thanks, Rog
Permainan Sicbo Rupiah Online Terbaik untuk Anda!
11 hours ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
remember
Andrew Breitbart...American Hero
My Blog List
-
-
-
-
An Epidemic Of Biden3 years ago
-
-
FOR ME - MORE BLOG LESS F B2 years ago
-
-
Kid's Creations2 months ago
-
Sixty-one Years Ago Today2 days ago
-
His Name Was Charles4 years ago
-
-
-
Project Reconquista Commences10 years ago
-
Sorta Makes You Wanna Cry...9 years ago
-
-
-
-
Mr. AOW Has Gone Home3 years ago
-
-
This and That2 days ago
-
-
Wow. I Lost Myself6 years ago
-
-
-
Can You Hear Us Now?1 week ago
-
VALENTINES DAY! :-)4 years ago
74 comments:
Emily Dickinson (1830–86). Complete Poems. 1924.
Part One: Life
XXXII
HOPE is the thing with feathers
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all,
And sweetest in the gale is heard;
And sore must be the storm
That could abash the little bird
That kept so many warm.
I ’ve heard it in the chillest land,
And on the strangest sea;
Yet, never, in extremity,
It asked a crumb of me.
I love this photo! And, Emily Dickinson.
The poem is beautiful but the picture is better than a thousand words.
Love that cat and that bird. Appropriate poem I must say.
LAYLA, did you see what a MESS I left at your site when I tried to post? I am so sorry! Some computer glitch, I guess...?
Glad you and KAREN like the picture...it's so tender, so hopeful...
I like Dickinson, too...very much.
Hi, CJ.......got the photo from FT, knew the poem and couldn't help but put them together. I'm glad you liked it.
The photo, sweet. Dickinson, beautiful.
Thanks Z
Pris
That is one tough parakeet! I wouldn't want to meet him in a dark alley!
Hope is the only good god remaining among mankind; the others have left and gone to Olympus. Trust, a mighty god has gone, Restraint has gone from men, and the Graces, my friend, have abandoned the earth. Men’s judicial oaths are no longer to be trusted, nor does anyone revere the immortal gods; the race of pious men has perished and men no longer recognize the rules of conduct or acts of piety.--Theognis of Megara (FJ laughs and questions Emily and Theognis as to the 'nature' of 'hope')
From her is the race of women and female kind: of her is the deadly race and tribe of women who live amongst mortal men to their great trouble, no helpmeets in hateful poverty, but only in wealth.--Hesiod
Only Hope was left within her (Pandora's) unbreakable house, she remained under the lip of the jar, and did not fly away. Before [she could], Pandora replaced the lid of the jar. This was the will of aegis-bearing Zeus the Cloudgatherer. --Hesiod
Stupid as a man, say the women: cowardly as a woman, say the men. Stupidity in a woman is unwomanly. --Nietzsche
Hope is something for those who wait in anticipation of succour, courage is for those who no longer wait, but have discovered its' means within themselves.
Gnothi Seauton!
i got a series of these the other day in my email - one of my old bosses had a lhaso apso and a parakeet - the parakeet would ride around on the dog's ponytail on top of its head and say "PRETTY DOG!" - it was the cutest thing!
*;]
This is really top-notch, my friend. Of course, the photo makes you wonder if the bird isn't really a special forces soldier incognito!
Semper Fi
Thank you, Z. What a wonderful sense of connection between words and image you gave us!
It's too easy to get down on life if we spend too much time contemplating the dreadful fare the ENEMEDIA–––and our OTHER enemies–––dish up all the time.
The playful, peaceful camaraderie that developed naturally between the kitten and the little bird indicates that love, affection and curiosity live in the heart of life, despite everything that appears to the contrary.
Emily, as you know, has been one of my best friends since I discovered her at age 14 in a high school English class. I'm glad you like her too.
~ FreeThinke
After a couple of the comments here, now I can't stop seeing that kitty as the felled trophy of the macho birdie.
FT: thanks so much! It WAS your picture and I thank you for the tip!
Mustang; only a special forces bird would have these guts
cj: I see your point but I refuse to look at it as anything but hope in feathers.... and how supposed enemies can get along. That's a hope, huh?
Hope is a living thing, and it will get us through the darkest of times. Thanks for this cute post, Z. I needed it today.
Our car died yesterday, we're no longer moving 'back home', and hubby's starting a new job.
Hope is the rope hanging from the future, saying..."Grab on!"
Here is another of Emily's poems on the subject of hope.
It is, perhaps, more enigmatic and less charming than the other, but certainly worth knowing.
Hope is a subtle Glutton --
He feeds upon the Fair --
And yet -- inspected closely
What Abstinence is there --
His is the Halcyon Table --
That never seats but One --
And whatsoever is consumed
The same amount remain --
~ ED
PINKY, is that YOUR line about hope saying 'grab on'? Tell me
ANON: Yes, it is certainly far less charming. actually, i hate it, but there you go!
Hope is wonderful thing provided the feather of hope never outweighs the cour... and a balance is maintained. Meden agan! Let Pandora weave the Peplos!
Plato, "Statesman"
STRANGER: The meaning is, that the opinion about the honourable and the just and good and their opposites, which is true and confirmed by reason, is a divine principle, and when implanted in the soul, is implanted, as I maintain, in a nature of heavenly birth.
YOUNG SOCRATES: Yes; what else should it be?
STRANGER: Only the Statesman and the good legislator, having the inspiration of the royal muse, can implant this opinion, and he, only in the rightly educated, whom we were just now describing.
YOUNG SOCRATES: Likely enough.
STRANGER: But him who cannot, we will not designate by any of the names which are the subject of the present enquiry.
YOUNG SOCRATES: Very right.
STRANGER: The courageous (manly) soul when attaining this truth becomes civilized, and rendered more capable of partaking of justice; but when not partaking, is inclined to brutality. Is not that true?
YOUNG SOCRATES: Certainly.
STRANGER: And again, the peaceful and orderly nature (womanly), if sharing in these opinions, becomes temperate and wise, as far as this may be in a State, but if not, deservedly obtains the ignominious name of silliness.
YOUNG SOCRATES: Quite true.
STRANGER: Can we say that such a connexion as this will lastingly unite the evil with one another or with the good, or that any science would seriously think of using a bond of this kind to join such materials?
YOUNG SOCRATES: Impossible.
STRANGER: But in those who were originally of a noble nature, and who have been nurtured in noble ways, and in those only, may we not say that union is implanted by law, and that this is the medicine which art prescribes for them, and of all the bonds which unite the dissimilar and contrary parts of virtue is not this, as I was saying, the divinest?
YOUNG SOCRATES: Very true.
STRANGER: Where this divine bond exists there is no difficulty in imagining, or when you have imagined, in creating the other bonds, which are human only.
YOUNG SOCRATES: How is that, and what bonds do you mean?
STRANGER: Rights of intermarriage, and ties which are formed between States by giving and taking children in marriage, or between individuals by private betrothals and espousals. For most persons form marriage connexions without due regard to what is best for the procreation of children.
YOUNG SOCRATES: In what way?
STRANGER: They seek after wealth and power, which in matrimony are objects not worthy even of a serious censure.
YOUNG SOCRATES: There is no need to consider them at all.
STRANGER: More reason is there to consider the practice of those who make family their chief aim, and to indicate their error.
YOUNG SOCRATES: Quite true.
STRANGER: They act on no true principle at all; they seek their ease and receive with open arms those who are like themselves, and hate those who are unlike them, being too much influenced by feelings of dislike.
YOUNG SOCRATES: How so?
STRANGER: The quiet orderly class seek for natures like their own, and as far as they can they marry and give in marriage exclusively in this class, and the courageous do the same; they seek natures like their own, whereas they should both do precisely the opposite.
YOUNG SOCRATES: How and why is that?
STRANGER: Because courage, when untempered by the gentler nature during many generations, may at first bloom and strengthen, but at last bursts forth into downright madness.
YOUNG SOCRATES: Like enough.
STRANGER: And then, again, the soul which is over-full of modesty and has no element of courage in many successive generations, is apt to grow too indolent, and at last to become utterly paralyzed and useless.
YOUNG SOCRATES: That, again, is quite likely.
STRANGER: It was of these bonds I said that there would be no difficulty in creating them, if only both classes originally held the same opinion about the honourable and good;--indeed, in this single work, the whole process of royal weaving is comprised-- never to allow temperate natures to be separated from the brave, but to weave them together, like the warp and the woof, by common sentiments and honours and reputation, and by the giving of pledges to one another; and out of them forming one smooth and even web, to entrust to them the offices of State.
May the gods remain seated and never walk off on the East-sunrising side of the Parthenon. And may the statesman/ royal weaver always weave a peplos suitable to Athena.
WHOOPS! Sorry Z. I forgot to sign again.
It was I who posted the second poem. I think it may mean that the supply of hope is INEXHAUSTIBLE ("whatsoever is consumed, the same amount remain.")
Emily Dickinson's life, as you know, was highly circumscribed. She lived mostly within the confines of her brilliant, uniquely perceptive head. In this regard she was a lot like Jane Austen.
I can't dislike anything she wrote, but a lot of it is disquieting if you really dig into it.
~! FreeThinke
A cat AND Emily Dickinson? Life is good!
A parakeet had better not try that with my huntress Mysti. Sheba, my ancient kitty, is mellower, though.
A beautiful posting, Z!
Remember the feather in Forrest Gump? That feather made me think of this poem by Dickinson.
I had a hunch it was yours, FT! Thanks.
"whatsoever is consumed, the same amount remain" seems hopeLESS to me, though I see your point....'there's always hope, it can never be totally consumed, something will always remain' hmm
"he feeds upon the fair" tells me Dickinson was looking at hope that particular day as if it offered a hope that consumed people in their desperation, or no hope...hope, just as long as it kept the people duped, you see?
FJ? that comment about the parthenon? that is EXACTLY what I always say!! What a coincidence! (smile) And I hate it when MY aegis is removed! Peplos..as in peplum, perhaps!!??
Hi Z! Thanks for popin' in on me and reading my posts. I always appreciate others views and yours of course.
Layla, you're a good thinker/writer..it's my pleasure to read your work and a pleasure to have you here, too, believe me! see you soon!
FreeThinke says
"Fair" can mean beautiful, fine, noble, as well as even-handed. "Fair" covers all things good, satisfying, inspiring and uplifting.
Even in the sense of The County Fair it's supposed to be an exhibit of the best, most worthy and most interesting products of the locality, and it's also supposed to be fun.
Therefore, if Hope "feeds upon the fair," it only means that the best aspects of life are the things that keep hope alive.
Call me a Determined Optimist. ;-)
~ FT
FT...I thought of County FAIR, too...but there is usually another allusion to something like that if a poet's going to throw a word out of left field in, don't you think?
Well, it's certainly a more optimistic way of looking at it than mine!
Don't worry, z, you won't need your aegis. Like the Hermes in the panel, I remain seated with my petasos rests upon my knees... and my kerykeion currently has but one worm upon it (but don't confuse me w/Asclepius). ;-)
...and peplum could conceivably be made from a peplos!?
The point I was trying to make with the peplos scene was that there is a proper time for those who wait (and hope) and another for those who act (they're moved beyond hope and so put on their petasos) and that they need each other for "balance". We may hate liberals and their reluctance to defend even themselves, but we need them to help restrain us against over-extending ourselves just as a child needs a mother AND a father and that "alternative" (non-nuclear) family arrangements are inferior to the "ideal" (for all those moral relativists out there... #:P()=:
Hope can be a great good or a great evil, depending upon how the story ends... as perhaps the survivors of the Donner Party might attest.
But regardless, womanly Athena is wise to don armor and carry both spear AND aegis. For as Hamlet concluded in Act IV scene 4...
How all occasions do inform against me And spur my dull revenge! What is a man, If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? a beast, no more. Sure he that made us with such large discourse, Looking before and after, gave us not That capability and godlike reason To fust in us unus'd. Now, whether it be Bestial oblivion, or some craven scruple Of thinking too precisely on th' event— A thought which, quartered, hath but one part wisdom And ever three parts coward—I do not know Why yet I live to say “This thing's to do,” Sith I have cause and will and strength and means To do 't. Examples gross as earth exhort me.Witness this army, of such mass and charge, Led by a delicate and tender prince; Whose spirit, with divine ambition puff'd, Makes mouths at the invisible event; Exposing what is mortal and unsure To all that fortune, death, and danger dare, Even for an egg-shell. Rightly to be great Is not to stir without great argument, But greatly to find quarrel in a straw When honour's at the stake. How stand I, then, That have a father kill'd, a mother stain'd, Excitements of my reason and my blood, And let all sleep? while, to my shame, I see The imminent death of twenty thousand men That, for a fantasy and trick of fame, Go to their graves like beds; fight for a plot Whereon the numbers cannot try the cause, Which is not tomb enough and continent To hide the slain?—O, from this time forth, My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!
And so those orderly souls in a democracy who sit and wait and HOPE must be sacrificed to the gods for the greater good of all. ;-)
Pandora (from the peplos scene), like our liberal friends from Attica's more peace loving demes, was quite a cheeky little girl!
But 9/11 was a call to put on out petasos and mount up!
(apologies for the mixed Shakespearean and Greek metaphors above)
OH, FARMER JOHN! FINALLY (another RED LETTER DAY!?), an allusion even I understand: THE DONNER TRAGEDY!
(Dad took us girls there one summer and I was highly disappointed you couldn't see much. He said "Honey, what did you expect to see, bones strewn around the place?" As a 'romantic' who'd just read a book about the tragedy and lived all those lives in my 10 year old head, my answer was "Of course!")
As for your saying "The point I was trying to make"? I've been trying to avoid your having to say that by presenting my most erudite front OR not responding to the stuff I REALLY don't get, so, now that we've broken that ice, keep explaining! I'm woefully dumb when it comes to classics, FJ. Woefully.
I usually mix Shakespearean metaphors with Latin. I'm from California, what do WE know?! (smile)
And, nothing with WORMS on them, thanks!
You don't like worms? Worm's, like ants or Achilles Myrmidons, the hydra's teeth of Jason or Cadmus' dragon's teeth/ Sparti are autochthonous and 'spring from the soil.'
Worm's are perceived to be unlike snakes... which would more likely invade other snake's territories and overthrow the indigenous king of snakes in order to oppress and exploit the other snakes subjects much like Columbus did to the native Americans... ;-)
Shakespeare w/Latin! LOL! ;-)
Have you ever seen two worms fight? More likely they'll wrap themselves around a single "rod of power or sceptre" and hold on tight and HOPE it doesn't fly away...
Of course I'm not sure that worms should trust men who wear petasos and have reputations for dishonesty like Hermes. ;-)
It's ALL Greek to me...
latin... LOL!
TRUST me, FJ. I have NEVER trusted ANY man in a petaso.
Now that's a concept I'll have to run up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes.
btw- What's with you and that aegis?
FJ, I'm having fun with you...I'm in SUCH deep water with you and this classical stuff it's all I can do to only look STUPID and not worse!!
But, I look at it all and have learned a lot, believe it or not!
You say petAso and I say petAHSO...(so does Hop Sing, by the way)
and I still don't like worms!! eeoo
Come to think of it, there may have been one... but I think perhaps he walked with a bit of a limp. His foot was a bit more rooted in the soil of reality than most...
that 'foot' shot of the bloody guillotine is like a combination of Les Miserables and Sweeney Todd!!
FJ....do all those links jive somehow? Tell me again. I'm getting to feel so much better now that I can admit my weaknesses and say "WHAT THE H...????" !!!!
as Ricky'd tell Lucy "splain!"
Z,
You really shouldn't feel bad. I've spent far too much time fascinated and involved with classical minutiae than any one person deserves.
I'm madly and completely in love (philo) with wisdom (sophy). Like Rousseau and the comtesse d’ Houdetot or Emile and Sophie, I try and let nothing come between us.
...as the song goes, I stuck a feather in my cap and called it macaroni.
I always wondered how sticking a feather in your cap could have anything to do with pasta! Thanks, FJ! That is truly interesting!
As for that book? Oooh, lala!! Is it accessible or do you REALLY have to love this kind of lit to be able to read it?
Did you by chance notice the "phyrgian" cap with two candles above the guillotine? How about above the liberty pole? Did you notice the articles upon which the feet of the two "revolutionaries" were upon? Have you ever wondered why Hermes feet and sometimes his hat/petasos" might be winged?
Did you notice Pandora's foot upon the skull in the first painting... the allusion to things "rooted in the soil" with things that might emerge from them....or why a Dali painting might show a man with a hole in his chest wearing only one shoe?
They're all related. Call it an attempt at communicating in "sign language"... but one much less complicated than latin, greek, or esperanto and works on a more subliminal level.
It started with the pyramids, moved to the acropolis, and has been cast into every stone and monument that the world has ever seen.
Course if I had to 'splain it all, my tongue would likely get pretty tied up... and I don't think you'd quite believe me. The only way to believe is to keep your eyes open and begin to discover the meanings yourself. ;-)
Tell me what YOU think they mean...
I hadn't clicked on the Gibson girl at her vanity until NOW (I somehow had missed it before, when I clicked on the rest of the links..wish I knew how to link words in a comment)...Anyway, when I clicked on it I was thinking SKULLS because the Dali guy might only have one but he is a SKULL face...and the feathered Indian has what looks like a half skull around his neck.......And BAMMO! Her head and the reflection of her head are the eye orbits and her perfume bottles are the teeth...wonderful!!! But, this Gibson girl look is so different than the classical painters, the revolutionary French 'cartoon', the painting on the "Soil" link (which is beautiful, and touches me for some reason more than all the others, who is that painter, it's a very interesting mood)..well, they are ALL very different, yet you're saying there are similarities which are not an accident.
But, are they not an accident in that they are interesting so the different artists portray them in their work OR is it a planned 'interesting'...very nonaccidental, planned similarity?
I think unplanned.....i think.
wings on feet
skulls
feathers
one-shoed people
The cap has what seems like a third eye on it, now that you bring it to my attention...a bull's eye of sorts, I prefer to think of it as a third eye representing KNOWLEDGE or JUSTICE (in relation to a torture device/used after a crime?) or some other 'thing' that's all=knowing beyond the antics going on around it, OR what had gone on the head which wore the cap?
what 'liberty pole', by the way?
Why DO paintings and drawings have people's feet on skulls, I don't think that's very rare now that I think of it. stepping on knowledge (brains in the skull)...
boy, I'm thinking aloud hoping to get somewhere but I think I'm getting COLD....and colder
is the one shoe a conscious homage to a classical painter/drawer, ?? or does it represent a philosophy? one shoe. A shoe representing a more sophisticated society than a bare foot might?
colder..colder, I know.
tell me......
Emile's extremely accessible. Confessions are interesting for forming a backdrop to his earlier writings (an equivalent to Augustine's book by the same name). The Reveries should be saved for later. And of course, I'm still mustering the energy needed to truly appreciate Julie.
But I'm afraid that to truly get the most from any great author like Rousseau, one must become familiar with the works of his predecessors. And so I started with Greeks (as we all must) and moved on from there. And that meant starting with Homer/Hesiod... moving on to the great tragedians Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, the historians, Thucydides and his predecessor Herodotus, the comedian Aristophanes, and finally the philosophers Plato and Xenophon.
Then you must move on to the Romans (for you will find a Roman story paralleling that of the Greeks), the Christians, the masters of the Renaissance (Petrarch, Dante, Machiavelli, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Cervantes) before tackling the enlightenment philosophers leading up to the English Civil War and American and French Revolutions.
Of course, so long as you cover the Greeks completely, you can pretty much move ANYWHERE from there... regardless of what a formal Great Books curriculum might recommend... it's ones of the advantages of having the time to digress and SAVOR the digressions... ;-)
I was somewhat blind to symbolism in art and images myself, until one day about four years ago mr ducky asked me to explain a work of surrealist Salvador Dali called the Javanese Mannequin... so perhaps we should start with a single blank canvas. Tell me what you see...
well, if I'd have to read all of that to get to Rousseau, Rousseau will have to do without me, sadly.
Here is my question: Does HE lean so heavily on the stars of literature so we can't get his allusions without having read them, OR is it just 'thicker', more satisfying to read him after having digested and understood the others. Had HE read the Greek classics, do we know?
Pardon my lack in this area...it's a VERY big black hole, as you've come to realize, I'm sure.
We're going to dinner; I hope you can respond about the feather,skull business.
AND, which fellow had you written about who REALLY interested me about a month ago, FJ? The one who wrote 'rules' for living, remember? About men and women, etc..I think it was Rousseau, non? What was that? I really wanted to look into that one, seriously.
maybe a martini with dinner will help. something!
...okay, I admit it... I'm way too fond of digressions to stay the course in any single conversation and arrive at an agreeable destination... my first Dali analysis did miss a few things, especially how the "light" focused on "cause" of the mannequin's "condition"... but if you wish to "seek or find agreement" with my interpretation, you can find some hints there... but perhaps that is NOT what you should seek, but instead, you should form your own idea and allow time to serendipitously reveal the answers...(learning the hard way sticks with you longer).
I guess once you begin looking into Pandora's box, there's probably a price to be paid... ;-)
btw - know what pan-dora means?
Rousseau was born in Geneva. In his "Confessions", we learn that he read what was in his father's book collection, "Plutarch's Lives" being a particular favorite. His parents died when he was young, and Rousseau eventually ran away from home, briefly flirted with Catholicism and conversion in a monastery-school and eventually finding refuge with his beloved comtesse. He thereafter became an autodidact, invented a relative "system" for writing music... and eventually earned a living transcribing musical pieces into different keys.
So I guess I can say in answer to your question that Rousseau's non-political/philosophical works do NOT quote the Greeks extensively and were intended for a non-classically trained (but educated) French audience. And so yes, knowing the classical philosophers provides much "flavor" for the sauce, but is NOT essential.
And yes, it was Rousseau whom we discussed previously.
If I were you, I would read his "Confessions" BEFORE you read Emile and some of the other works (should you wish to continue to read). For it is in his Confessions that you will learn the extent to which he was persecuted by TWO opposed sets of enemies... one "aristocratic"... and the other "enlightened". His entire life and approach to writing reflect these circumstances.
I would say that Machiavelli is an example of an author who is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to understand w/o a thorough understanding of the Greeks AND Romans... even though his "Prince" is on almost every high school student's reading list. Although if one were to read his 'later' plays (Clizia and Mandragola), one would find him extremely accessible... as it took him considerable time to learn a more effective means of communicating w/o having to resort to "secret writing" and "codes" like Leonardo, et al. For nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition (except the guilty)!
The problem of reading Rousseau sans Greeks is that you'll probably NOT be inclined to take his EVERY statement at their word. THAT would be a REAL mistake. You must believe that he was not a 'frivolous' writer and did NOT write 'ironically'. The only "irony" in "Socratic irony" is that which comes from NOT understanding and taking the author at his word.
I'm still too curious abuot the skulls and shoeless people to go somewhere else, and I am THE biggest digresser I thought I KNEW! But..
FJ...I think one has to have a stronger desire to understand this stuff than I do. I don't want to search, I want you to spoon feed me..I have to admit. Sad, but true.
How the heck, with the background you describe of Rousseau, did he venture so deeply in how to live your life? His brother was so badly mistreated by his folks that he fled to Germany and they never heard from him again! Somewhere, in Deutschland, Rousseau genes must be alive and well! And now you tell me the parents died while Rousseau was relatively young? Remember that info you shared with me back when? How he detailed living and how it should be, and relatinoships, etc? What was that piece called?
*sighs*
The piece was 'Emile'... but even that book caused me to pursue a number of digressions (which didn't have to be pursued, but which did explain 'why' Rousseau was 'right'). Fortunately, I had read the Iliad and Odyssey, and so I was somewhat familiar with the characters Telemachus and Mentor, upon which Rousseau had modelled his main characters. The main digression I pursued occurred when the character of "Sophie" was introduced. Not being a 'woman', I was having trouble understanding "why" Rousseau would recommend a book such as Fenlon's "Telemachus" for her, having recommended "Robinson Crusoe" as the single text for Emile. It was then that I realized that he was grooming her for "Mentor's" role, which caused me to reassess a woman's role in a marriage, of Athena/guide and 'link' between units of urban society.
And so, like with Milton's "Paradise Lost", one cannot always appreciate certain texts w/o familiarity with other texts. I once started reading Paradise Lost, but 90% of the biblical allusions escaped me, and so as much as I could tell that it was perhaps the best book of its' genre, I have put that book aside until I have MORE than a passing familiarity with the subject matter, which in this case was the Bible and 'more' of the early Christians (specifically, Augustine's "City of G_d"). Ask me about Genesis, and I can stay with you... but go much farther than that, and I'm quickly out of my depth.
wings on feet - represent rapid movement in space/physical location... something that travels fast, especially to 'foreign' lands.
feathers in hats - represent the catching of passing thoughts in mind (like a great Indian chief) whilst a "golden helmet" would represent the permanent possession of them.
wings on hats - represent travelling thoughts or ideas... or one who would spread "foreign" thoughts.
skulls - death or fear of death. An allegory of vanity/pandora with a woman's foot on a skull indicates the source of the malady (her "grounding" or "foundation")... in a fear of death
feathers - thoughts, hopes, wishes or dreams. A native American wind/dream catcher, for example.
one-shoed people - depends upon the shoes, but most likely indicative of a person's "grounding". In some cases, it's the earth itself as one becomes "restricted in movement" through the acquisition of land and property. ie - A blogger "owns property" on the internet and defends it. A troll is like a squatter... he has nothing to lose and can commit crimes and offenses (like the Roma) and then "move on".
Haephestus is "lame" because he is tied to a "forge" under a particular mountain somewhere.
Oedipus translates into "swollen foot"... Laios servant binds Oedipus by the feet, and it leaves a scar... and it is by this scar that Oedipus learns eventually that it was he who murdered his own father, and that his wife is his mother... (which eventually serves as the cause of his self-blinding - aka - Freudian psychological repression) and banishment to the sacred grove of the Eumenides (Furies) outside Athens and disappearance - only King Theseus knows where he went).
btw - The liberty pole is a walking stick/shepherd staff or herald's staff representing a royal sceptre or rod of power. Plant it in the ground (or sit down with it) means I own this ground, yet remain free. It has turned into a "flag-pole". A phyrgian cap is a "traveller's cap" or petasos worn by ex-Roman slaves who have been set "free". Put it atop a pole, and we have a good old fashioned "liberty pole", a place for rebels to meet and hold a conference before "moving on"...
A Liberty tree is rooted in one spot, like the Great Tree of Peace upon which it was modelled...(remember the "Indian garb" worn by the "Mohawks" at the Boston Tea Party?)
from the Iroquois Constitution...
1. I am Dekanawidah and with the Five Nations' Confederate
Lords I plant the Tree of Great Peace. I plant it in your
territory, Adodarhoh, and the Onondaga Nation, in the territory
of you who are Firekeepers.
I name the tree the Tree of the Great Long Leaves. Under
the shade of this Tree of the Great Peace we spread the soft
white feathery down of the globe thistle as seats for you,
Adodarhoh, and your cousin Lords.
We place you upon those seats, spread soft with the
feathery down of the globe thistle, there beneath the shade of
the spreading branches of the Tree of Peace. There shall you
sit and watch the Council Fire of the Confederacy of the Five
Nations, and all the affairs of the Five Nations shall be
transacted at this place before you, Adodarhoh, and your cousin
Lords, by the Confederate Lords of the Five Nations.
2. Roots have spread out from the Tree of the Great Peace,
one to the north, one to the east, one to the south and one to
the west. The name of these roots is The Great White Roots and
their nature is Peace and Strength.
If any man or any nation outside the Five Nations shall
obey the laws of the Great Peace and make known their
disposition to the Lords of the Confederacy, they may trace the
Roots to the Tree and if their minds are clean and they are
obedient and promise to obey the wishes of the Confederate
Council, they shall be welcomed to take shelter beneath the
Tree of the Long Leaves.
We place at the top of the Tree of the Long Leaves an
Eagle who is able to see afar. If he sees in the distance any
evil approaching or any danger threatening he will at once warn
the people of the Confederacy.
3. To you Adodarhoh, the Onondaga cousin Lords, I and the
other Confederate Lords have entrusted the caretaking and the
watching of the Five Nations Council Fire.
When there is any business to be transacted and the
Confederate Council is not in session, a messenger shall be
dispatched either to Adodarhoh, Hononwirehtonh or Skanawatih,
Fire Keepers, or to their War Chiefs with a full statement of
the case desired to be considered. Then shall Adodarhoh call
his cousin (associate) Lords together and consider whether or
not the case is of sufficient importance to demand the
attention of the Confederate Council. If so, Adodarhoh shall
dispatch messengers to summon all the Confederate Lords to
assemble beneath the Tree of the Long Leaves.
When the Lords are assembled the Council Fire shall be
kindled, but not with chestnut wood, and Adodarhoh shall
formally open the Council.
[ ed note: chestnut wood throws out sparks in burning,
thereby creating a disturbance in the council ]
Then shall Adodarhoh and his cousin Lords, the Fire
Keepers, announce the subject for discussion.
The Smoke of the Confederate Council Fire shall ever
ascend and pierce the sky so that other nations who may be
allies may see the Council Fire of the Great Peace.
Oh, feet again... there were two camps of "peasants" in the French Revolution... notice again the feet...
The more "womanly" have their foot upon a Bible (religious right), the more "manly" upon a "newspaper" (today's leftist progressives).
Notice the "low candlepower" of their two thoughts upon the "poled" /stationary phyrgian cap.
The problem of any proletarian revolution lies in its' hatred of leadership... the Revolution w/o a head was very dangerous as the Jacobins had proscribed the more moderate Girondists.
...and so now that you've forced me to reveal my "foot fetish", perhaps you should challenge your Oedipal self to one of your own (which I hope you find a-muse-ing....
The Enigma of William Tell. Why William Tell? It's not arbitrary... I'll tell you that much! ;-)
I think one has to have a stronger desire to understand this stuff than I do. I don't want to search...
I do. I'm in love w/sophy.
A philosopher is a lover of wisdom. Cupid has shot me in the heart with his arrow, and so I must pursue Daphne/ sophie to the end of the earth!
;-)
Every time I catch her, both she and I undergo a metamorphoses...
TRUST me, FJ. I have NEVER trusted ANY man in a petaso.
Damn!
The Bernini is ABSOLUTELY gorgeous....and YOU are a hero for taking the time to give me all of this information.......
I think I'm better with art than literature. At least classical literature.
Elbro.......me, too.!
Never fear, elbro, we've still got our pet-AH-sos!
And as always, z, it was my pleasure to share a little time with you and my sophie!
Thanks, FJ, me too. Even if it did make me feel as stupid as a stump!xx
Consider yourself only partially "torpified" (Plato, "Meno"). ;-)
Oooh, the "bullseye" - French nationalism. Almost forgot. ;-)
Red-blood
White-Purity
Blue-Loyalty
I love America's pure "white" stars in a field of loyal blue married to 1/2 of its' "rebellious stripes". The one in the middle is you. ;-)
PURITY is me? Well, naivitee in the field of classical literature certainly is me. "pure" as in unsullied, maybe!?
But, I want you to sully me (so to speak!) Teach me. Just go slower.
Can we start with the Brontes or Jane Austen or Edith Wharton? Just skip a couple of centuries and I'm RIGHT there with you! (are you cringing yet?)
As much as the thought of "sullying you" might tempt me, I'm afraid that it would be nearly impossible for me to "teach" you my particular brand of sophistry (wisdom), as it is one that cannot be taught (Plato, "Meno").
Besides, as Socrates once counselled another regarding the nature of education upon a different occassion ("Protagoras")...
I wonder whether you know what you are doing?
And what am I doing?
You are going to commit your soul to the care of a man whom you call a Sophist. And yet I hardly think that you know what a Sophist is; and if not, then you do not even know to whom you are committing your soul and whether the thing to which you commit yourself be good or evil.
I certainly think that I do know, he replied.
Then tell me, what do you imagine that he is?
I take him to be one who knows wise things, he replied, as his name implies.
And might you not, I said, affirm this of the painter and of the carpenter also: Do not they, too, know wise things? But suppose a person were to ask us: In what are the painters wise? We should answer: In what relates to the making of likenesses, and similarly of other things. And if he were further to ask: What is the wisdom of the Sophist, and what is the manufacture over which he presides?--how should we answer him?
How should we answer him, Socrates? What other answer could there be but that he presides over the art which makes men eloquent?
Yes, I replied, that is very likely true, but not enough; for in the answer a further question is involved: Of what does the Sophist make a man talk eloquently? The player on the lyre may be supposed to make a man talk eloquently about that which he makes him understand, that is about playing the lyre. Is not that true?
Yes.
Then about what does the Sophist make him eloquent? Must not he make him eloquent in that which he understands?
Yes, that may be assumed.
And what is that which the Sophist knows and makes his disciple know?
Indeed, he said, I cannot tell.
Then I proceeded to say: Well, but are you aware of the danger which you are incurring? If you were going to commit your body to some one, who might do good or harm to it, would you not carefully consider and ask the opinion of your friends and kindred, and deliberate many days as to whether you should give him the care of your body? But when the soul is in question, which you hold to be of far more value than the body, and upon the good or evil of which depends the well-being of your all,--about this you never consulted either with your father or with your brother or with any one of us who are your companions. But no sooner does this foreigner appear, than you instantly commit your soul to his keeping. In the evening, as you say, you hear of him, and in the morning you go to him, never deliberating or taking the opinion of any one as to whether you ought to intrust yourself to him or not;--you have quite made up your mind that you will at all hazards be a pupil of Protagoras, and are prepared to expend all the property of yourself and of your friends in carrying out at any price this determination, although, as you admit, you do not know him, and have never spoken with him: and you call him a Sophist, but are manifestly ignorant of what a Sophist is; and yet you are going to commit yourself to his keeping.
When he heard me say this, he replied: No other inference, Socrates, can be drawn from your words.
I proceeded: Is not a Sophist, Hippocrates, one who deals wholesale or retail in the food of the soul? To me that appears to be his nature.
And what, Socrates, is the food of the soul?
Surely, I said, knowledge is the food of the soul; and we must take care, my friend, that the Sophist does not deceive us when he praises what he sells, like the dealers wholesale or retail who sell the food of the body; for they praise indiscriminately all their goods, without knowing what are really beneficial or hurtful: neither do their customers know, with the exception of any trainer or physician who may happen to buy of them. In like manner those who carry about the wares of knowledge, and make the round of the cities, and sell or retail them to any customer who is in want of them, praise them all alike; though I should not wonder, O my friend, if many of them were really ignorant of their effect upon the soul; and their customers equally ignorant, unless he who buys of them happens to be a physician of the soul. If, therefore, you have understanding of what is good and evil, you may safely buy knowledge of Protagoras or of any one; but if not, then, O my friend, pause, and do not hazard your dearest interests at a game of chance. For there is far greater peril in buying knowledge than in buying meat and drink: the one you purchase of the wholesale or retail dealer, and carry them away in other vessels, and before you receive them into the body as food, you may deposit them at home and call in any experienced friend who knows what is good to be eaten or drunken, and what not, and how much, and when; and then the danger of purchasing them is not so great. But you cannot buy the wares of knowledge and carry them away in another vessel; when you have paid for them you must receive them into the soul and go your way, either greatly harmed or greatly benefited; and therefore we should deliberate and take counsel with our elders; for we are still young--too young to determine such a matter. And now let us go, as we were intending, and hear Protagoras; and when we have heard what he has to say, we may take counsel of others; for not only is Protagoras at the house of Callias, but there is Hippias of Elis, and, if I am not mistaken, Prodicus of Ceos, and several other wise men.
Well, we're not as yound as Socrates and his friend in the story above...
But should you wish to post on the Brontes or Austen or ANY subject for that matter, I might be inclined to offer an occassional opinion or three. ;-)
But, I want you to sully me (so to speak!) Teach me. Just go slower.
don't do it fj...she sounds like a cheap date but well...
try teaching her blogging
"go slower"...oy, what a choice of words I used. Cheap date is right!
Well, sully away, have your ways with me.
AS for teaching me blogging, Mr. Elbro....oh, shucks...I can't think of a sarcastic thing to say in response! All I can say is "thanks SO much"
xxx
you could have said
that all you wanted to do was talk
OH yeah well you're so poor that you went to McDonalds and put a milkshake on layaway
that I was so ugly that everytime I look out the window I get arrested for mooning
I'll let FJ continue your lessons now
What kind of response is that to what I wrote!? I'm not getting you!!!! ??
...a sarcastic one?
Oy!
well I had to think of something and those were the quickest insults I could think of
so sue me
those were cheap laughs
(I'm easy too)
but why insult me when I complimented you on your wonderful job of teaching me to blog?
Whassup, boss? (Smile)
nice night..the stepson leaves tomorrow after FOUR WEEKS (applause, friends...I usually get nuts after 3 DAYS of a visitor to Mr and Mrs Z's abode!), the weather's lovely, we had Halibut in leeks and white wine for dinner and Z's a happy girl.
SHe thinks she's going to write a piece by herself tonight. She's tired of quoting others. And she's tired of talking in third person, too, come to think of it!
I will see YOU later!!!
I wasn't insulting you...I was giving you ideas for insulting me...you said you couldn't think of anything...I was trying to help you brainstorm
I get it.
NOW!!
Post a Comment