I found it interesting that James considers everyone to have some sort of characteristic relationship to the universe. What do people think their relationship to the universe is?
Since no one has answered Eric's question, I'll give it a shot...not sure whether you are asking the question personally or are addressing "the great anonymous THEY", so I'll address it from the (mostly) orthodox Christian viewpoint which (mostly) coincides with my own.
The universe is a strange, mysterious, wondrous, mind-boggling place. The fact that we can go out on a clear night (away from city lights, of course) and see stars as they existed thousands or millions of years ago with their mysterious predictable and non-predictable attributes is, I believe, actually intended to evoke our sense of awe. There is so much that we don't know, but there is a little bit that we can know...primarily we can know that there is some kind of love and care in the universe...evidenced by the love and care that can exist between people, but also by the awesome beauty of nature, the animal world, and the conditions of life (anthropic principle?) that seem to be miraculously fine-tuned to support life on earth. I don't believe it is all just chance...although evolution may play a part, it is not the whole story.
So, I think there is an intelligent mind behind the universe that we can have some contact with in a miniscule but significant way. Of course there is the existence of evil which can be discussed later...but will have to stop for now! xoxo Ruth
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Eric Purdy epurdy@uchicago.edu wrote:
I found it interesting that James considers everyone to have some sort of characteristic relationship to the universe. What do people think their relationship to the universe is?
-- -Eric _______________________________________________ WilliamJames mailing list WilliamJames@moomers.org http://mailman.moomers.org/mailman/listinfo/williamjames
I agree with James that there is nothing intellectually sound that one can say about the universe as a whole -- and nor, by extension, about one's relationship with it. This relationship rather must be expressed in terms of (to use some Jamesian words) attitudes, temperaments, sensations and sensibilities. This doesn't mean that we cannot use words to discuss the universe and our relationship to it, but it does mean we must use them in an oblique or poetic way. So I'll answer Eric questions with two poems by Wallace Stevens that come closer than anything else I know to expressing, both in their contents and in the mood that they evoke with their musical qualities, my feelings about the universe at large.
Sunday Morning BY WALLACE STEVENS http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/wallace-stevens *I*
Complacencies of the peignoir, and late Coffee and oranges in a sunny chair, And the green freedom of a cockatoo Upon a rug mingle to dissipate The holy hush of ancient sacrifice. She dreams a little, and she feels the dark Encroachment of that old catastrophe, As a calm darkens among water-lights. The pungent oranges and bright, green wings Seem things in some procession of the dead, Winding across wide water, without sound. The day is like wide water, without sound, Stilled for the passing of her dreaming feet Over the seas, to silent Palestine, Dominion of the blood and sepulchre.
*II*
Why should she give her bounty to the dead? What is divinity if it can come Only in silent shadows and in dreams? Shall she not find in comforts of the sun, In pungent fruit and bright, green wings, or else In any balm or beauty of the earth, Things to be cherished like the thought of heaven? Divinity must live within herself: Passions of rain, or moods in falling snow; Grievings in loneliness, or unsubdued Elations when the forest blooms; gusty Emotions on wet roads on autumn nights; All pleasures and all pains, remembering The bough of summer and the winter branch. These are the measures destined for her soul.
*III*
Jove in the clouds had his inhuman birth. No mother suckled him, no sweet land gave Large-mannered motions to his mythy mind. He moved among us, as a muttering king, Magnificent, would move among his hinds, Until our blood, commingling, virginal, With heaven, brought such requital to desire The very hinds discerned it, in a star. Shall our blood fail? Or shall it come to be The blood of paradise? And shall the earth Seem all of paradise that we shall know? The sky will be much friendlier then than now, A part of labor and a part of pain, And next in glory to enduring love, Not this dividing and indifferent blue.
*IV*
She says, “I am content when wakened birds, Before they fly, test the reality Of misty fields, by their sweet questionings; But when the birds are gone, and their warm fields Return no more, where, then, is paradise?” There is not any haunt of prophesy, Nor any old chimera of the grave, Neither the golden underground, nor isle Melodious, where spirits gat them home, Nor visionary south, nor cloudy palm Remote on heaven’s hill, that has endured As April’s green endures; or will endure Like her remembrance of awakened birds, Or her desire for June and evening, tipped By the consummation of the swallow’s wings.
*V*
She says, “But in contentment I still feel The need of some imperishable bliss.” Death is the mother of beauty; hence from her, Alone, shall come fulfilment to our dreams And our desires. Although she strews the leaves Of sure obliteration on our paths, The path sick sorrow took, the many paths Where triumph rang its brassy phrase, or love Whispered a little out of tenderness, She makes the willow shiver in the sun For maidens who were wont to sit and gaze Upon the grass, relinquished to their feet. She causes boys to pile new plums and pears On disregarded plate. The maidens taste And stray impassioned in the littering leaves.
*VI*
Is there no change of death in paradise? Does ripe fruit never fall? Or do the boughs Hang always heavy in that perfect sky, Unchanging, yet so like our perishing earth, With rivers like our own that seek for seas They never find, the same receding shores That never touch with inarticulate pang? Why set the pear upon those river banks Or spice the shores with odors of the plum? Alas, that they should wear our colors there, The silken weavings of our afternoons, And pick the strings of our insipid lutes! Death is the mother of beauty, mystical, Within whose burning bosom we devise Our earthly mothers waiting, sleeplessly.
*VII*
Supple and turbulent, a ring of men Shall chant in orgy on a summer morn Their boisterous devotion to the sun, Not as a god, but as a god might be, Naked among them, like a savage source. Their chant shall be a chant of paradise, Out of their blood, returning to the sky; And in their chant shall enter, voice by voice, The windy lake wherein their lord delights, The trees, like serafin, and echoing hills, That choir among themselves long afterward. They shall know well the heavenly fellowship Of men that perish and of summer morn. And whence they came and whither they shall go The dew upon their feet shall manifest.
*VIII*
She hears, upon that water without sound, A voice that cries, “The tomb in Palestine Is not the porch of spirits lingering. It is the grave of Jesus, where he lay.” We live in an old chaos of the sun, Or old dependency of day and night, Or island solitude, unsponsored, free, Of that wide water, inescapable. Deer walk upon our mountains, and the quail Whistle about us their spontaneous cries; Sweet berries ripen in the wilderness; And, in the isolation of the sky, At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make Ambiguous undulations as they sink, Downward to darkness, on extended wings.
The Idea of Order at Key West by Wallace Stevenshttp://www.poets.org/poet.php/prmPID/124
She sang beyond the genius of the sea. The water never formed to mind or voice, Like a body wholly body, fluttering Its empty sleeves; and yet its mimic motion Made constant cry, caused constantly a cry, That was not ours although we understood, Inhuman, of the veritable ocean.
The sea was not a mask. No more was she. The song and water were not medleyed sound Even if what she sang was what she heard. Since what she sang was uttered word by word. It may be that in all her phrases stirred The grinding water and the gasping wind; But it was she and not the sea we heard.
For she was the maker of the song she sang. The ever-hooded, tragic-gestured sea Was merely a place by which she walked to sing. Whose spirit is this? we said, because we knew It was the spirit that we sought and knew That we should ask this often as she sang.
If it was only the dark voice of the sea That rose, or even colored by many waves; If it was only the outer voice of sky And cloud, of the sunken coral water-walled, However clear, it would have been deep air, The heaving speech of air, a summer sound Repeated in a summer without end And sound alone. But it was more than that, More even than her voice, and ours, among The meaningless plungings of water and the wind, Theatrical distances, bronze shadows heaped On high horizons, mountainous atmospheres Of sky and sea. It was her voice that made The sky acutest at its vanishing. She measured to the hour its solitude. She was the single artificer of the world In which she sang. And when she sang, the sea, Whatever self it had, became the self That was her song, for she was the maker. Then we, As we beheld her striding there alone, Knew that there never was a world for her Except the one she sang and, singing, made.
Ramon Fernandez, tell me, if you know, Why, when the singing ended and we turned Toward the town, tell why the glassy lights, The lights in the fishing boats at anchor there, As night descended, tilting in the air, Mastered the night and portioned out the sea, Fixing emblazoned zones and fiery poles, Arranging, deepening, enchanting night.
Oh! Blessed rage for order, pale Ramon, The maker's rage to order words of the sea, Words of the fragrant portals, dimly-starred, And of ourselves and of our origins, In ghostlier demarcations, keener sounds.
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Ruth Raubertas ruthraubertas@gmail.comwrote:
Since no one has answered Eric's question, I'll give it a shot...not sure whether you are asking the question personally or are addressing "the great anonymous THEY", so I'll address it from the (mostly) orthodox Christian viewpoint which (mostly) coincides with my own.
The universe is a strange, mysterious, wondrous, mind-boggling place. The fact that we can go out on a clear night (away from city lights, of course) and see stars as they existed thousands or millions of years ago with their mysterious predictable and non-predictable attributes is, I believe, actually intended to evoke our sense of awe. There is so much that we don't know, but there is a little bit that we can know...primarily we can know that there is some kind of love and care in the universe...evidenced by the love and care that can exist between people, but also by the awesome beauty of nature, the animal world, and the conditions of life (anthropic principle?) that seem to be miraculously fine-tuned to support life on earth. I don't believe it is all just chance...although evolution may play a part, it is not the whole story.
So, I think there is an intelligent mind behind the universe that we can have some contact with in a miniscule but significant way. Of course there is the existence of evil which can be discussed later...but will have to stop for now! xoxo Ruth
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Eric Purdy epurdy@uchicago.edu wrote:
I found it interesting that James considers everyone to have some sort of characteristic relationship to the universe. What do people think their relationship to the universe is?
-- -Eric _______________________________________________ WilliamJames mailing list WilliamJames@moomers.org http://mailman.moomers.org/mailman/listinfo/williamjames
WilliamJames mailing list WilliamJames@moomers.org http://mailman.moomers.org/mailman/listinfo/williamjames
"Frei materialist" is the best I can come up with. I have a deep sense that everything meaningful about the world is an ephemeral program running on the engine we call "physics". A different arrangement of material and the world would be completely different but ultimately indistinguishable from an atomic or relativistic perspective. Therefore all of the meaning and human-scale things in the world are up to us (and our genetics, and our history, and our culture) to sort out amongst ourselves, and the universe at large has nothing to do with it. The universe doesn't only not give a shit, it is incapable of giving a shit. And therefore we are free.
Orthodox Jews divide the world up into the *frum *and the *frei*. Frum means "pious" and refers to the Jews who follow or strive to follow the *mitzvot*, or 613 commandments (have kids, keep shabbos, don't mix wool and linen, etc). It's the word that the Orthodox use to describe themselves. Frei means "free," as in, not constrained by the mitzvot, free to have kids or not, keep shabbos or not, and so on. My sense of the universe as basically indifferent to us aligns fairly well with that idea.
-- Max Shron | Data Strategy www.shron.net
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Eric Purdy epurdy@uchicago.edu wrote:
I found it interesting that James considers everyone to have some sort of characteristic relationship to the universe. What do people think their relationship to the universe is?
-- -Eric _______________________________________________ WilliamJames mailing list WilliamJames@moomers.org http://mailman.moomers.org/mailman/listinfo/williamjames
participants (4)
-
Eric Purdy
-
Jesse Raber
-
Max Shron
-
Ruth Raubertas