faust must leave his study to attain it. The old law of abstract understanding is replaced by a new law of contradiction and a covenant under which those who exalt themselves are abased and those who humble themselves are exalted. Moreover, Hegel calls Absolute Knowledge the Calvary, the Golgotha of the Spirit, the hill of the skull. The skull is Understanding, which Hegel often describes as a ‘caput mortuum’. It may be said that Reason crucifies itself upon the Understanding, dies, and is ressurected.

“The Old Age of Nature is weakness; but that of Spirit is its perfect maturity and strength, in which it returns to unity with itself, but in its fully developed character as Spirit. This is the ultimate result which the process of History is intended to accomplish, and we have to traverse in detail the long track which has been thus curiously traced out. Yet length of time is something entirely relative, and the element of Spirit is Eternity. Duration, properly speaking, cannot be said to belong to it.”⁵⁵ We may view the history of the world as an individual who has only just reached a maturity. In a sense, history reaches this maturity by dying. As the sun of History sets in the West, history ends. We may sympathize with Aquinas and pardon its past excesses and transgresions. “The same thing is not possible to a child as to a full grown man, and for which reason the law for children is not the same as for adults, since many things are permitted to children, which in adults are punished by law or are at any rate open to blame. In like manner, many things are permissible to men not perfect in virtue, which would be intolerable in a virtuous man.”⁵⁶ We may also join with Solon in passing judgment on its happiness. “Call him, however, until he die, not happy but fortunate.”⁵⁷

And here might this writing end, having satisfied two curious men and having solved the problem of two unhappy men. But what has Hegel done for Faust by revealing this threefold structure in philosophy and history? What significance does Hegel attach to the trinity of moments in the Logic and the trinity of periods in the German Aeon? This has been no ending but a deceptive cadence. Now, a truly plagal cadence follows.

Theism and Atheism

For Man, to become God is his

Blessed Yearning

Tell it the wise alone, for when
Will the crowd cease from mockery!
Him would I laud of living men
Who longs a fiery death to die.

In coolness of thos nights of love
Which thee begat, bade thee beget,
Strange promptings wake in thee and move,
While the calm taper glimmers yet.

No more in darkness canst thou rest,
Waited upon by shadows blind,
A new desire has thee possessed
For procreant joys of loftier kind.

Distance can hinder not thy flight;
Exiled, thou seekest a point illumed;
And, last, enamoured of the light,
A moth art in the flame consumed.

And while thou spurnest at the best,
Whose word is “Die and be new-born!”
Thou bidest but a cloudy guest
Upon an earth that knows not morn.

Goethe, “West-Eastern Divan”

PART II

Does hegel offer Faust divine knowledge? Doe history and philosophy possess a three fold structure because the world is the creation of a triune God? Is Hegel a Theist?

If Hegel offers Faust divine knowledge, his aid is a superfluous, impudent adumbration upon the reconciliation already offered to men long ago in the Bible. Faust has long had access to this knowledge and still despairs. We may infer from Faust’s study of theology and his familiarity with the New Testament that he must have been equally familiar with Job. Such a scholar, in modern times, would have more knowledge thatn Job himself concerning the relationship of Satan to God. If Faust is as sure of his salvation before he makes his bet as is God, in the Heavenly Prologue, of the wager;s outcome, then it is not Faust but Mephistopheles who stands in need of Hegel’s good tidings.

Hegel denies any appeal to divine knowledge. “Yet I might appeal to your belief in it, in this religious aspect. This appeal is forbidden, because the science of which we have to treat, proposes itself to furnish the proof of its correctness as compared with facts. The truth, then, that a Providence (that of God) presides over the events of the world consorts with the proposition in question, for Divine Providence is Wisdom. But to expalin History is to depict the passions of mankind, the genius, the active powers, that play their part on the great stage; and the providentially determined process which these exhibit, constitutes what is generally called the ‘plan’ of Providence. Yet it is this very plan which is supposed to be concealed from our view; which it is deemed presumption, even to wish to recognize.”¹

Moreover, Christianity is not uniquely Trinitarian. The Greek theogeny also displays a trinity. “The Kindgom of the Father is a consolidate, undistinguished mass, presenting a self-repeating cycle, mere change- like that sovereignty of Chronos engulfing his offspring.”² “Thus, it was first Chronos – Time – that ruled; the Golden Age, without moral products; and what was produced – the offspring of that Chronos – was devoured by it. It waas Jupiter – from whose head Minerva sprang, and to whose circle of divinities belong Apollo and the Muses – that first put a constraint upon Time, and set a bound to its principle of decadence ³…. Zeus and his race are themselves swallowed up, and that by the very power that produced them – the principle of thought, perception, reasoning insight derived from rational grounds, and the requirements of such grounds.”⁴ Thought giving rise to Chronos, Chornos giving rise to Jupiter, Jupiter givig rise to Minerva, and thought devouring them all; is a process which possesses the same triune properties whcih Hegel ascribes to the Christian Trinity. The Spirit of this trinity is no dove, but an owl. This principle of thought is not Minerva but her ravenous owls which “spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk.”⁵

If the three moments of Logic and the three periods in history are not the fingerprints of a triune god lingering in the clay, we are faced with two possibilities. one is humerous and embarrasing. The other is awesome and frightening.

Why would Hegel demonstrate that the history of the world resembles the Greek myth of Oedipus and the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Is Hegel a numerologist?

He remarks that “the number Five is regarded as fundamental among the Chinese, and presents itslef as often as the number three among us. They have five Elements of Nature. They recognize fourquarters of Heaven and a center. Holy places, where alters are erected, consist of four elevations and one in the center.”⁶ Yet the number three has more significance than five. The history of the Chinese does not reveal five periods. Their’s is not a logic of five but of three. “The celebrated passage which is often quoted by the ancients (of the Orient) is this, ‘Reason has brought forth the one; the one has brought forth the two; the two have brought forth the three; and the three have produced the whole world.’ In this men have tried to find a reference to the Trinity⁷…. But if Philosophy has got no further than to such expression, it still stands on its most elementary stage. What is there to be found in all this learning?”⁸

Five is important among the Indians too. “Generally the Yogi has to spend a day between five fires, that is, between four fires occupying the four quarters of heaven, and the Sun.”⁹ Yet their logic is not a logic of fives but of threes. “It is noteworthy that in the observing consciousness of the Indians it struck them that what is true and in and for itself contains three determinations, and the Notion of the idea is perfected in three moments. This sublime consciousness of the trinity, which we find again in Plato and others, then went astray in the region of thinking contemplation, and retains its place only in Religion, and there but as a Beyond. Then the understanding penetrated through it, declaring it to be senseless; and it was Kant who broke open the road once more to its comprehension. The reality and totality of the Notion of everything, considered in its substance, is absorbed by the triad of determinations; and it has become the business of our times to bring this to consciousness.”¹⁰

It may be noted here that Kant was aware of the melancholy which can arise from a fruitless attempt at finding truth with words. He saw this melancholy as something peculiar to metaphysicians. For Kant, the antinomous petals of the flower of philosophy are systems of metaphysics which refute one another. The three critiques, in a sense, are the shears which are to prune this flower’s stem. “…., in all ages one Metaphysics has contradicted another, either in its assertions, or their proofs, and thus has itself destroyed its own claim to lasting assent. Nay, the very attempts to set up such a science are the main cause of the early appearance of scepticism, a mental attitude in which reason treats itself with such violence that it could never have arisen save from complete despair of ever satisfying our most important aspirations.” ¹¹ Kant identifies two schools of thought on metaphysics in the metaphor which follows. “Metaphysics floated to the surface, like foam, which dissolved the moment it was scooped off. But immediately there appeared a new supply on the surface, to be ever eagerly gathered up by some, while others, instead of seeking in the depths the cause of the phenomenon, thought they showed their wisdom by ridiculing the idle labor of their neighbors.”¹² Kant saw the necessity for a third position; that of one who finds a cause of the foam. Kant assumed this third position by attempting to demonstrate that what Metaphysics purports to do is impossible. Therefore, a science of metaphysics is impossible.

The shears which Kant designed to prune the flower of philosophies were triply bladed. Kant felt selfconscious about the triplistic character of his philosophy. “It has been thought a doubtful point that my divisions in pure philosophy should always be threefold. But that lies in the nature of the thing. If there is to be an apriori division, it must be either analytical, according to the law of contradiction, which is always twofold, or synthetical. And if in this latter case it is to be derived from apriori concepts (not as in mathematics from the intuition corresponding to the concept), the division must necessarily be trichotomy. For according to what is requisite for synthetical unity in general, there must be (1) a condition, (2) a conditioned, and (3) the concept which arises from the union of the conditioned with its condition.”¹³

For hegel, it does not suffice to say that three is in the nature of the thing. Spirit must reach full self-consciousness of the triad’s significance. “There are thus, according to Kant… twelve fundamental categories, which fall into four classes; and it is noteworthy, and deserves to be recognized, that each species of judgement again constitutes a triad…. It betrays a great instinct for the Notion when Kant says that the first category is positive, the second the negative of the first, the third the synthesis of the two. The triplicity, this ancient form of the Pythagoreans, Neo-Platonists and of the Christian religion, althought it here reappears as a quite external schema only, conceals within itself the absolute form, the Notion…. Kant does not follow up further the derivation of these categories, and he finds them imperfect, but he says that the others are derived from them. Kant thus accepts the categories in an empiric way, without thinking of developing of necessity these differences from unity. Just as little did Kant attempt to deduce time and space, for he accepted them likewise from experience – a quite unphilosophic and unjustifiable procedure.”¹⁴

I believe Hegel attempted to deduce space and time in the first chapter of The Phenomenology of the Spirit, in his analysis of the Here and the Now, which will be treated in the final section of this paper. Perhaps Hegel was able to uncover the ;cause of the bubbles’ in the Phenomenology and also leave the flower of philosophies intact. He concludes the Phenomenology with Schiller’s verse:

The chalice of this realm of spirits
Foams forth to God His own infinitude.¹⁵

There are odd moments when the use of the number three is unavoidable. There are even times when it is appropriate. Surely Caesar was not being Hegelian when he wrote “Omnia Gallia est divisa in partes tres.” Hegel is not blind to this, nor is he free of scorn for numerology. “Numbers have been much used as an expression of ideas, and this on the one hand has a semblance of profundity. For the fact that another significance than that immediately presented is implied in them, is evident at once; but how much there is within them is neither known by him who speaks nor by him who seeks to understand; it is like the witches’ rhyme (one time one) in Goethe’s Faust

This you must ken! (2540-2551)
From one make ten,
And two let be,
Make even three,
Then rich you’ll be.
Skip o’re the four!
From five and six,
The Witch’s tricks,
Make seven and eight,
‘Tis finished straight;
And nine is one,
And ten is none,
This is the witch’s one-time-one!

The less clear the thoughts, the deeper they appear.”¹⁶ Mephistopheles is in total accord with Hegel.

Much more if it is still to come (2555-2565)
I know it well, thus doth the whole bok chime;
I’ve squandered over it much time,
For perfect contradictions, in the end,
Remain mysterious alike for fools and sages.
The art is old and new, my friend.
It was the way in all the ages.
Through Three and One, and One and Three,
Error instead of truth to scatter.
Thus do men prate and teach untroubledly.
With fools who’ll bandy wordy chatter?
Men oft believe, if only they hear wordy pother,
That there must surely be in it some thought or other.

The witches’ one-time-one is strikingly reminiscent of the Pythagorean Tetraktus. “The Four is the triad but more developed, and hence with the Pythagoreans it held a high position. But in the triad the tetrad is in so far contained, as that the former is the unity, and other-being, and the union of both these moments, and thus, since the difference, as posited, is a double, if we count it, four moments result. From this the Pythagoreans proceed to the ten, another form of this tetrad. As the four is the perfect form of the three, this four-fold, thus perfected and developed so that all its moments shall be accepted as real differences, is the number ten, the real tetrad. Sextus syas: “Tetraktus means the number which, comprising within itself the four first numbers, forms the most perfect number, that is the number ten; for one and two and three and four make ten. Whenwe come to ten, we again consider it as a unity and begin once more from the beginning. (i.e. 11,12, 13)”.¹⁷ But the Tetraktus is merely the triad thrice perfected. And, according to Hegel, it is from this Pythagorean trinity and its descendents that the Christian Trinity evolved. “It is now comprehensible that Christians sought and found the Trinity in this threefold nature.”¹⁸ Hegel offers Faust neither divine knowledge nor numerology. Is this knowledge which he offers self-knowledge? Does consciousness see the world ina three-fiold manner, casting God in the image of its own perception? Is Hegel an atheist?

In the Philosophy of Religion Hegel states “I am a Lutheran, and a Lutheran I will remain.” But we cannot so simply dismiss the question of Hegel’s Theism or Atheism with this simple profession of faith. Hegel says that ‘the fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom.”¹⁹ He says this in the middle of the very significant section of the Phenomeology of the Spirit, entitled “Lordship and Bondage”. He does not mean here the Lord God in Heaven; but the master, the conqueror, the ‘lord of men’. Now, it is said in the beginning of Proverbs, “A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels; to understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise and their dark sayings.”²⁰ What is like the words of the wise? “A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver.”²¹

Is Hegel’s wisdom the result of a fear, not of the Lord in heaven, but of the society which lords over him? If so, then Hegel’s words, the History of Philosophy and the Philosophy of History, are truly apples of gold in pictures of silver. When looked at casually, from a distance, they seem silver apples only. When examined more closely, a hint of gold is seen. When scrutinized carefully by the knowing eye, they are recognized as something bearing one kind of outward appearance: yet, in reality, they are inwardly something of a very different nature and worth; the pictures of silver, a Christian Theism; the Atheism, an inner gold in which man becomes God.

Such a doctrine would well warrant concealment. Hegel was not unaware of the dangerous consequences of imprudent philosophizing. He relates that “the opponents of Wolff caused it to be conveyed to King Frederick William I., the father of Frederick II., a rough man who took an interest in nothing but soldiers, that according to the determinism of Wolff, free will was impossible, and that soldiers could not hence desert of their own free will, but by a special disposition of God (pre-established harmony) – a doctrine which, if disseminated amongst the military, would be extremely dangerous. The king, much enraged by ths, immediately issued a decree that within forty-eight hours Wolff should leave Halle and the Prussian States, under penalty of the halter.”²²

If any author does construct his works as apples of gold in pictures of silver, then a very interesting inference may be made concerning the tacit principle to which that author must adhere. The principle is that knowledge is virtue. Our assumption is that the doctrine which the author conceals in the apples of gold is such as may result in abuse or misuse on the part of the wicked or the foolish. Therefore, it must be either the author’s assumption or his hope that htose who have the knowledge to acquire the doctrine have also the virtue to possess it, while those who lack such virtue ipso facto lack the prerequisite knowledge to perceive the doctrine and, as a consequence, remain ignorant of the doctrine’s presence. The author must also either assume or hope that the lips of virtue are discreet.

It would not be difficult to construe Hegel;s writings as those of an hubristic man whose aspiration is to become a god. Hegel apparently disavows such an ambition by his endorsement of Goethe’s humble piece of advice: “The man who will learn to do something great must learn, as Goethe says, to limit himself. The man who, on the contrary would do everything, really does nothing and fails.”²³

In what sense, though, does Hegel follow Goethe’s advice? He admits in his introduction to the Philosophy of History that the results are known to him because he has “traversed the entire field.”²⁴ In the Phenomenology of the Spirit, he sets for himself the goal of Absolute Knowledge. Such a goal strikes us as an odd limit until we recognize it as being not a limit, but the fruit of a limiting process which has already taken place. I here iterate a few words on finitude from the previous section of this paper. “The things of nature are limited and are natural things only to such extent as they are not aware of their universal limit, or to such extent as their mode or quality is a limit from our point of view and not their own. No one knows, or even feels, that anything is a limit or defect, until he is at the same time above and beyond it.”

This limit which Hegel sets for himself, this finitude which he recognizes is, in words, the finitude of discourse, and in deeds, the finitude of actions. The finitude of discourse is the finitude of Understanding’s use of it. “Understanding must not go too far. Understanding is not an ultimate but, on the contrary finite, and so constituted that then carried to extremes, it veers round to its opposite.”²⁵ What we say turns round to its opposite. What we attempt may lead to unexpected results. The finitude of actions becomes evident with the realization that it is not Fate which causes results opposite to those intended to come about but men’s own policy. “Napoleon, in a conversation which he once had with Goethe on the nature of Tragedy, expressed the opinion that its modern phase differed from the ancient, through our no longer recognizing a Destiny to whch men are absolutely subject, and that Policy occupies the place of ancient Fate. This therefore he thought must be used as the modern form of Destiny in Tragedy – the irresistible power of circumstances to whch individuality must bend.”²⁶

It is the great figures of history who must come to a realization of this finitude of action. Of Caesar, Hegel says “It was not then, his private gain merely, but an unconscious impulse that occasioned the accomplishment of that for which time was ripe….²⁷ Such individuals had no consciousness of the general Idea they were unfolding, while prosecuting those aims of theirs… If we go on to cast a look at the fate of these world-historical persons – we shall find it to have been no happy one. They attain no calm enjoyment; their whole life was labor and trouble; their whole nature was nought else but their master-passion. When their object is attained they fall off like empty hulls from the kernel.”²⁸ In the words of Napoleon, “Du sublime au ridicule il n’y a qu’un pas.”²⁹

Wehave an important clue to Hegel’s position concerning Theism and Atheism. He states, “There is no porposition of Heraclitus which I have not adopted in my Logic.”³⁰ Such a proposition is the following: “Join together the complete whole and the incomplete, what coincides and what conflicts, what is harmonious and what discordant, and from out of them all comes one, and from one, all.”³¹ But a consequence of Heraclitus’ proposition is strangely neither theistic n0or atheistic. “Men are mortal gods and gods are immortal men; living is death to the former and dying is their life. Life is the death of the gods, death is the life of the gods; the divine is the rising through thought above mere nature which belongs to death.”³⁴

Let us return once more to the Christian Trinity to see how Hegel employs the logic of Heraclitus. “It is not comprehensible that Christians sought and found the Trinity in this threefold nature. It has often been made a superficial reason for objecting to them; sometimes the idea of the Trinity as it was present to the ancients, was considered as above reason, as a secret, and hence, too high; sometimes it was deemed too absurd. But from the one cause or from the other, they did not wish to bring it into closer relation to reason. If there is a meaning in this Trinity, we must try to understand it. It would be an anomalous thing if there were nothingin what has for two thousand years been the holiest Christian idea; if it were too holy to be brought down to the level of reason, or were something now quite obsolete, so that it would be contrary to good taste and sense to try to find a meaning in it.”³²

Hegel recognizes the very schools of thought which Kant identified in his metaphor. There are two schools of thought concerning triplicity. One deems it too high, the other, too absurd. Consequently, neither talks about triplicity at sufficient length to explain the significance behind it These same two schools are identified in the description of the third moment of Logic, Mysticism. The term Mysticism is used by one to denote all that is read and true, by the other, to denote all superstition and deception. On the one hand, these two schools are as opposed as flesh and spirit. On the other, they are united; as flesh and spirit are united in man; as all oppositions are united by the very fact of opposition. “It was forgotten that Identity and Opposition are themselves opposed, and the maxim of Opposition was taken even for that of Identity, in the shape of the principle of Contradiction. A notion, which possesses neither or both of two mutually contradictory marks, e.g. a quadrangular circle and a rectilineal arc ano less contradict this maxim, geometers never hesitate to treat the circle as apolygon with rectilineal sides³³…. In the notion of a circle, center and circumference are equally essential; both marks belong to it: and yet center and circumference are opposite and contradictory to each other.”³⁴

Hegel sees in triplicity both truth and deception and, therefore, the necessity for a third position. Three is uniquely neither Pythagorean nor Christian nor Kantian, but a basic number underlying many philosophies and religions. Two is the nature of any opposition; three, of mediation. It is man himself who is antinomous, not reality. Numberless pairs of feelings and opinions in opposition to one another war within his breast. This opposition requires mediation if man is to live with himself in peace. “Only it is not being in itself that is thus contradictory, for the contradiction has its source in our thought alone. Thus the same antinomy remains in our mind; and as it was formerly God who had to take upon himself all contradictions, so now it is self-consciousness…. But Kantian philosophy does not go on to grapple with the fact that it is not things that are contradictory, but self-consciousness itself. Experience teaches us that the ego does not melt away by reason of these contradictions, but continues to exist; we need not therefore trouble ourselves aobut its contradictions, for it can bear them.”³⁵

Theism and Atheism are only one of the many antinomies in man. Hegel is neither Theistic nor Atheistic but a mediator of Thesim and Atheism. In Heraclitean fashion, he unites Theism and Athesim into what is neither theistic nor atheistic but something higher than either. His trinity is not the Christian Trinity. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are but being-in-itself, being-for-itself and being-in-and-for-itself in disguise.

We must remember what we first said. Words and deeds seem worlds apart because truth and falsehood in words has no relation to good and evil in deeds. We have neglected to ask ourselves how such entirely different things as words and deeds can manifest this same triplicity. We must recant and admit some connection between words and deeds; between the rational and the actual.

Solon said, long ago, that a word is a shadow of a deed. We are now requiring ourselves to understand how the word is made flesh. In this attempt, we make an additional requirement upon ourselves; namely, to bring together those two realms, knowledge and virtue, which we at first separate. This is a hard saying; that knowledge is virtue. Should we accept the principle that knowledge is virtue, we solve one problem. It is no longer difficult to understand the very curious thing that Mephistopheles, in the guise of Faust, writes in a student’s book, “Eritis sicut Deus, scientes bonum et malum.”³⁶ Why would he not rather write, “You will become godlike, knowing truth and falsehood”? It was not a life of action upon which the student was about to embark, but a life of words and study.

Faust’s turn from words to deeds is no perplexity but a very natural movement from theory to practice. This motion should be seen in all students who are completing their studies. Knowing about truth and falsehood in words, they then reenter the world and face the problems of goodness and evil in action: the application of theory in practice.

Time

Faust’s Wager

(lines 1692-1705)

If ever I lay me on a bed of sloth in peace,
That instant let for me existence cease!
If ever with lying flattery you can rule me
So that contented with myself I stay,
If with enjoyment you can fool me,
Be that for me the final day!
That bet I offer!

If to the moment I shall ever say:
“Ah, lingr on, thou art so fair!”
Then may you fetters on me lay,
The will I perish, then and there!
Then may the death-bell toll, recalling
Then from your service you are free;
The clock may stop, the pointer falling,
And time itself be past for me!

PART III

Faust does not travel the highway of despair from words to deeds unaccompanied. The Spirit of the World journeys with him. The Spirit recounts this Odyssey as it basks on Ithacan shores in the permanent noon of the Sun of Self-Consciousness, having vied with Athena and learned where her booty lies. This Spirit’s tale Hegel retells in the Phenomenology of the Spirit.

The Spirit’s Odyssey begins with words. “In sense-expression pure being at once breaks up into the two ‘thises’, as we have called them, one this as I, and one as object.” More precisely, pure being breaks up into three ‘thises’; I, Here, and Now. “Sense-certainty itself has thus to be asked: What is the This? If we take it in the two-fold form of its existence, as the Now and as the Here, the dialectic it has in it will take a form as intelligible as the This iteslf. To the question, What is the Now? we reply, for example, the Now is night-time. To test the truth of this certainty of sense, a simple experiment is all we need: write that truth down. A truth cannot lose anything by being written down, and just as little by our preserving and keeping it. If we look again at the truth we have written down, look at it now, at this noon-time, we shall have to say it has turned stale and become out of date¹… The same will be the case when we take the Here, the other form of This. The Here is e.g. the tree. I turn about and this truth has disappeared and has changed round into its opposite: the Here is not a tree, but a house. The Here itslef does not disappear; it is and remains in the disappearance of the house, tree, and so on, and is indifferently house, tree. The This is shown… to be… Universality.”²

The Spirit is thus intimidated by Language. “Language… is the more truthful; in it we ourselves refute directly and at once our own ‘meaning’; and since universality is the real truth of sense-certainlty, and language merely expresses this truth, it is not possible at all for us even to express in words any sensuous existence which we ‘mean’.”³ Ego is drowned and obscured in the Universal. ” ‘I’ is merely universal, like Now, here or This in general. No doubt I ‘mean’ an individual I, but just as little as I am able to say what I ‘mean’ by Now, here, so it is impossible in the case of the I too. By saying ‘this Here’, ‘this Now’, ‘an individual thing’, I say all Thises, Heres, Nows, or Individuals. In the same way when I say ‘I’, ‘this individual I’, I say quite generally ‘all I’s ‘, every one is what I say, every one is ‘I’, this individual I. When philosophy is requested, by way of putting it to a crucial test – a test which it could not possibly sustain – to ‘deduce’, to ‘construe’, ‘to find a priori’, or however it is put, a so-called this thing or this particular man, it is reasonable that the person making this demand should say what ‘this thing’, or what ‘this I’, he means: but to say this is quite impossible.”⁴

Spirit’s self-defeat in Language engenders scepticism. Scepticism breeds despair, the despair of words. This despair moves Spirit to an act of desperation which is either murderous or suicidal. “We may be permitted here, in this appeal to universal experience, to anticipate with a reference to the practical sphere. In this connection we may answer those who thus insist on the truth and certainty of the reality of objects of sense, by saying that they had better be sent back to the most elementary school of wisdom, the ancient Elusinian mysteries of Ceres and Bacchus; they have not yet learnt the inner secret of the eating of bread and the drinking of wine. For one who is initiated into these mysteries not only comes to doubt the being of things of sense, but gets into a state of despair about it altogether; and in dealing with them he partly himself brings about the nothingness of those things, partly he sees thesse brig about their own nothingness. Even animals are not shut off from this wisdom, but show they are deeply initiated into it. They do not stand stock still before things of sense as if these were things per se, with being in themselves: they despair of this reality altogether, and in complete assurance of the nothingness of things they fall-to without more ado and eat them up.”⁵

The ultimate deed of the Spirit is recorded in ‘Lordship and Bondage.” Spirit’s experience with words gives rise to sceptical uncertainty of things and of self Spirit desires a recognition which will establish self-certainty. Desire for recognition is the desire for desire; the desire to control another’s desire, that is, to make oneself the object of another’s desire, the standard by thich that other deems itself ‘self’. Spirit recognizes itself in another ‘I’. Yet, for the very reason that the ‘I’ which Spirit sees is ‘other’, Spirit is uncertain of itself. These two ‘I’s challenge one another for recognition in an Homeric fashion. Mortal combat ensues, but mutual slaughter is not the outcome. One fears for his life and submits to slavery. The other becomes a master. The prize of victory is not the kind of recognition which was sought. Spirit desired the recognition of an equal. It now has recognition from a chattle, a ‘thing’. Spirit has merely exchanged the despair of words for the despair of deeds. Moreover, the victor has won the battle but lost the war. By becoming a master, he has lost any chance of achieving self-consciousness. Ironically, the slave is now in a position to achieve self-consciousness. The hands are crossed, so to speak, and the younger son receives the blessing.

The plot of Faust is remarkably similar to the ‘plot’ of the Phenomenology of the Spirit. We first find Faust caught up in the despair of words. As he sits at his desk, the moon rises into view. The moon is Reflection. Its light is the reflected light of the sun.

Faust: …and cease word-threshing from this hour. (385-392)
Oh, that, full moon, thou didst but glow
Now for the last time on my woe,
Whom I beside this desk so oft
Have watched at midnight climb aloft.
Then over books and paper here
to me sad friend thou didst appear!
A1 could I but on mountain height
Go onward in thy lovely light…

Faust is eventually given the opportunity to fulfill this wish if he so chooses. But presently, Faust takes a book of magic and conjures a spirit.

I feel the courage, forth into the world to dare. (465)

Faust is willing to risk his life in order to confront this spirit.

Unveil thyself! …Thou must! (467-500) ‘Tis I, I’m Faust, I am thy peer.

The spirit describes itself as an ocean.

Spirit: In tides of life, in action’s storm,
Up and down I wave
To and fro weave free,
Birth and the grave,
An infinite sea,
A varied weaving,
A radiant living,
Thus at Time’s humming loom its my hand that prepares
The robe ever-living the Diety wears.Faust: Thou who dost round the wide world wend,
Thou busy spirit, how near I feel to thee!

The spirit refuses to give Faust recognition.

Spirit: Thou art like the spirit thou canst comprehend,
Not me!Faust: Not Thee!
Whom then?
I, image of the Godhead!
And not even like to thee!

Faust shortly makes his wager with Mephistopheles and the two embark upon a long series of adventures which culminate in the ultimate deed, the satisfaction of a desired desire. This scene between Mephistopheles and Faust bears an obvious resemblance to Christ’s temptation in the wilderness, Matthew IV. But more important for our present purpose is this scene’s resemblance to Hegel’s chapter on ‘Lordship and Bondage”.

FaustPart II, Act IV (10130-10136)Mephistopheles: …
You have surveyed a boundless territory
The kingdoms of the world and all their glory; (Matt. IV)
Still – with that discontented air –
Did you not lust for something anywhere?

Faust: I did! A great work lured me on,
Divine it!

Mephistopheles:
That can soon be done.
I’d seek some city…

Faust: With that I can not be contented. (10155)

…

Mephistopheles: Then, swelling with self conscious pride I’d raise
A pleasure castle in a pleasant place. (10160-10161)

…

Faust: Sardanapalus! Vile and new, I swear! (10176-10180)

Mephistopheles: Who could divine toward what ou would aspire?
It must have been sublimely bold in truth,
Toward the moon you’d soar and even higher;
Did your mad quest allure you there forsooth?

Faust is now given the opportunity to fulfill his earlier wish:

Ah could I but on mountain height (463-464)
Go onward in thy lovely light…

But Faust’s desire is no longer for objects of reflection. The object of Faust’s desire is no longer words but deeds. Moreover, Faust desires a desire.

Faust: By no menas! For this earthly sphere (10181-10201)
Affords a place for great deeds ever.
Astounding things shall happen here,
I feel the strength for bold endeavor,…

Lordship, possession, are my aim and thought!
The deed is everything, the glory naught.

…

Mephistopheles: …
confide to me the range of your caprices.

Faust: Mine eye was drawn out toward theopen ocean
That swelled aloft, self-towering and vaulting,
And then drew back its billows in commotion,
The broad expanse of level shore assaulting.

It is the sea, as the likeness of which the conjured spirit described itself, which Faust now desires. The moon is a body of weak reflection but of powerful influence on the tides. The ocean is moved by the moon. That is to say, the ocean ‘desires’ the moon.

…

Faust: It steals along, in countless channels flowing,
Fruitless itself and fruitlessly bestowing;
It swells and grows and rolls and spreads its reign
Over the loathsome, desolate domain.
Strong with a mighty will where wave on wave rolls on,
Reigns for a while, retires, and naught is done.
Even to despair it could harass me truly,
The aimless force of elements unruly!
Here dares my soul above itself to soar;
Here would I fight, of this be conqueror.

Faust’s desire is to control the ocean’s desire for the moon. Faust desires to limit the sea and oncover new ground upon which a city can be built.

In Act V, it is a blind Faust who comes at midnight upon what he believes to be a fulfilling of his desire. The sounds which he hears are not of shovels digging drainage channels, as he believes. They are the sound of his own grave being dug. Faust imagines:

(11565-11572)

Green fertile fields where straightway from their birth
Both men and beast live happy on the newest earth,
Settled forthwith along the mighty hill
Raised by a daring, busy peoples’ will.
Within, a land like Paradise; outside,
Up to the brink may rage the mighty tide,
And where it gnaws and would burst through or sap,
A common impulse hastes to close the gap.

It is this rapturous vision which looses Faust the wager. It is the vision of a perfect state.

Aye!Such a throng I fain would see. (11579-11603)
Then might I say, that moment seeing:
‘Ah, linger on, thou art so fair!’
The traces of my earthly being
Can perish not in aeons – they are there!
That lofty moment now I feel in this:
I now enjoy the highest moment’s bliss.

Time stops.All that subsequently transpires is in an eternal moment.

Mephistopheles: Him could no pleasure sate, suffice no bliss,
So wooed he ever changeful phantom’s favor.
This last vile, empty moemtn – this!
The poor wretch wished to hild it fast forever.
Him who against me stoutly held his stand,
Time conquers – here the old man lies in sand.
The clock stands still -Chorus: Stands still! No sound is heard.
The clock’s hand falls.

Mephistopheles: it falls, ’tis finished.

Chorus: ‘Tis past.

Mephistopheles: “Past” – ’tis a stupid word.
Past – why?
Past and pure naught, sheer uniformity!
Of what avails perpetual creation
If later swept off to anihillation?
“So it is past!” You see what that must mean?
It is the same as had it never been,
And yet whirls on as if it weren’t destroyed.
I should prefer the Everlasting Void.

So Faust is swept into the bacchanalian whirl.

The long journey from words to deeds is unavoidable if man is to become what he is. Faust would not have thanked Hegel for persuading him to remain in his study, nor would Hegel be pleased if Faust had.

The bacchanalian whirl is a device to cheat Mephistopheles in their wager. The fiar moment of that dance is ever-lingering and ever-fleeting. The bacchanalian whirl is a moving rest.

Psalms 55:6 And I said, Oh that I had wings like a dove! for then would I fly away, and be at rest.

Hegel says that dialectic properly begins with Zeno. It was no accident that Zeno first applied dialectic to motion. Dialectic IS motion. motion is the dialectic of the Here and the Now. If the second moment of Logic is motion, then the first moment, Abstract Understanding, must be rest; Parmenides unconsciously perhed on one side of the antinomy. The third moment, Mysticism, which subsumes the first and second moments within itself, must be a moving rest. It is just such a moving rest in which Goethe leaves us.

Chorus Mysticus: All earth comprises (12104-12111)
Is symbol alone;
What here ne’er suffices
As fact here is known;
All past the humanly
Wourght here in love
The Eternal-Womanly
Draws us above.

Time was ‘of the essence’ for Hegel. A temporal paradox prompted him to write the History of Philosophy. hegel states this paradox in the Introduction as follows: “If thought which is essentially though is in and for itself and eternal, and that which is true is contained in thought alone, how, then, does this intellectual world come to hae a history? In history what appears is transient, has disappeared in the night of the past and is no more. But true, necessary thought – and it is only with such that we have to do – is capable of no change.”⁶

It is not words only but also deeds which suffer in this temporal paradox. “… there are also many most important things outside of philosophy, which are left unconsidered. Such are religion, political history, forms of government, and the arts and sciences.”⁷ Deeds, as well as words, being products of thought, must have a destination. “For hisotry seems at first to be a succession of chance events, in which each event stands isolated by itself, which has time alone as a connecting link. But even in political history we are not satisfied with this. We see, or at least divine in it, that essential connection or aim, and in this way obtain significance.”⁸ When is this destination reached?

The destination in words and desds is reached when a certain gap which was rent by thought in the fabric of time is by thought finally rewoven. Truth and falsehood are in the temporal realm of the ‘is’. Good and evil are in the temporal relm of the ‘ought to be’. On the day in which wouds and deeds coincide, then will the rational and the actual, the ideal and the real also coincide.

We may recall the ancient distinction between the historian and the poet. The task of thehistorian is to tell things exactly as they are. The task of the philosopher, it may be added, has often been tought to be the expression of what is. The poet tells things not as they are but as they ought to be.

This distinction between the historian and the poet may be seen in Hegel’s description of the three kinds of hisotry in the introduction to Philosophy of History. Of Original History, of which Herodotus and Thucydides are cited as examples, hegel say, “They simply transferred what was passing in the world around them, to the realm of re-presentative intellect. An external phenomenon is thus translated into an internal conception. In the same way, the poet operates upon the material supplied him by his emotions; projecting it into an image for the conceptive faculty. These original historians did, it is true, find statements and narratives of other men reay to hand. One person cannot be an eye or ear witness of everything. But they make use of such aids only as the poet does of that heritage of an already-formed language, to which he owes so much; merely as an ingredient.”⁹

Reflective History is somewhat more prosaic. “This first kind of Reflective History is most nearly akin to the preceding, when it has no farther aim than to present the annals of a country complete. Such compilations¹⁰… are, if well performed, highly meritorious. Among the best of the kind may be reckoned such annalists as approach those of the first class; who give so vivid a transcript of events that the reader may well fancy himself listening to contemporaries and eye-witnesses.”¹¹

Hegel describes Philosophical History as a union, or sublimation, of the ‘ought’ of Original History and the ‘is’ of Reflective Hisotyr. “To insist upon Thought in this connection with history may, however, appear unsatisfactory. In this science it would seem as if Thought must be subordinate to what is given, to the realities of fact; that is its basis and guide; while Philosophy dwells in the region of self-produced ideas, without reference to actuality. Approaching history thus prepossessed, Speculation might be expected to treat it as a mere passive material; and, so far from leaving it in its native truth, to force it to conformity with a tyrannous idea, and to construe it, as the phase is, ‘a priori.’ But as it is the business of history simply to adopt into its records what is and has become, actual occurences and transactions; and since it remains true to its character in proportion as it strictly adheres to its data, we seem to have in Philosophy, a process diametrically opposed to that of the historiaographer. This contradiction, and the charge consequently brought against speculation, shall be expalined and confuted…. The only thought which Philosophy brings with it to the contemplation of History, is the simple conception of Reason; that Rason is the Sovereign of the World; that the history of the world, therefore, presents us with a rational process.”¹²

By uniting the ‘is’ and the ‘ought to be’, Philosophical History recognizes the rational in what is actual. The Ideal is recognized as actual and existent in the Real. Hegel sees the proper function of philosophy as the recognition and description of the union of the ‘is’ and the ‘ought’. “One word more about giving instruction as to what the world ought to be. Philosophy in any case always comes on the scene too late to give it. As the thought of the world, it appears only when actuality is already there cut and dried after its process of formation has been completed. The teaching of the concept, which is also history’s inescapable lesson, is that it is only when actuality is mature that the ideal first appears over against the real and that the ideal apprehends this same real world in its substance and builds it up for itslef into the shape of an intellectual realm. When philosophy paints its grey in grey, then has a shape of life grown old. By philosophy’s grey in grey, it cannot be rejuvenated but only understood. The owl of Minerve spreads its wings only with the falling of dusk.”¹³

When this gap etween the ‘is’ and the ‘ought’ is finally rewoven, time stoops. That is, the quill which records the annals of the history of the world and of the history of philosophy comes to a halt. It may truly be said of the permanent noon of self-consciousness that ‘there is nothing new unders the sun.’ Nothing new is said. Nothing new is done. Of course, clocks continue to tick, provided that men still take an interest in building new clocks or repairing old ones. But will men still take this interest? Now the tocsin of war no longer sounds. Now men no longer raise their heads at the tolling of the bell. Now is an eternalnow. We must ask ourselves,”Is this a tragedy?” My only answer would be “Tes, and no,” which is an Hegelian answer and therefore begs the question. Though I do not know the answer, this question must continually be asked. If we ask ourselves whether Faust is a tragedy, I think our answers will provide us with a similar difficulty.

Fortunately, we are not forced to face these questions here. Without having answered them, we can see that Hegel was more successful with words than with deeds. His theory put to practice suffers an age-old fate. The three moments of Logic are more tenable than the three periods of the German Aeon. We will all, I am sure, entertain his notion of an end to philosophy far sooner than any notion of an end to history. We cannot accept Napoleon as history’s end. Nor had the end which Marx and Engels envisioned truly come to pass. We see, either to Hegel’s embarrassment or to shi glory, that the Sun of history has not stopped in the West of Germany, but has moved on. It may presently be lurking somewhere near the approximate vicinty from which it first arose. If so, then the sun of history might properly be said to have completed its circuit about the globe. And it may go round again before the light of the physical sun fades and dies. Perhaps the light of history comes from no sun, but from a dim, epoch-marking comet which Gibbon mentions:

“In the narrow space of history and fable, one and the same comet is already found to have revisited the earth in seven equal revolutions of five hundred and seventy-five years. The first, which ascends beyond the Christian era one thousand seven hundred and sixty-seven years, is coeval with Ogyges, the father of Grecian antiquity. And this appearance explains the tradition which Varo has preserved, that under his reigh the planet Venus changed her color, size, figure, and course; a prodigy without example either in past or succeeding ages. The second visit, in the year eleven hundred and ninety-three, is darkly implied in the fable of Electra, the seventh of the Pleiads, who have been reduced to six since the time of the Torjan war. That nymph, the wife of Dardanus, was unable to support the ruin of her country; she abandoned the dances of her sister orbs, fled from the zodiac to the north pole, and obtained, from her dishevelled locks, the name of the comet. The third period expires in the year six hundred and eighteen, a date that exactly agrees with the tremendous comet of the Sibyl, and perhaps of Pliny, which arose in the West two generations before the reign of Cyrus. The forth apparition, forty-four years before the birth of Christ, is of all others the most splendid and important. After the death of Caesar, a long haired star was conspicuous to Rome and to the nations, during the games which were exhibited by young Octavian in honor of Venus and his uncle. The vulgar opinion, that it conveyed to heaven the divine soul of the dictator, was cherished and consecrated by the piety of a statesman; while his secret superstition referred the comet to the glory of his own times. The fifth visit has been already ascribed to the fifth year of Justinian, which coincides with the five hundred and thirty-first of the Christian era. And it may deserve notice that in this, as in the preceeding instance, the comet was followed by remarkable paleness of the sun. The sixth return in the year eleven hundred and six, is recorded by the chronicles of Europe and China; and in the irst fervor of the crusades, the Christian sand the Mahometans might surmise, with eaqual reason, that it portended the destruction of the Infidels. The seventh phenomenon, of one thousand six hundred and eighty, was presented to the eyes of an enlightened age. The philosophy of Bayle dispelled a prejudice which Milton’s muse had so recently adorned, that the comet, “from its horrid hari shakes pestilence and war.’ Its road in the heavens was observed with exquisite skill by Flamstead and Cassini: and the mathematical science of Bernoulli, Newton, and Halley, investigated the laws of its revolutions. At the eighth period, in the year two thousand three hundered and fifty-five, their calculations may perhaps be verified by the astronomers of some future capital in the Siberian or American wilderness.”¹⁴

“I have to express my thinks to you for the attention with which you have listened to me while I have been making this attempt; it is in great measure due to you that my efforts have met with any measure of success. And it has been a source of pleasure to myself to have been associated with you in this spiritual community; I ought not to speak of it as if it were a thing of the past, for I hope that a spiritual bond has been knit between us which will prove permanent. I bid you a most hearty farewell.”- Hegel, conclusion to the History of Philosophy

Now, as I am born with the breath of these words into that world from which I came, I arm myself with the homily of this obscure man.

“Mind your till and till your mind.” – C.H. Spurgeon

END OF ESSAY

THESE SORTS OF NOTES AND TRANSLATIONS AND USEFUL LINKS SHOULD BE MADE

AVAILABLE BY ROSETTA STONE.  STUDENTS SHOULD JOIN TOGETHER ON INTERNET TO COMPILE SUCH USEFUL INFORMATION. ROSETTA STONE IS THE BEST BUT IT COULD BE BETTER!!! (MY SUGGESTION)

Very useful pinyin dictionary for Mandarin

中国语文   中文

nǐ huì shuō Zhōngwén ma?

Do you speak Chinese?

你说中国话吗？

Nǐ shuō zhōngguó huà ma?

My new Chinese name

Surname (first character)

• Bi

畢- Bì – Complete

Given Name (middle character)

• Wei
• comfort, console, calm

Given Name (last character):

• lun
• debate; discuss; discourse

威廉 – william

威 – – prestige

廉 – – inexpensive incorrupt

honest and clean

You were born in the Year of the Ox

威論 -Wēi lùn -Prestige theory

威廉 -Wēilián – William

鐘 – Zhōng- bell

慰 Wèi – comfort

論 Lùn – theory

畢 慰 論 – Bì wèi lùn –

畢威論

http://pinyin.sogou.com/

http://www.pinyinput.com/?lang=en

http://quizlet.com/5670192/chinese–clo-1-5-flash–cards/

猪 – Zhū – pig

竹 – Zhú – bamboo

做 – Zuò – do (cook)

http://mandarin.about.com/od/dailymandarin/a/bijiao.htm

http://maryeaudet.hubpages.com/hub/Speak–Mandarin–Chinese

http://www.chinese–forums.com/index.php?

http://www.jongerow.com/chinese.html

http://hktv.cc/cd/hanyupinyin/?q=gege&srch=go

http://www.zhongwen.com/

http://www.quickmandarin.com/chinesepinyintable/

http://www.wix.com/larzrox/china/page-2

http://translate.google.com/#zh–CN|en|zhe%20shi%20shen%20mi

http://www.words–chinese.com/pinyin–converter

http://resources.rosettastone.com/assets/ollc/1311702590/assets/pdfs/course_contents/rs/level_1/CHI.pdf

http://quizlet.com/6149580/l1004-flash–cards/

http://www.echineselearning.com/newsletter/issue-03/Conversation.html

http://www.learnchineseez.com/lessons/mandarin/pinyin/page11.html

“What is this?” = Zhè shì shén me

这是什么

http://translate.google.com/#zh–CN|en|zhe%20shi%20shen%20mi

“What is this?” = Zhè shì shénme

这是什么

zhe shi yi zhi bi = this is a pen

这是一支钢笔

Zhè shì yī zhī gāngbǐ

果汁

Guǒzhī

fruit juice

他有书

Tā yǒu shū

He has book

http://translate.google.com/#en|zh–CN|he%20has%20book%0A

一份报纸

Yī fèn bàozhǐ

a newspaper

yi ge nan hai zi he yi ge nan ren

A boy and a man

一个男孩子和一个男人

再见

Zàijiàn

Goodbye

nan ren = man

麻  Má

Noun

hemp

cannabis

flax

sesame

tingling

leprosy

Verb

have pins and needles

Adjective

numb

pockmarked

flaxen

pocked

pocky

nǐ hǎo = How you?

nán rén = male(s) 男人

nǚ rén = female(s) 女人

nán hái zi = male child/children

一个男孩 – a boy

nǚ hái zi = female child/children

guǒ zhī  = fruit juice 果汁

chá  = tea 茶

shuǐ  = water

bào zhǐ = newspaper

http://quizlet.com/3861611/ic–l1p1l02-d1-flash–cards/

爸爸 Bà ba – Father

母亲 mā ma = Mother

孩子 child hái zi

谁 who – shéi

弟弟 younger brother – dì di

女孩子 girl – nǚ hái zi

女 female – nǚ

妹妹 – younger sister – mèi mei

女儿 – daughter – nǚ’ér

有 – to have; to exist (there is/are) – yǒu

儿子 – son – ér zi

没 – not (negation) – méi

小 – small; little – xiǎo

高 – (a surname); tall; high – gāo

朋友 – friend – péng you

shū = book

人 (rén, “person”)

yí ge nǚ rén = 一个女人 = a female

yí ge nán rén = 一个男人 = a male

zhè ge nǚ rén zài hē  shuǐ 這個女人在喝水

woman drinks water – drinking = 在喝

zhè ge nán rén zài chī fàn 這個男人在吃飯 The male eating (at dinner)

吃飯 Chī fàn eat

yí  ge nán hái zi – a boy – 一個男孩子

yí  ge nǚ hái zi – a girl – 一個女孩子

yí  ge nán hái zài chī fàn 一個男孩子 在吃飯

A boy at dinner

yí  ge nán hái zi zài hē  shuǐ 個男孩子 在喝水

在喝 – drinking

在 – in

tā men zài kàn bào zhǐ

他們在看報紙 they read newspapers

tā zài hē chá

她 ta – she

在 zài – in

喝 hē – drink

茶 chá – tea

他們在 tā men zài – they

zài zuò fàn – prepare food

做 –  zuò – do

你在干什么 Nǐ zài gànshénme – What are you doing

在 – zài – in

zhè xiē nǚ

这个男孩子在吃饭 Zhège nán háizi zài chīfàn – the boys at dinner

这 this

个 a

男 nan – male

孩 Hái – child

这些男人在喝水  Zhèxiē nánrén zài hē shuǐ

子 Zi child

在 – Zài – in

吃 – Chī – eat

这些男人 Zhèxiē nánrén – these men

这些 Zhèxiē  – these

gong you???

手机 – Shǒujī –  phone

窗户 – chuāng hu – window

wei sheng jian

浴室 bathroom Yùshì

mǎ tǒng toilet 馬桶

http://mandarin.about.com/od/vocabularylists/tp/household.01.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinyin

电脑 – diàn nǎo  – computer (electric brain)

http://www.ehow.com/video_4403984_write-_computer_-chinese–symbols.html

diàn – electrical

film / move – yǐng

kàn = watch/read/look at

看电影 Kàn diànyǐng – watch a movie

看电视 Kàn diànshì – watch televison

收听电台 Shōutīng diàntái listen to radio

现代科学技术 Xiàndài kēxué jìshù – modern science and technology

LESSON 2 VOCABULARY

yí tào gōng yoù

公寓 Gōngyù – apartment

套 tào – set

一套衣服 Yī tào yīfú – A set of clothes

一套 Yī tào SET

一套 公寓 – Yī tào gōngyù – Apartment

Apartment

房子 Fángzi – house

yí  zuò

座 Zuò Tower

仪座房子 – a house

仪 Yí – instrument

座 Zuò Tower

房 Fáng Room

子 Zi Child

http://www.zein.se/patrick/3000char.html

一扇门 yí shàn mén – a door

一台电视机 Yī tái diànshì jī – one television

一台 yí – a

一台收音机 Yī tái shōuyīnjī – a radio

yì tái

电脑 – diàn nǎo  – computer

一台台式电脑 yí tái tái shì diàn năo, desktop computer

http://quizlet.com/3693864/random-1-flash–cards/

一台笔记本电脑 yì tái bĭ jì bĕn diàn năo – laptop computer

zhè tái  diàn năo zài zhūo zi shang

这本书在桌子上 – Zhè běn shū zài zhuōzi shàng – The book on the table

桌子上 Zhuōzi shàng – table

zhè ge shōu yīn jī zài zhuōzi shàng

zhè ge shōu yīn jī zài yǐ zi shang

这只猫在电视上 Zhè zhǐ māo zài diànshì shàng Cat on TV

http://quizlet.com/2855622/rosetta-2-flash–cards/

这个收音 Zhège shōuyīn – the radio

这把椅子 – Zhè bǎ yǐzi – this chair

zhè zhī māo zài diàn shì shang

在 zài – in

一只猫 -Yī zhǐ māo- a cat

這隻貓在 Zhè zhī māo zài – Cat in

猫在电视上 Māo zài diànshì shàng – cat on television

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1796055

这 – zhè – this

支 zhī support

zhè ge

苹果 – Píngguǒ – apple

zhè ge = this

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1796055

zhè xie = these

这 Zhè – this

這個 Zhège this

帽子 Màozi – hat

帽子里 Màozi lǐ – hat

zhè xiē yào shi zài xié zi lǐ

http://www.slideshare.net/stephjlee17/cc–zh–cnlevel1-7868047

在鞋 Zài xié – in a shoe

子里 Zi lǐ Yard

在鞋子里 – Zài xiézi lǐ – in his shoes

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/y%C3%A0o

这些钥匙 – Zhèxiē yàoshi – These key

这些钥匙 在鞋子里 -Zhèxiē yàoshi zài xiézi lǐ -The keys in his shoes

zhè tái diàn nǎo zaì chē lǐ

这台电脑 – zhè tái diàn nǎo – This computer

http://english.cri.cn/3426/2006/07/13/102@113906.htm

车 – Chē – car

里 – Lǐ – In

chuáng xià bian

床 -chuáng -bed

下边 – xià bian – under

zhuō zi xià bian

下表 – Xià biǎo- under table

桌子 – Zhuōzi – table

衬衫 chèn shān – shirt

chē shàng bian

http://77chinese.com/web/news.aspx?cid=98

车 chē vehicle

乘 chéng ride ; to drive

长 cháng zhǎng long ; be good at

車上邊 Chē shàngbian – side of car

这是窗口 Zhè shì chuāngkǒu – this is window

yí shàn chuāng hu

http://quizlet.com/3090869/home–vocab–random–flash–cards/

窗 chuāng window

一扇窗戶 這 – Yī shàn chuānghù zhè – This is a window

这只猫在电视上  Zhè zhǐ māo zài diànshì shàng – cat on tv

yí ge mǎ tǒng

馬桶 – mǎ tǒng – toilet

wǎn chí

洗碗池 Xǐ wǎn chí – kitchen sink

yì jiān kè tīng – family room

kè tīng. 客厅 living room

一間客廳 – yì jiān kè tīng – a living room

http://quizlet.com/6133171/rooms–and–days–flash–cards/

zhè wèi mǔ qin  zài yōng bào tā nǚ ér

這位父親在擁抱他的兒子 The father hugged his son

Zhè wèi fùqīn zài yǒngbào tā de érzi

這 Zhè – This

位 wèi  position

父 – Fù – father

父親 – Fùqīn – father

母亲 – Mǔqīn – mother

親 – Qīn – parent

在 – Zài – in

擁 – Yōng – own

抱 – Bào – hold

他 – Tā – he

的-  De – Of

兒 – Er – Child

子 – – Child

兒子 – Érzi – Son

女儿 – Nǚ’ér – daughter

zhè ge mèi mei

http://hktv.cc/cd/hanyupinyin/?q=meimei

听收音机 tīng shōu yīn jī – listen to the radio

wǒ men zhù zài yí tào gōng yù lǐ

你的报纸在桌子上 -Nǐ de bàozhǐ zài zhuōzi shàng – your newspaper is on the table

我们住在一座房子里 -Wǒmen zhù zài yīzuò fángzi lǐ – we live in a house

我們住在一套公寓裡 – wǒ men zhù zài yí tào gōng yù lǐ- we live in an apartment

你住在哪里 – Nǐ zhù zài nǎlǐ – where do you live

我们住- wǒ  men zhù – we live

你们住 – nǐ  men zhù – you live

yì ge nán rén hé yì zhī gǒu

a man and a dog

一個男一人和狗

毛衣 – Máoyī – sweater

yí jiàn máo yī

一件 – Yī jiàn – A

褲 -Kù – pants

皮帶 – Pídài – belt

一条 – yì tiáo – A

北上广深 – Běishàng guǎng shēn – North of Guangzhou-Shenzhen

A man and a dog         Yīgè nánrén hé yī zhǐ gǒu 一個男一人和狗

A woman and her dog Yīgè nǚrén hé tā de gǒu 一個女人和她的狗

A girl and a horse        Yīgè nǚ háizi hé yī pǐ mǎ

A policeman and his horse     Yī wèi jǐngchá hé tā de mǎ

A man and his car       Yīgè nánrén hé tā de chē

A woman and her car Yīgè nǚrén hé tā de chē

A man and his cat       Yīgè nánrén hé tā de māo

A woman and her cat  Yīgè nǚrén hé tā de māo

They (girls) are eating their sandwiches        Tāmen zài chī tāmen de sānmíngzhì

They eat their apples. Tāmen zài chī tāmen de píngguǒ

They read Newspapers          Tāmen zài kàn tāmen de bàozhǐ

They (girls) look at their books            Tāmen zài kàn tāmen de shū

They look at their books          Tāmen zài kàn tāmen de shū

He reads his book       Tā zài kàn tā de shū

She reads her book    Tā zài kàn tā de shū

She ate her apple        Tā zài chī tā de píngguǒ

He ate his apple          Tā zài chī tā de píngguǒ

They (female) ate their apple  Tāmen zài chī tāmen de píngguǒ

Family Yī jiā rén

A woman and her daughter    Yīgè nǚrén hé tā nǚ ér

A man and his son      Yīgè nánrén hé tā érzi

A boy and his father    Yīgè nán háizi hé tā fùqīn

A girl and her mother  Yīgè nǚ háizi hé tā mǔqīn

Daughter         nǚ ér

Son      érzi

Father  fùqīn

Mother mǔqīn

A baby Yīgè yīng’ér

Two girls and their parents     Liǎng gè nǚ háizi hé tāmen fùmǔ

A girl and her parents  Yīgè nǚ háizi hé tā fùmǔ

A woman and her husband     Yīgè nǚrén hé tā xiānshēng

A man and his wife     Yīgè nánrén hé tā tàitài

A woman and her child           Yīgè nǚrén hé tā háizi

A father and his daughter        Yī wèi fùqīn hé tā nǚ’ér

Parents and their sons           Fùmǔ hé tāmen er zi

A mother and her baby boy     Yī wèi mǔqīn hé tā de yīng’ér

Parents and their daughter     Fùmǔ hé tāmen nǚ’ér

A man and his wife     Yī wèi xiānshēng hé tā tàitài

A father and his children         Yī wèi fùqīn hé tā háizi

A boy and his dog playing       Zhège nán háizi hé tā de gǒu zài wán

A woman and her cat playing Zhège nǚrén hé tā de māo zài wán

A mother and her daughters playing   Zhè wèi mǔqīn hé tā nǚ’ér zài wán

A father and his sons playing  Zhè wèi fùqīn hé tā érzi zài wán

The son is not playing, the father is playing    Zhège érzi méi zài wán, tā fùqīn zài wán

The children are not cooking, their father is cooking  Zhèxiē háizi méi zài zuò fàn, tāmen fùqīn zài zuò fàn

The father is not reading a book, his daughter is reading a book       Zhè wèi fùqīn méi zài kàn shū, tā nǚ’ér zài kàn shū

Who is drinking Juice?            Shuí zài hē guǒzhī?

Who is sleeping          Shuí zài shuìjiào?

Who is playing?          Shuí zài wán?

Who is eating?            Shuí zài chīfàn?

This is my daughter    Zhè shì wǒ nǚ’ér

This is my son            Zhè shì wǒ érzi

This is my mother       Zhè shì wǒ mǔqīn

This is my bike            Zhè shì wǒ de zìxíngchē

This is my bed            Zhè shì wǒ de chuáng

This is my father         Zhè shì wǒ fùqīn

http://quizlet.com/6144089/test-001-flash–cards/

http://quizlet.com/4024539/rosetta-12-flash–cards/

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%A4%A9

http://quizlet.com/subject/mandarin/

http://quizlet.com/1232953/chinese–i–set-2-flash–cards/

http://www.chinese–tools.com/tools/pinyin–editor.html

ā ē ī ō ū ǖ

á é í ó ú ǘ

ǎ ě ǐ ǒ ǔ ǚ

à è ì ò ù ǜ

a e i o u ü

++++++

ā ē ī ō ū ǖ

á é í ó ú ǘ

ǎ ě ǐ ǒ ǔ ǚ

à è ì ò ù ǜ

a e i o u ü

(a spare in case I clobber characters)

yì jiān kè tīng

chá    茶

sān míng zhi        三明治 Sandwich

zhè xiē       這些

miàn bāo    麵包 Bread

yóu yǒng    游泳

tā men        他們

ni˘ hao˘       你好

nǚ rén         女人

hē guǒ zhī  喝果汁

nán rén       男人

kàn shū      看書

hái zi 孩子

guǒ zhī       果汁

nǚ hái zi      女孩子

zhè ge        這個

chī fàn.       吃飯

shui˘  水

xiě zì 寫字

tā men zài chī fàn.        她們在吃飯。

kàn bào zhǐ 看報紙

zuò fàn       做飯

pǎo bù        跑步

kàn    看

tā men zài xiě zì. 他們在寫字。

hàn    和

zhè zhī gǒu zài kāi chē.          這隻狗在開車。

bào zhi˘      報紙

huáng se    黃色 Yellow

miàn bāo hàn shui˘       麵包和水 Bread and water

yì zhī māo  一隻貓 A cat

niú nǎi         牛奶 milk

jī dàn 雞蛋 eggs

zài jiàn        再見 Goodbye

yí ge píng guo    一個蘋果 An apple

shu¯ 書

kā fēi 咖啡 Coffee

méi yǒu, tā méi zài shuì jiào. 沒有,她沒在睡覺。No, she did not in sleep

méi yǒu      沒有

shuì jiào     睡覺 Sleep

kā fēi hàn yí ge jī dàn   咖啡和一個雞蛋 Coffee and an egg

yì tiáo yu    一條魚 A fish

zhè zhī gǒu zài chī dōng xi.   這隻狗在吃東西。 The the dog eating

yì zhī gǒu   一隻狗 A dog

lán se         藍色 Blue

mǐ fàn hàn yí ge píng guo     米飯和一個蘋果 Rice and an apple

mǐ fàn         米飯

zhè ge nǚ hái zi zài zǒu lù.     這個女孩子在走路。This girl walking

duì    對

yì zhī māo zài xiě zì.     一隻貓在寫字。A cat on writing

xiě zì 寫字

tā yǒu yì běn shū.         他有一本書。He has a book

zhè zhī gǒu zài yóu shuǐ.        這隻狗在游水。Dog at swimming

zhè tiáo yú zài yóu.       這條魚在游。Fish in the swim

tiān kōng    天空 Sky

yì duǒ huā  一朵花

zhè duǒ huā hěn xiǎo.  這朵花很小。

bái se         白色

yì pǐ ma      一匹馬

tiān kōng shì lán sè de.         天空是藍色的。

tā men shì jǐng chá.      他們是警察。

jǐng chá      警察

zhè pǐ mǎ zài yóu shuǐ ma?   這匹馬在游水嗎?

zhè tiáo yú hěn dà.       這條魚很大。

tā men yǒu yí fèn bào zhǐ.     他們有一份報紙。

yí fèn bào zhǐ      一份報紙

nǐ zài zuò shén me?     你在做甚麼?

zuò    做

shén me     甚麼

zhè zhī māo zài shuì jiaò.      這隻貓在睡覺。

yì liàg che¯          一輛車

liàng  輛

hóng se      紅色

kāi chē       開車

yī shēng     醫生

zhè shì shén me?        這是甚麼?

zhè ge qiú shì hóng sè de.   這個球是紅色的。

qiú     球

cǎo   草

tài yáng      太陽

tài yáng shì huáng sè de.      太陽是黃色的。

zhè pǐ mǎ zài pǎo.        這匹馬在跑。

pǎo   跑

yì tiáo yu zài kàn bào zhǐ.       這條魚在看報紙。

hēi se         黑色

zài jiàn        再見

cǎo shì lǜ sè de. 草是綠色的。

wu˘    五

lán     藍

zhè shì mǐ fàn.    這是米飯。

sì      四

wǒ yǒu yì běn lǜ sè de shū.  我有一本綠色的書。

zhè lǐ 這裡

duō shǎo    多少

zhè lǐ yǒu duō shǎo tiáo yú?  這裡有多少條魚?

lǎo shī        老師

shǒu jī        手機

zhè ge nán hái zi méi yǒu bǐ. 這個男孩子沒有筆。

bǐ.      筆

méi yǒu      沒有

nín yǒu shén me?        您有甚麼?

xué shēng  學生

lǜ       綠

niǎo dàn     鳥蛋

zhuō zi        桌子

duō shǎo wèi jǐng chá?          多少位警察?

liù      六

zài mǎi yí jiàn dà yī.      在買一件大衣。

mǎi    買

yí jiàn dà yī 一件大衣

zhè zhī māo shì hēi sè de.    這隻貓是黑色的。

yí jiàn          一件

zhè xiē nǚ hái zi shì jiě mèi.   這些女孩子是姐妹。

yīng ér        嬰兒

zhè ge nán rén dài zhe mào zi.       這個男人戴著帽子。

dài     戴

mào zi        帽子

xié zi 鞋子

niǎo   鳥

diàn huà     電話

yí jiàn dà yi 一件大衣

chuān         穿

pán zi         盤子

yi˘ zi  椅子

wǎn   碗

yì jiā rén     一家人

kù zi  褲子

yí jiàn chèn shān 一件襯衫

zhè duǒ huā shì hóng sè de. 這朵花是紅色的。

tài yáng      太陽

zhè wèi yī shēng yǒu bào zhǐ.         這位醫生有報紙。

yī shēng     醫生

wèi    位

yì tiáo qún zi        一條裙子

yì tiáo         一條

sì ge wǎn   四個碗

zhè lǐ yǒu liǎng ge shǒu jī.     這裡有兩個手機。

lǐ        裡

péng you    朋友

yì zhāng chuáng  一張床

xiōng dì      兄弟

méi   沒

wán   玩

zhè ge ér zi méi zài wán, tā fù qīn zài wán.        這個兒子沒在玩,他父親在玩。

xiān sheng 先生

yì dǐng mào zi      一頂帽子

nǐ jǐ suì?     你幾歲? nǐ jǐ suì?

nǐ duō dà?  你多大?

yí jīen gōng yu     一間公寓

yí jīen fáng zi       一間房子

yí shàn mén        一扇門

yì tái diàn shi       一台電視

diàn nǎo     電腦

yí shàn chuāng hu        一扇窗戶

mǎ tǒng      馬桶

yào shi       鑰匙

yì jiān kè tīng       一間客廳

yí jīen chú fáng    一間廚房

yí shàn chuāng hu        一扇窗戶

yōng bào    擁抱

qīn     親

xià biān       下邊

shōu yīn jī   收音機

tīng    聽

zhàn  站

zuò    坐

bēi zi 杯子

tā shì cóng měi guó lái de.    她是從美國來的。

cóng 從

jìn      近

yuǎn  遠

rèn shi        認識

gāo xìng     高興

rèn shi nǐ hěn gāo xìng 認識你很高興。

míng zì       名字

nǐ jiào shén me míng zì?       你叫甚麼名字?

wò shì        臥室

chú fáng     廚房

yí tào xī zhuāng   一套西裝

yì tiáo pí dài        一條皮帶

yì tiáo lǐng dài      一條領帶

yí jiàn máo yi       一件毛衣

niú zǎi ku    牛仔褲

zǐ se  紫色

huī se         灰色

tóu fa          頭髮

jīn sè 金色

kě      渴

è       餓

lěng  冷

rè      熱

bìng le        病了

hěn hǎo      很好

jiā rén         家人

zhèng zài   正在

一      one Yī

二      two Èr

三      three Sān

四      four Sì

五      five Wǔ

六      six Liù

七      seven Qī

八      eight Bā

九      nine Jiǔ

十      ten Shí

(9-14-2000)

============================
(highlight from dialogue):
“When Individual Self perishes; Universal Self is Born”
“Only when your particular individual self perishes may that
Universal Self be born in its stead”
===========================

(Note: “Mad_Shrink” is actually a minor alteration of the screen name which he has chosen)

Mad_Shrink: Hello, Sitaram, so, how’re you doing today?

Sitaram: You are the psychiatrist whom I met on-line in yahoo chat last week, yes?

Mad_Shrink: Yes , you have a good memory

Sitaram: Yes, you were flattering. You said I was “expansive”…

Sitaram: and you said that I gave you an inferiority complex

Mad_Shrink: I accessed your website

Sitaram: Thanks for visiting.

Mad_Shrink: You have a sharper memory than I could ever imagine

Sitaram: Actually, I am very forgetful and absent-minded, but your words happend to stick in my mind.

Mad_Shrink: Yes, I read some of your inter-faith dialogues

Mad_Shrink: and think that you are expansive

Sitaram: Do you find anything useful there, or of interest?

Mad_Shrink: I’ve learnt a lot already

Sitaram: Ah, good! I like it when people learn.

Mad_Shrink: ..although I have’nt seen too many pages.

Sitaram: It is good to use our minds.

Mad_Shrink: Yes, of course.

Sitaram: Dont forget, you can download the entire site to your hard drive in minutes and view off-line.

Mad_Shrink: How does one do that?

Sitaram: You must be able to use pkzip or winzip to unzip the files that you download.

Mad_Shrink: Will you please explain, I am new to computers.

Sitaram: pkzip,winzip is free shareware, from https://www.pkware.com

Sitaram: Yes… you click on my INDEX OF PAGES

Mad_Shrink: Yes?

Sitaram: Then, the first three items will download 100 pages at a time

Mad_Shrink: and then?

Sitaram: each download takes less than 5 minutes

Mad_Shrink: and then, how do I access them later?

Sitaram: then… you must have pkzip winzip installed,… which is I think from https://www.pkware.com

Sitaram: When you unzip them… they expand in a directory to files called page001.htm , page002.htm, etc

Sitaram: up to page255.htm

Mad_Shrink: OK, I’ll try to do as you say

Sitaram: Then you simply key into your browser for example c:myfilespage001.htm, if the htm files are in a folder called myfiles on drive c: , and you will be viewing everything in your brower… but without need for internet

Mad_Shrink: I want you to talk to me today about the Bhagvad Gita, please?

Mad_Shrink: if you wish

Sitaram: Did you give me your email… are you on my email list?

Sitaram: I send out about 5 articles today…..

Mad_Shrink: what, in your erudite opinion, is the essence of the Bhagvad? in very brief

Mad_Shrink: your knowledge of comparative theology is indeed awesome

Sitaram: Thanks for kind words….

Mad_Shrink: and you are well-read, indeed

Sitaram: Some of the articles I send out are simply interesting ones I find on the internet…

Sitaram: Today, I found a nice one on srimad Bhagavatam

Mad_Shrink: I often wonder how you found so much time to do so much?

Mad_Shrink: anything you’d like to tell me about the Bhagvad Gita, once again, please?

Sitaram: well… I just emailed you that one article on srimad bhagavatam

Sitaram: but… since you ask…

Sitaram: I will say….. some of the things i like to mention frequently from Gita

Mad_Shrink: I’d like to know your perception of the essence of the Gita not quotations, please, if you do not mind

Sitaram: Ch 4 vs 11 In whatever way people approach Me, I accept them…

Mad_Shrink: your own viewpoint

Sitaram: people everywhere follow My path….

Mad_Shrink: so, do that

Mad_Shrink: I approach you in this way

Sitaram: of course…. there are other translations of that verse which are more sectarian….

Mad_Shrink: no quotations, please, talk to me, don’t show off your knowledge

Sitaram: hmmm….. but…. I am trained to think in this fashion… giving references for everything….

Mad_Shrink: I want to know the essence of the Gita, in your opinion, your views

Sitaram: usually, people reject anything which is not substantiated

Mad_Shrink: No, I am interested in you as a person relating to me, not as a mouth-piece

Sitaram: It is like asking me to write to you, but without using letters of the alphabet, since I would be showing off my knowledge of the alphabet

Mad_Shrink: You have a point

Sitaram: to talk about Gita,… we must quote the Gita

Sitaram: to talk about Gospels, we must quote Gospels

Mad_Shrink: but the analogy is not quite accurate

Mad_Shrink: I am seeking your opinion

Mad_Shrink: I do not mean to say that I know so much that I can discuss with you

Sitaram: there are a certain number of dialogues at my website, where I speak theology apart from any scripture or textual reference….

Mad_Shrink: I am interested in relating to YOU

Sitaram: yet you must realize that whatever I say,…. I am only the sum total of everything which I have internalized…

Mad_Shrink: here, on the net

Sitaram: I have a suggestion for you,… an idea….

Mad_Shrink: fine, tell me

Sitaram: have you ever read Dostoevsky?

Mad_Shrink: yes

Sitaram: the Brothers Karamazov?

Mad_Shrink: No , I have read Crime and Punishment and The Idiot

Sitaram: the first 100 pages or so is an account given by the fictional character, the monk Zossima….in Brothers Karamazov

Mad_Shrink: You are very factually oriented, brother

Sitaram: the monk Zossima tells how as a young man, he rejected a career in the military to take up the orthodox monastic spiritual life

Mad_Shrink: I wonder how your family ever coped with you, or did they?

Sitaram: But I am trying to make a point for you…

Mad_Shrink: Alright , go ahead

Sitaram: If you read Doestoevsky’s account… you will see that….

Mad_Shrink: yes?

Sitaram: Someone like Zossima…. BECOMES ZOSSIMA,…. precisely by internalizing all the scriptures until they become second nature

Mad_Shrink: Yes

Sitaram: in other words…. the indivuality of Zossima is not what is interesting

Mad_Shrink: That is true, indeed, but you are stuck midway

Sitaram: that individuality dies as part of the spiritual developmental process; that which TRULY interests us is the personality which evolves as a living embodiment of those scriptures and traditions….

Mad_Shrink: I also thought, albeit open to criticism, that you are a poor listener

Sitaram: so…. a Ramakrishna, or a Ramana Marharshi fascinates us PRECISELY because their own individuality perished as they became LIVING EMBODIMENTS of the traditions that they represent.

Mad_Shrink: You are pontifical

Sitaram: but.. I am addressing myself in a very precise way to your first objection… but you do not have the attention span to pursue the thought to its conclusion…. ( I know that sounds harsh), and you mix in too much of I, Me, My ego which makes it difficult for you to listen and perhaps benefit…

Mad_Shrink: I merely asked you to tell me your view of the essence of the Gita, from your gleanings

Sitaram: but… then in a bizzare fashion… you forbade me to quote from the Gita…

Mad_Shrink: to quote, yes

Sitaram: Yet anyone and everyone who speaks on Gita is expected to quote from gita

Mad_Shrink: But where was your originality?

Sitaram: The object is precisely NOT to be original.. that is the very point that you are missing… Although I have written 2000 pages on these things.. which you may download and read…. yet you want me to speak DIRECTLY to you… on the same subject… which is a desire that stems from your personal ego….

Mad_Shrink: Do i have a right to disagree?

Sitaram: So when I try to oblige your desire…

Mad_Shrink: Yes, I am listening

Sitaram: then you feel you must CONTROL the manner in which I discourse

Mad_Shrink: Fine, go ahead

Sitaram: which also stems from your personal ego…

Mad_Shrink: and tell me using the form you wish

Sitaram: I am merely trying to hold up for you a mirror so you may perhaps see your own psychodynamics

Mad_Shrink: I understand and I do not mean any offence

Sitaram: you currently have obstacles, impediments to your inquiry…

Mad_Shrink: for at a level, I have tremendous respect for a person such as you

Sitaram: until you understand and remove these ego impediments… you will not benefit from readings or discourse

Mad_Shrink: Yes, I am grateful that you point this out

Sitaram: If you truly want to understand, and to BECOME the Gita, Upanisads, Gospels, Dhammapada… then you must give up desires for originality

Mad_Shrink: but you could have just said that earlier

Sitaram: Only when your particular individual self perishes may that Universal Self be born in its stead.

Mad_Shrink: stopped me there, saying that you will decide the form or that it is not possible for you to have me control the way you would answer the question

Sitaram: so, getting back to Doestoyevsky, Zossima is of interest only when, through a process, his individuality dies… and Zossima becomes an embodiment of the Gospels….

Mad_Shrink: I understand

Sitaram: but if you can manage to download my website to your local drive you can read for yours the highlights of dialogues I have had over past 2 years….

Mad_Shrink: why do you always get back to your website?

Sitaram: which is, in some ways BETTER than speaking to me directly

Mad_Shrink: You probably are right, I’ll try that

Sitaram: Since I am an organic being… with moments of weariness, forgetfulness, etc….

Mad_Shrink: Your style is too expansive for me

Sitaram: …so, writing is a tool which distills and synthesizes something that is MORE than me at any given moment

Mad_Shrink: I prefer a simple, straightforward chat, do not mean to be hurtful

Sitaram: If we could chat with Plato or Socrates… it would not be as rewarding as a Platonic dialogue for the same reason…

Mad_Shrink: but I find your manner a trifle adversarial

Sitaram: Those figures which we admire in history… we come to know them ONLY THROUGH that distillation of writing and tradition

Mad_Shrink: I know exactly what you mean

Sitaram: Which by its very nature is LARGER THAN LIFE…

Mad_Shrink: You are right! Yes, sitaram

Sitaram: SO you see, if you met me face to face… well… I might be a disappointment after the ME that you might come to know through my writings

Mad_Shrink: sure

Sitaram: but I understand peoples need to have something straight from “the horses mouth” so to speak…

Sitaram: actually,.. you have raised some intersting issues in this dialogue of ours

Mad_Shrink: Thank you, sitaram, like what for instance?

Mad_Shrink: What issues?

Mad_Shrink: Please?

Sitaram: Well… our entire discussion of the person we meet in writings vs the person in real life

Mad_Shrink: and one may now add net life

Sitaram: that the literary persona is LARGER than life…. just like the moviestar on screen is more striking than in person

=================

Reader response to Dialogue with Psychiatrist

===== (a readers response):

I enjoyed that post of your dialogue with the psychiatrist. Would a meeting with the Buddha be a disappointment? All the stories I’ve read about encounters with the Buddha (or Ramkrishna Paramhansa) are eloquent about the peace radiating from the person. The person impressed more than the words. Would you then make a distinction between (learning and knowledge) on one hand and (enlightenment and self-knowledge) on the other? Can the latter be attained without the former?

I have a question that I think Mad-Shrink was leading to… With all your learning of Theology, Hindu and otherwise, would you consider yourself to be happy and enlightened?

I’m not trying to be rude. I’m just curious.

=============(my reply):

Actually, you are correct in pointing out that Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharshi and others wrote little or nothing themselves, and did radiate a tremendous grace or peace. In fact, Someset Maughm had a meeting with Ramana Maharshi and, because he was an “intellectual” totally conditioned to that “literary presence”, he totally missed the point of sitting with Ramana Maharshi in silence. I was rather hastily trying to make a point to the psychiatrist, a point which still has validity, though it does not precisely apply to people like Ramakrishna or Ramana Maharshi.

Lord Krisha said “Better to do ONE’S OWN DHARMA, even if imperfectly, rather than to do another’s Dharma to perfection.

I am reminded of some of those New Yorker cartoons of the clown sitting in his dressing room forlornly reciting Hamlet before the mirror. The clown desires to play Hamlet. Mr. Spock of Star Trek grows to detest his portrayal of a Vulcan alien, to the point of writing a book entitled “I am not Spock”.

I am a failure at many different things at life, but curiously successful in this strange little thing I have been doing for the past two years. I personally believe that I am doing that Dharma which I was ment to do in this lifetime, however imperfectly I may be doing it. I myself am a means to some greater end. That end has nothing to do with my own personal happiness or enlightenment, other than the fact that it is “good” to do ones own Dharma, to surrender to it. I am also aware that I may very likely pay for my activities one day with my life. That is something which I realized long ago and accepted as “part of the job”. If you take what I was told in my dream with any seriousness, in page 1 of my website, then you realize that I must be reborn several more times to be “purified” through suffering.

One of the pages at my website states that “we are exactly what we should be at each point in time”. Someone was scandalized by this and said, “Does that mean that people should be prostitutes or drug dealers.” My answer was that people like Gandhi and Mother Theresa and Ramana Maharshi were as much ineluctably drawn to satyagraha, charity, and ascetical tapas, as the thief or prostitute or drug addict is drawn to their life and activities. It is part of a karmic cause and effect that each of us must work through. There was a necessity for Hitler and Ravanna; without them there would be no Schindler’s List, and no Ramanand Sagar (or Tulsidas) Ramayan. For all we know, a bee is happy makeing honey, the viper is happy making venom, and the cow is “happy” making milk; yet all three drink from the same pool of water to quench their thirst.

Bottom line: If you are circus clown, and know you were meant to be a circus clown, and have surrendered to that Dharma, then be a GOOD circus clown. Dont pine away because you are not playing Hamlet.

(the reader then asks):

Why didn’t Krsna reveal the message of the Geeta to Duryodhan? If Arjun *needed* the Geeta at that point because he was hesitating from doing his duty, does that mean that the Kauravas were ‘better’ (in a loose sense)? They were fairly committed to their Dharma. Is there a bias in the cosmos towards ‘good’ or is there no such thing as ‘good’? What does the Geeta say about this? Why did Krsna side with the Pandavas?

I understand intuitively when you say that your dharma may not be coupled strongly with your peace of mind.

Your comment about the viper reminded me of a rather heart-warming thought that I read in this book called ‘The snake-bite survivor’s club’ or something like that. It was to the effect that ‘It is only in India that you might learn not to fear the snake, and indeed learn to love it.’

==============

(my reply):

Why does Lord Krsna manifest to Arjuna and not Duryodhan? Lord Krishna says (paraphrasing): “Whenever righteousness declines, and unrighteousness increases, I will descend and Manifest Myself, in every age.”

It is true that Lord Krishna appeared to Arjuna, but that does not mean that the Supreme Lord manifests to EACH and every one of us personally when we are in need.

Through all the centuries of history of the Jewish peoples, God appeared in some personal fashion to only a relative handful: Moses, Abraham, Samuel, David, Job, Elijah, Elisha, etc.

It IS TRUE that God will manifest in some way to each of us during our lives, if we are ripe for it, but for the majority of us, that manifestation is WITHIN our reading, meditation, and absorption into such Divine Lilas as the Geeta, Gospels, the Torah, etc. And if we take the Anugita seriously, with Arjuna’s predicament, that even though he was given spiritualized vision and was allowed to see the Lord’s Universal Form or Satsvarup; now the radiance of that experience was fading to a dim memory, and Arjuna approaches Krishna asking what he should do.

Even though only certain Apostles beheld the Transfiguration of Christ on Mt. Tabor as a radian Being of Light surrounded by Prophets in transcendent dialogue, yet when that moment ended, as all moments end, those apostles were left with there original embodied human frailty and doubts.

That is why Jesus said “Yea, blessed are you who see these things, but far more blessed are those who never see and yet believe.” In the Ramayan, Shabari’s most blessed moment was NOT when she met her Lord Ram face to face; but was rather that moment in her devotion, her bhakti when she attracted the Lord’s attention. Lord Krishna says a very perplexing thing: “All sentient beings, embodied jivas, are the same in My eyes and I treat them all equally; yet My devotee is most dear to me.” This would seem to be a contradiction, would it not?

Since the Lord as the author and master of all dualities transcends all dualities, i.e. is immanent in each quality as its source (I am the cleverness of the cheater, I am the old man upon the staff, I am the young maiden, I am the green parrot with the red eyes); hence the eight siddhis or powers of the Lord seem mutually contradictory. The Lord may become infinitely great, or infinitessimally small; He may become heavy as a mountain, or light as a feather….. etc etc…. but here is the most significant of the Lord’s abilities… He may become absolute master, BUT ALSO HE MAY SUFFER ABSOLUTE BONDAGE AND SERVITUDE.

One of the names of Lord Krsna is Damodar, which means “bound at the waiste or stomach”.

When Mother Yashoda attempts to bind young Lord Krsna to a pillar for His impish pranks, she discovers that all the rope in the village is not enought to encompass Him. No matter how much she adds, it always falls short by half an inch. But finally, Lord Krishna allows Himself to be bound. Is this not strikingly similar to the Crucifixion? The imagery is the same, The Infinite takes human birth and suffers to be bound.

It is bhakti (devotion) which binds the Lord.

I could say much much more, but this post is sufficiently long.

===============================================================

SOME WEEKS LATER (9/20/2000),… the dialogue with Mad_Shrink resumes:

Mad_Shrink: STOP “I” ing me to death with every sentence. Simply talk with me without constantly saying “I”, “I”, “I”

=======connection is lost

Mad_Shrink: You left! Was I too harsh? Did I anger you?

Mad_Shrink: sorry

Sitaram: no.. i clicked wrong button and closed the chat window

Mad_Shrink: fine

Mad_Shrink: yes, back to your question “is there some the confluence of all religions”

Sitaram: sorry for my grammer…. i was taught from ealiest childhood that it is the greatest impropriety to stray from correct grammar and spelling, so I do not feel comfortable unless I frequently use the personal pronoun.

Mad_Shrink: never mind

Sitaram: it is a cultural thing…

Mad_Shrink: let’s talk about religion

Mad_Shrink: the confluence

Mad_Shrink: the Jehad

Mad_Shrink: please

Sitaram: ok… wait a minute.. i want to take a moment to add you to my yahoo pager list… this yahoo pager is very new to me

Mad_Shrink: i do not wish to do that

Mad_Shrink: please

Sitaram: aha.. it worked fine…

Sitaram: ohhh… sorry.. didnt see your last post

Sitaram: so.. then… simply deny request

Mad_Shrink: never mind

Sitaram: sorry

Mad_Shrink: never mind

Mad_Shrink: accepted

Sitaram: didnt mean to be presumptuous

Mad_Shrink: but you always are presumptuous

Mad_Shrink: never mind

Sitaram: you see.. i have a problem with absentminded ness….. and i speak with hundreds…. so its more convenient,for people i really like

Mad_Shrink: the confluence of all religions

Sitaram: to have them on a buddy list

Sitaram: ok back to confluence

Mad_Shrink: what is the common thread running through all the religions?

Sitaram: let me gather my thoughts one second

Sitaram: we must distinguish between two aspects of “confluence”,…. point of origin (more properly effluence, i suppose), and teleological/eschatological confluence (or unity) if that should indeed ever come to pass

Mad_Shrink: what is eschatological mean?

Sitaram: there is the issue of the common origin/source of all religiosity/spirituality….

Mad_Shrink: sorry

Mad_Shrink: what does,,,,,,

Mad_Shrink: yes

Mad_Shrink: what is eschatology?

Sitaram: in greek (you must be patient with me, i speak greek, and someties think in greek)

Mad_Shrink: please

Mad_Shrink: oh

Mad_Shrink: i see

Sitaram: eschatos means temporal end…… but not necessary a final teleology or goal towards which something is perfecting

Sitaram: Teleios means “end” in the sense of a perfected goal towards which things were striving

Mad_Shrink: what is your understanding of the Holy Spirit?

Sitaram: for example… if the sun explodes tomorrow, or a comet strikes the earth,… that is the eschatological end of things (but with no purpose of design…)… simply a temporal end

Sitaram: but…. a “final judgement” a “second coming” a “new heaven/new earth”… the things which Abrahamic religions dwell on… such is a teleiological end

Mad_Shrink: fine

Mad_Shrink: thank you

Mad_Shrink: Holy Spirit?

Sitaram: and… to have an even better understanding… it helps to be somewhat familiar, as a good example of this, of the thinking of Hegel…. and his notion of “an end of History”,

Sitaram: sorry.. i know you are now impatient to change subjects to “holy spirit”

Sitaram: though we have not delt adequately with first question of “confluence of all religions”

Mad_Shrink: not a “change” of subjects at all

Sitaram: but… i aim to please….

Sitaram: ok… regarding question of Holy Spirit… one moment

Mad_Shrink: please do not aim to please me

Mad_Shrink: i wonder how you must be in your personal life

Mad_Shrink: you hardly ever pay attention to what the other is saying…..

Sitaram: it is my nature, a cultural thing… like the grammar business of personal pronouns,… or my habit of trying to proceed along one line of thought in a certain progression

Mad_Shrink: perhaps because you have so much to tell

Sitaram: you are unfair in your criticism…. because i am bending over backwards to do things “your way”….

Mad_Shrink: very linear

Sitaram: not that im angry or offended… but in one breath.. you say “do not try to please me”.. but in another….you insist that everything be “your way” =======(loss of internet connection. I log back in and resume dialogue)

Mad_Shrink: hi

Mad_Shrink: glad i waited

Sitaram: sorry… i often loose connection

Mad_Shrink: what happened?

Mad_Shrink: you were logged out?

Sitaram: static on phone line

Sitaram: perhaps

Mad_Shrink: oh

Sitaram: sometimes i get 6 hours straight… no problems

Mad_Shrink: i do not mean to hurt you

Sitaram: other time, i get “booted” every 30 minutes

Mad_Shrink: but in a dialogue, you can’t necessarily be so linear

Sitaram: no… actually… i think i rather understand the “psychodamics” of how you perceive me, and interact with me…

Mad_Shrink: one often gets interrupted

Mad_Shrink: and one has to change

Mad_Shrink: track

Sitaram: but… were i to speak candidly… you would think me presumptuous

Mad_Shrink: you may not be able to reach the completion of a thought

Mad_Shrink: unless you are alone

Mad_Shrink: i believe you are not a good listener

Sitaram: you see… you were quite accurate, in our initial meeting, when you described me as “expansive”

Mad_Shrink: but you want complete conformity from those who listen to you

Mad_Shrink: in the way they need to listen

Sitaram: but… you fail to see that it is YOU who insists on complete conformity… an you project that on me…

Mad_Shrink: till you have completed your linear thought to it’s logical conclusion

Sitaram: if i may share something with you in all sincerity and candor

Mad_Shrink: i think there is a mismatch here

Mad_Shrink: please share

Mad_Shrink: waiting, Sir

Sitaram: in the past 2 years… of chatting with literally hundreds of people.. literally 12 and 16 hours per day….. you are unique in certain things which you have insisted upon/or said

Mad_Shrink: this was not candid

Sitaram: and… my website is a audit trail of many of those dialogues

Mad_Shrink: not candid at all

Sitaram: im not finished with my thought

Mad_Shrink: waiting, Sir

Sitaram: you lack the patience to even allow me to compose my thoughts and express myself

Mad_Shrink: fine

Mad_Shrink: and do you ever listen?

Sitaram: in 2 year (full time)… with HUNDREDS…no one has become angry at my use of personal pronouns… for example

Sitaram: no one has ever insisted that i discuss a scripture.. but use absolutely no quotations…

Mad_Shrink: fine, so that is unique?

Sitaram: i am trying to help you get some insight into your own “personality”

Mad_Shrink: so?

Mad_Shrink: so?

Mad_Shrink: so?

Mad_Shrink: you are indeed kind

Sitaram: you are a VERY PROUD individual… and that pride gets in your way…

Mad_Shrink: sarcasm very much intended

Mad_Shrink: how do you know?

Sitaram: you see.. you are angry… and i am not

Mad_Shrink: yes, i am proud

Sitaram: i realize that it is difficult for a physician, such as yourself, to approach someone such as me, a self taught layperson, with no degrees….

Mad_Shrink: that is untrue

Sitaram: it is the very nature of our society to view MDs in a special light

Mad_Shrink: untrue, again

Mad_Shrink: some deserve it

Sitaram: even our President is “Mr President”…. but we always say Dr. and Mrs. Smith

Sitaram: you know.. I will share something with you that I read in David Viscott’s autobiographical book “The Making of a Psychiatrist”

Mad_Shrink: please do

Sitaram: Viscott pointed out the great irony that….. the very process of Medical School and Residency to train a Psychiatrist, tends to allow only those who are “hard boiled owls”…. to make the grade

Sitaram: in other words… thick skinned, highly competitive, driven…etc

Mad_Shrink: yes, true in general

Mad_Shrink: now you will be happy because i agreed with you

Sitaram: and yet in practice… they are engaged in an activity which requires compassion in the utmost… and perhaps…. a great degree of humility

Sitaram: aha.. but… you again project YOUR OWN happiness at “receiving approval”… upon me

Sitaram: if you will read through my website.. you will understand how little such agreement means to me……

Mad_Shrink: sitaram, thank you for your valuable insights, i would like to leave

Sitaram: i am sorry you feel that way

Mad_Shrink: bye, sitaram

Sitaram: i do hope, if you are calmed down… you will chat with me in the future

Mad_Shrink: well, you are overestimating me

Mad_Shrink: bye, sitaram

Mad_Shrink: sitaram?

Sitaram: this is very sad

Sitaram: i hope you reflect upon these issues

Mad_Shrink: sure

Mad_Shrink: sure

Sitaram: actually… we both have something to gain by continued dialogue

Mad_Shrink: bye, sitaram

Sitaram: bye…

Mad_Shrink: bye

Sitaram: you must one day confront this enemy within you

Sitaram: or you will never know peace

Mad_Shrink: which enemy?

Mad_Shrink: which enemy?

Mad_Shrink: which enemy?

Sitaram: your anger, your pride… your stubbornness… your desire to control

Mad_Shrink: thank you, again

Sitaram: you will not be able to properly serve your patients… unless you change

Sitaram: I can help you with some suggested readings.. such as David Viscott’s autobiography… and some other works in psychology, psychiatry

Sitaram: such readings would not be the advice of a layperson like myself…but would be words from fellow physicians

Mad_Shrink: thank you, sitaram, you send mail regularly anyway

Mad_Shrink: bye, sitaram

Sitaram: bye… I am most saddened by your behavior

Sitaram: for your sake..not for my own

Mad_Shrink: i meant that in your mail, you send references anyway

Mad_Shrink: for that, we do not have to chat

Sitaram: would you prefer that i send you some thoughts on this matter in email…

Mad_Shrink: no, please

Sitaram: perhaps you would find email less upsetting than on line chat

Mad_Shrink: you have humiliated me enough, without bothering to get to know or understand me

Sitaram: but… it is you who humiliate yourself… that is what the demon of pride does…

Mad_Shrink: alright

Sitaram: look at great personalities like Jesus or Gandhi…. who were never humiliated…

Mad_Shrink: how would you know?

Sitaram: humility is the vaccination against humiliation

Mad_Shrink: how would you know?

Sitaram: it is most evident in their lives and writings….

Mad_Shrink: but you have taught me one thing

Sitaram: you know a very great woman Eleanor Roosevelt said it best…

Sitaram: No one can humiliate you without your consent

Mad_Shrink: and that is, this kind of dialogue cannot appreciate the non-verbal nuances of expression

Sitaram: she was a very unattractive woman, in the public eye, with a handicapped husband who was unfaithful to her

Mad_Shrink: thank you for that

Mad_Shrink: this is a very deficient “form”

Sitaram: yet.. she never allowed herself to be humiliated

Mad_Shrink: YOU ARE RIGHT

Mad_Shrink: YOU ARE RIGHT

Sitaram: humiliation and anger is an admmission of defeat

Sitaram: I do not have a great desire “to be right”

Mad_Shrink: I take this lesson today with me

Sitaram: I do have a desire to assist others who are trying to improve themselves… along whatever path

Mad_Shrink: HUMILIATION AND ANGER IS AN ADMISSION OF DEFEAT

Mad_Shrink: YES

Sitaram: are you sincere… or is this sarcasm

Mad_Shrink: CERTAINLY

Mad_Shrink: THANK YOU

Mad_Shrink: NO

Mad_Shrink: SINCERE

Mad_Shrink: A SHIFT CREATED SOMEWHERE

Sitaram: have I truly helped you see something of value

Mad_Shrink: IN THE MIND

Sitaram: ?

Mad_Shrink: YES, YOU HAVE

Sitaram: there is perhaps a purpose for our meeting…

Mad_Shrink: THAT IS WHAT I MEAN ABOUT THE NET

Sitaram: things do not happen without purpose

Sitaram: there is something which you need from me, and you have been attracted to communicate with me….

Mad_Shrink: UNLESS YOU ARE WITH ME, AND SEE ME TALK TO YOU, HOW WILL YOU KNOW ME OR SEE THAT I AM NOT SARCASTIC

Sitaram: we must both be patient and discover what that “something ” is…

Mad_Shrink: yes

Mad_Shrink: yes

Mad_Shrink: yes

Mad_Shrink: but not on this impersonal net

Sitaram: i have a suggestion… but perhaps you will find my suggestion strange, or even egotistical… but… it has come to my mind just now

Mad_Shrink: this is definitely my last net chat with you

Sitaram: really!

Mad_Shrink: tell me, please

Sitaram: I thought you were finding something of value.. with your last statements

Sitaram: ah… my suggestion…

Mad_Shrink: what came to your mind just now?

Sitaram: I am thinking of Ramana Maharshi…..

Mad_Shrink: yes

Sitaram: how people would come and simply have “darshan”, sit silently in his presence….

Sitaram: when we look into someones face… something is communicated…

Sitaram: so.. here is my strange idea…..

Mad_Shrink: true

Mad_Shrink: yes?

Sitaram: get a photo of ramana marharshi… and also a picture (drawing of Shirdi Sai Baba)…..

Sitaram: and finally… go to page 1 of my website and print out the photo of me there…..

Sitaram: perform this unusual experiment….

Mad_Shrink: and?

Sitaram: spend some time looking at those three pictures…. ramana and sai for the obvious darshan…

Mad_Shrink: and?

Sitaram: but look too at my picture… my face…. to access that about me…in me… which does not come easily in typed words

Mad_Shrink: ok

Sitaram: and perhaps…. something in you will change, which will facilitate further discussions

Mad_Shrink: bye, sitaram

Sitaram: of course.. another possibility in the future is yahoo voice chat in a private chat room,

Sitaram: where we can hear each others voice

Sitaram: do you think my idea has any merit… or does it seem foolish to you?

Mad_Shrink: i do not know

Sitaram: you need not answer today

Mad_Shrink: fine, thank you, sitaram

Sitaram: your welcome

Mad_Shrink: may i leave now?

Sitaram: certainly… i hope you return

Mad_Shrink: bye

Mad_Shrink: God Bless

Sitaram: the both of us… blessing

Mad_Shrink: i am small, you are knowledgeable

Mad_Shrink: bye

https://www.forbes.com/2009/04/23/most-dangerous-cities-lifestyle-real-estate-dangerous-american-cities.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Detroit,_Michigan

In November 2007, the city of Detroit had been named the most dangerous city in the country by the Morgan Quitno report published by CQ Press (the FBI discourages the use of its crime statistics for the direct comparison of cities as Morgan Quitno does in its “Most Dangerous Cities” rankings).[20] due to the many variables that influence crime in a particular study area such as population density and the degree of urbanization, modes of transportation of highway system, economic conditions, and citizens’ attitudes toward crime.

https://www.crimemapping.com/map.aspx?aid=0c6c72dd-7122-4509-b897-17f60e517d9d