Now that I’m finished, for the moment, fiddling with my HTML, I can get back to my insightful social commentary.
Now, what I mean to say about the previous post: what is it about these two reviewers’ comments that grabbed me? Simple; it’s the subtle perceived contradiction between the two. It would seem to be the opinion of some that the cerebral and the spiritual (the “intelligent” part and the “soul” part, for those of you playing at home) are separate elements of our experience. Furthermore, there is some evidence that the two shall not be easily reconciled, if indeed ever at all. In fact, the very juxtaposition of these statements – on a public web page, no less – seems to be tacit acknowledgement of our certain doom as a thinking, feeling species.
Perhaps I’m just reading into this, but it’s a subject I’ve long given too much thought.
What is it about these two slices of the psyche that make them so disparate? Can we not be masters of that which lies inward, as well as outward? Allow a snippet from my sordid academic life, pulled from De Administratione, memoirs of Suger, Abbot of Saint-Denis:
“…It is only through symbols of beauty that our poor spirits can raise themselves from things temporal to things eternal.”
A truism, perhaps, especially as Suger was the self-appointed universal patron/savior of the arts in medieval Europe; but one that contains all of the necessary ingredients of this debate. Substitute “spiritual” or “soulful” for “eternal,” and you’ve got something there.
It should be noted here that Suger here (ca. 1144) is rhapsodizing on affairs at the court of Louis Capet, who was strongly taken (both literally and figuratively) by Eleanor, Duchess of Aquitaine. Turns out that both Louis’ soul and his flesh were at stake. Such was Medieval Europe. Do find Amy Kelly’s Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings if you’re interested. It’s a thoroughly engaging read.
Anyway, enough of this for now; sorry for the endless prattle.
This entry was posted on Sunday, August 18th, 2002 at 11:27 pm and is filed under Commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Return to the rant.
Now that I’m finished, for the moment, fiddling with my HTML, I can get back to my insightful social commentary.
Now, what I mean to say about the previous post: what is it about these two reviewers’ comments that grabbed me? Simple; it’s the subtle perceived contradiction between the two. It would seem to be the opinion of some that the cerebral and the spiritual (the “intelligent” part and the “soul” part, for those of you playing at home) are separate elements of our experience. Furthermore, there is some evidence that the two shall not be easily reconciled, if indeed ever at all. In fact, the very juxtaposition of these statements – on a public web page, no less – seems to be tacit acknowledgement of our certain doom as a thinking, feeling species.
Perhaps I’m just reading into this, but it’s a subject I’ve long given too much thought.
What is it about these two slices of the psyche that make them so disparate? Can we not be masters of that which lies inward, as well as outward? Allow a snippet from my sordid academic life, pulled from De Administratione, memoirs of Suger, Abbot of Saint-Denis:
A truism, perhaps, especially as Suger was the self-appointed universal patron/savior of the arts in medieval Europe; but one that contains all of the necessary ingredients of this debate. Substitute “spiritual” or “soulful” for “eternal,” and you’ve got something there.
It should be noted here that Suger here (ca. 1144) is rhapsodizing on affairs at the court of Louis Capet, who was strongly taken (both literally and figuratively) by Eleanor, Duchess of Aquitaine. Turns out that both Louis’ soul and his flesh were at stake. Such was Medieval Europe. Do find Amy Kelly’s Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings if you’re interested. It’s a thoroughly engaging read.
Anyway, enough of this for now; sorry for the endless prattle.
This entry was posted on Sunday, August 18th, 2002 at 11:27 pm and is filed under Commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.