Never thought about killing Walt Whitman (😆) but I certainly agree with Yoshi about the need for discipline and rules in art and anything worthwhile in life…
I'm not a dancer. In fact, I rather dislike dancing (to put it mildly). But it's occurred to me that when I'm forced to dance (say at a wedding) and I look around at people killing it, I realize it's because they've been doing it long enough that they can just forget about the details of "ok, right foot here, raise your shoulder now, step back 2 steps, now lift your head, now spin a quarter turn..." and they are able to just dance. Comfort in the underlying theory, discipline and structure allows them to just be free and enjoy the moment. I've never put in that time and that's undoubtedly connected to why I don't enjoy it.
I've seen this in the praxis of being an Orthodox Christian (convert). Much emphasis is placed on formal and written prayers (to say nothing of liturgy and ritual). On the outside looking in, one could be forgiven for finding that idea rigid, stale, uncreative etc. But in praying the Psalms and prayers the Church has handled down to us from generation to generation, I learn how to pray. The prayers teach me how to pray whilst also helping me find a voice for my own internal chaos, assisting the direction of my focus and attention on God. Having prayed some of those prayers for years now, they've helped me formulate my own personal prayer and hearts cry to God.
Formlessness is easy, that's why it's attractive.......I think C.S. Lewis said something about the pernicious consequences of uncritically believing the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" thing.....beautifully done!
I’m torn. You are good at writing, but I do not believe you are actually wrestling with God. You are too confident and maybe arrogant. Judging and condemning people because you know better. Teaching us about how we all went wrong, but never giving an answer for this. A history you give yes, but it is not complete. What about Salvation History? The answers are not going to be found of the world. Are you wanting to find an answer?
I'm setting the whole discussion of religion to the side, at least for this comment. I still can't tell to what degree you're serious about Walt Whitman, whose poetry and impact and novelty you seem not to understand at all. If you're serious that is. Allow me to cite a passage from Harold Bloom on Whitman, as he is more concise than I would be: "The six major poems [I can provide titles if requested], Song of Myself, and the five lesser but still extraordinary meditations, are what matter most in Whitman. To find their aesthetic equivalent in the West one must go back to Goethe, Blake, Wordsworth, Hölderlin, Shelley and Keats. Nothing in the second half of the nineteenth century or in our own ... matches Whitman's work in direct power and sublimity, except perhaps for Dickinson. It is an unhappy paradox that we have never got Whitman right, because he is a very difficult, immensely subtle poet who is usually at work doing almost the precise opposite of what he asserts himself to be doing." (The Western Canon, 265) Bloom, I think even his detractors would agree, is anything but an "anything goes" critic.
But really - there's no need to cite authorities. I can't imagine anyone settling down with Song of Myself and not being moved, even exalted, by Whitman's vision of humanity, of the American dream, of the polarity of body and spirit, male and female, God and nature. He didn't abandon poetic form, he crafted his own. Your comments, which I cannot believe you meant, are equivalent to someone walking up to a Rothko painting in a museum and saying "my kid could do that" -- because they expect Rothko to paint like Monet or Vermeer.
Excellent! I always say that pushing the weight of organized religion and its definition of God off your chest is the best workout every young philosophical mind needs to really develop its metaphysical muscles.
Your article today reminds me of a social science study that was done, I think, in the 1950s. For the life of me, I cannot find a publicly available link to its results. But I remember well a social scientist explaining the impact and results.
In summary, what the scientist did was to study a playground in an inner city area. The first thing they did was define a whole series of measurable behaviors that constituted “good societal conduct”. And then they measured those behaviors in the playground for a period of time. This playground was protected by very strong fences that prevented any danger from outsiders or from traffic. There were monitors in plain sight, but did not interfere with the children’s play. A baseline assessment showed high levels of positive social conduct.
Then, they removed the fences such that the danger posed by traffic and even by outssiders was clear to the children. An analogy would be, there were no restraints or guidelines or restrictions.
In this changed environment, where there was more freedom, but less safety, the negative society behaviors, as evidenced by what the children did with and to each other, increased greatly. When there was no safety, humans turned on each other. Later, when the fences were restored behavior, return to its normal and positive state.
I think there is a great applicability of this study to your point about the need for organized religion…
Occasionally when someone tells me they don’t like organized religion I reply, “So you prefer dis-organized religion?”
Never thought about killing Walt Whitman (😆) but I certainly agree with Yoshi about the need for discipline and rules in art and anything worthwhile in life…
I'm not a dancer. In fact, I rather dislike dancing (to put it mildly). But it's occurred to me that when I'm forced to dance (say at a wedding) and I look around at people killing it, I realize it's because they've been doing it long enough that they can just forget about the details of "ok, right foot here, raise your shoulder now, step back 2 steps, now lift your head, now spin a quarter turn..." and they are able to just dance. Comfort in the underlying theory, discipline and structure allows them to just be free and enjoy the moment. I've never put in that time and that's undoubtedly connected to why I don't enjoy it.
I've seen this in the praxis of being an Orthodox Christian (convert). Much emphasis is placed on formal and written prayers (to say nothing of liturgy and ritual). On the outside looking in, one could be forgiven for finding that idea rigid, stale, uncreative etc. But in praying the Psalms and prayers the Church has handled down to us from generation to generation, I learn how to pray. The prayers teach me how to pray whilst also helping me find a voice for my own internal chaos, assisting the direction of my focus and attention on God. Having prayed some of those prayers for years now, they've helped me formulate my own personal prayer and hearts cry to God.
Formlessness is easy, that's why it's attractive.......I think C.S. Lewis said something about the pernicious consequences of uncritically believing the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" thing.....beautifully done!
Every person is unique.
Guardrails, boundaries and limits serve good purpose.
Dogmas and traditions help us form truly.
Beauty is as real and True and Good as are
faith, hope and love, even if Cain killed Abel.
Most Holy Theotokos save us!
Grace and Peace to you fellow strugglers.
I’m torn. You are good at writing, but I do not believe you are actually wrestling with God. You are too confident and maybe arrogant. Judging and condemning people because you know better. Teaching us about how we all went wrong, but never giving an answer for this. A history you give yes, but it is not complete. What about Salvation History? The answers are not going to be found of the world. Are you wanting to find an answer?
I'm setting the whole discussion of religion to the side, at least for this comment. I still can't tell to what degree you're serious about Walt Whitman, whose poetry and impact and novelty you seem not to understand at all. If you're serious that is. Allow me to cite a passage from Harold Bloom on Whitman, as he is more concise than I would be: "The six major poems [I can provide titles if requested], Song of Myself, and the five lesser but still extraordinary meditations, are what matter most in Whitman. To find their aesthetic equivalent in the West one must go back to Goethe, Blake, Wordsworth, Hölderlin, Shelley and Keats. Nothing in the second half of the nineteenth century or in our own ... matches Whitman's work in direct power and sublimity, except perhaps for Dickinson. It is an unhappy paradox that we have never got Whitman right, because he is a very difficult, immensely subtle poet who is usually at work doing almost the precise opposite of what he asserts himself to be doing." (The Western Canon, 265) Bloom, I think even his detractors would agree, is anything but an "anything goes" critic.
But really - there's no need to cite authorities. I can't imagine anyone settling down with Song of Myself and not being moved, even exalted, by Whitman's vision of humanity, of the American dream, of the polarity of body and spirit, male and female, God and nature. He didn't abandon poetic form, he crafted his own. Your comments, which I cannot believe you meant, are equivalent to someone walking up to a Rothko painting in a museum and saying "my kid could do that" -- because they expect Rothko to paint like Monet or Vermeer.
Excellent! I always say that pushing the weight of organized religion and its definition of God off your chest is the best workout every young philosophical mind needs to really develop its metaphysical muscles.
Your article today reminds me of a social science study that was done, I think, in the 1950s. For the life of me, I cannot find a publicly available link to its results. But I remember well a social scientist explaining the impact and results.
In summary, what the scientist did was to study a playground in an inner city area. The first thing they did was define a whole series of measurable behaviors that constituted “good societal conduct”. And then they measured those behaviors in the playground for a period of time. This playground was protected by very strong fences that prevented any danger from outsiders or from traffic. There were monitors in plain sight, but did not interfere with the children’s play. A baseline assessment showed high levels of positive social conduct.
Then, they removed the fences such that the danger posed by traffic and even by outssiders was clear to the children. An analogy would be, there were no restraints or guidelines or restrictions.
In this changed environment, where there was more freedom, but less safety, the negative society behaviors, as evidenced by what the children did with and to each other, increased greatly. When there was no safety, humans turned on each other. Later, when the fences were restored behavior, return to its normal and positive state.
I think there is a great applicability of this study to your point about the need for organized religion…
After Walt comes Cole Porter “Anything Goes”
hmm... perhaps Tomás de Torquemada although, surely someone else would have taken his place.
In the art economy, the good art is driven by the demand side. Bad art arises when all the creative motivation comes from the supply side.
Walt Whitman seems to exemplify this. As do all pretentious artistes who followed in his footsteps.