Transcendentalists Week 2

[David]

David wrote: "So maybe.."

Sometimes I feel like a frustrated math teacher watching Emerson provide solutions to a math problem without showing his work. You see the answers he gives, but you can never be certain of their meaning or truth because you can't be certain of the steps he took to derive them.

The answer to live the universe and everything = 42. OK show me the math; how did you figure that out?

[Nemo]

Everyman wrote: "Is that a rhetorical question?"

Not at all. I don't understand what Emerson means by the most abstract truth being the most practical. Do you? If so, please explain for me! "

Why do I get the feeling that I "asked for it"? :) Anyway, I'll give it a shot.

For starters, when I read "abstract", I think of math formulas, e.g., 1+1=2. They are most abstract, and yet most practical. Wherever we go, and whatever we apply the formula to, it always turns out true. We don't see the abstract formulas, but we see concrete instances of them in everything.

I also think of the "universals" of Aristotle and the "forms" of Plato. The knowledge of the particulars are deduced from that of the universals, the seen from the unseen, the individuals from the species, the species from genus, all the way up to the most abstract. Whatever is true to all mankind (the abstract), is also true to both the white and the black, and true to each one of us; conversely, what is true to you individually, may not be true to me, so the most concrete is also the least practical in scope.

[Nemo]

David wrote: "I found the next sentence helpful. "Whenever a true theory appears, it will be its own evidence. ..."

Picking up on David's clue, but pursuing a different line of reasoning...

The word evidence comes from the Latin root meaning what is clearly seen. When we demand evidence of something, that something is either absent at the time, or cannot be seen, like abstract math formulas, but we want to "see" it nevertheless. This is partly why theories in physics must be corroborated by experiments and observations.

Note that Emerson says "when a true theory appears". A theory is abstract, how can it "appear"?

I think what Emerson has in mind is "incarnation", in the sense that the most abstract Being (Truth, Goodness and Beauty) becomes embodied completely in the concrete. When that happens, it will be its own Evidence, and it would be foolish of anyone to ask for "evidences", because all "evidences" and all "phenomenas" are subsumed under it, and no addition or subtraction is possible.

[Everyman]

Nemo wrote: "For starters, when I read "abstract", I think of math formulas, e.g., 1+1=2."

I would never have thought of 1+1=2 as being abstract; I think if of it as being very concrete. But if that's really an abstract, is it still more practical than saying to my builder "I need 1 brick here and 1 brick there so I need 2 bricks to finish this wall"?

But the dictionary talks about "abstract concepts such as love or beauty." I might agree that such ideas are more valuable, or more important, than more concrete truths. But are they more practical?

[Nemo]

Everyman wrote: "Nemo wrote: "For starters, when I read "abstract", I think of math formulas, e.g., 1+1=2."

I would never have thought of 1+1=2 as being abstract; I think if of it as being very concrete..."

It says abstract, not abstruse! :) The boy in Plato's Meno applied the same formula when he doubled the square. There can be many other practical applications of it.

As for love and beauty, if they are not practical, I don't know what life would be like, do you?

[Lily]

Everyman wrote: " The land is there in nature, but it takes man to see landscape...."

And to put words to seeing it. (Seeing nature is an ability not limited to man; in fact, "seeing" or "eyes" seem to have been a fascinating early part of evolution of life forms, "early" being a very relative term.)

[Lily]

Thomas wrote: "I couldn't figure out the rose, but your comment helped me and sounds right: The rose speaks a universal language that connects all people in "languageless language."..." (@43, @24)

I interpreted that line that a "rose" might be a "tree" or a "deer" or anything in nature that at least the eye could perceive and that would be rendered in language. Now whether one could as meaningfully substitute "table" or "chair" or ..., seems possibly, maybe, maybe not, a whole other discussion. Emerson's and Thoreau's writings seem evocative to me, rather than necessarily logically rigorous. "Rose" here has a beauty implication not carried by a number of other word/image choices.

[Lily]

@50David wrote: "...are the most practical or the most usable guidelines for why and how to live. ..."

Is "love" abstract? Is "justice"? Is ...? Are those among the most practical and usable guidelines for why and how to live?

[Lily]

"And, striving to be man, the worm
Mounts through all the spires of form."

I don't know what to do with this one either, but following for the moment the perception of evocative rather than logical, is Emerson evoking here the worm of the grave, the third law of thermodynamics -- the disintegration of order into disorder?

[Lily]

I always get hung up on "beauty." It is where Diane Arbus and Eco (History of Beauty/On Ugliness) illuminate the challenge to us as humans, as cultures, to assimilate what beauty means, what beauty is, and how to react to it. Emerson, it seems to me, makes it sound so easy -- as if nature makes beauty clear and simple rather than enormously challenging to our very nature as human beings -- to use the word "nature" in two probably very different ways in the same sentence.

[Lily]

As we approach the Thanksgiving holiday instituted by our New England forefathers, I want to say a special thank you to David for his clear notes here. (As well as to all the rest of you who make this board such a jewel.)

[Lily]

David wrote: "EMERSON's GRAVE ENCOUNTER..."

@37 The link didn't work for me. Google gave me this:

http://www.firstparishnorwell.org/ser...

The article speaks to "the development of Emerson's thought in conjunction with ... events in his personal life."

Excerpt: "Let me begin with Emerson's grave encounter. I confess I was astonished to learn that Emerson was so driven by grief over the death of his first wife, Ellen, that he was moved to open the coffin and view her corpse a year and two months after her death. He had been in the habit of walking to her grave every day and carrying on conversations with her spirit in his mind and in his journal writings. Her loss had carved a deep wound in his still young soul and he found it ever so difficult to let her go. She became for him in his later years a kind of Dantean Beatrice of his imagination, an earthly angel who once walked with him for a short time during the days of his youth...."

It also relates to discussions earlier of links of Transcendental thought to Existentialism. ("He was in many respects America's first existentialist.") Also as to how Emerson related to sources of religious authority. I do recommend reading this article.

[Nemo]

Lily wrote: ""And, striving to be man, the worm
Mounts through all the spires of form."

I don't know what to do with this one either, but following for the moment the perception of evocative rather than logica..."

If even the moon does not shine,
And the stars are not pure in His sight,
How much less man, who is a maggot,
And a son of man, who is a worm?
Job 25:5-6

But I am a worm, and no man;
A reproach of men, and despised by the people.
Psalm 22:6
(NKJV)

[David]

Lily wrote: "Is "love" abstract? Is "justice"? Is ...? Are those among the most practical and usable guidelines for why and how to live?"

Emerson seems to think so. He only seems to see "Commodity" as something material, therefore, everything else to him must be abstract. To your second question, I think it is an Aristotelian metaphor that compares a bullseye to an idealized virtue. Targets, like ideals are difficult to hit, they give you something worthwhile to aim for (guideline), and practice, however effective, should bring about improvement. So in that sense they are practical. However, I am sure we can think of many exceptional cases in which they are not.

[David]

Everyman wrote: "I would never have thought of 1+1=2 as being abstract..."

It took Russell and Whitehead some 300 pages to prove that 1+1=2. That sounds pretty abstract to me! Also, I've never physically sensed "one". I have seen one of something, one brick, one dollar, the word "one", and the symbol "1", even an army of one, but "one" and other numbers themselves are abstract.

". . .Thus it is universally acknowledged that numbers and the other objects of pure mathematics are abstract (if they exist), whereas rocks and trees and human beings are concrete."
That rabbit hole can be found here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abs...

[Nemo]

"Every scripture is to be interpreted by the same spirit which gave it forth,"

Emerson put that in quote, who was he quoting? Pevear and Volokhonsky made the same comment about translating Russian authors.

Everyman, does that answer your question earlier about reading the classics and the Bible?

[David]

"Every scripture is to be interpreted by the same spirit which gave it forth,"

Could that be referring to reading the bible as more of an historical document written by men of certain time periods than as the divine word of God?

[Lily]

Nemo wrote: ""Every scripture is to be interpreted by the same spirit which gave it forth,"
Emerson put that in quote, who was he quoting? Pevear and Volokhonsky made the same comment about translating Russian ..."

"The quote comes from the English Quaker founder George Fox."

http://genius.com/2269192

See pages 28-29 here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=QGO...

[David]

"Children and savages use only nouns or names of things, which they convert into verbs, and apply to analogous mental acts."

So whenever we "google" something. . .

What about mothers and fathers who "parent" their children?

You've Been Verbed
http://www.intelligentlifemagazine.co...

[Nemo]

Lily wrote: "Nemo wrote: ""Every scripture is to be interpreted by the same spirit which gave it forth,"
Emerson put that in quote, who was he quoting? Pevear and Volokhonsky made the same comment about translation"

Thanks for the references, Lily. George Fox expressed the idea, as had many others before him. Emerson didn't quote Fox verbatim, as far as I can tell from "On Emerson". Why did he put quotes around it? He paraphrased many others without quoting.

The Translation Wars
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/200...

[Thomas]

"Material objects," said a French philosopher, "are necessarily kinds of scoriae of the substantial thoughts of the Creator, which must always preserve an exact relation to their first origin; in other words, visible nature must have a spiritual and a moral side."

A fascinating quotation, evidently from a fellow named Oegger, who was a follower of Swedenborg. According to Michael T. Gilmore, "scoriae" are the slag thrown off from metals in the smelting process, and the word derives from the Greek for feces. The material world is a mere byproduct of the spirit that underlies and produces it. Perhaps, in light of this, the notion that the abstract truth is most practical is a kind of value judgement: what really matters is not the footprint, but the foot that made it. Or as Emerson said somewhere, "Believe in magnetism, not in needles."

[David]

Thomas wrote: ""Material objects," said a French philosopher, "are necessarily kinds of scoriae of the substantial thoughts of the Creator, which must always preserve an exact relation to their first origin; in o..."

Good find Thomas. That quote appears to sum up a lot of what Emerson seems to be saying. I think Emerson also extends it to both the material (Commodity) and abstract natural provisions, namely Beauty and Language, Intellect, and Reason.

[Nemo]

David wrote: ""Every scripture is to be interpreted by the same spirit which gave it forth,"

Could that be referring to reading the bible as more of an historical document written by men of certain time periods than as the divine word of God?"

Possibly. If he was quoting George Fox, the answer would be no. But it depends on what Emerson meant by "the same spirit" and how men of different time periods could have it.

[Nemo]

Thomas wrote: "The material world is a mere byproduct of the spirit that underlies and produces it. Perhaps, in light of this, the notion that the abstract truth is most practical is a kind of value judgement: what really matters is not the footprint, but the foot that made it. "

I'm reminded of the Cinderella story again. One would hope that there is more to Cinderella than just her "foot". :)

[David]

Nemo wrote: "I'm reminded of the Cinderella story again. One would hope that there is more to Cinderella than just her "foot". :)"

Now I am thinking of the giant foot in the openings of the Monty Python shows.

[Ashley]

For David, who brought my attention to this whole capitalization thing:

"The first book he published was called Nature; in it he refers, with equal serenity, to 'Nature' and to 'nature.' We understand clearly that by the first he means 'this web of God'- everything that is not the mind uttering such words- yet he sets our lives down among the small-lettered noun as well, as though to burden us equally with the sublime and the common. It is as if the combination, and the understanding of the combination- the necessary honoring of both- were the issue of utmost importance."
-Mary Oliver, from the introduction to The Essential Writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Lily]

Ashley wrote: "For David, who brought my attention to this whole capitalization thing:

"The first book he published was called Nature; in it he refers, with equal serenity, to 'Nature' and to 'nature.' We unders..."

Oliver is being kind, and sensitive (possibly even "right" or "correct"). Not all days am I willing to be so much so, but rather only feeling attempts at distinctions on Emerson's part that may or may not exist!? Even if today is Thanksgiving Day. (Having the same trouble with the writings of Richard Rohr.)

[David]

Ashley wrote: "For David, who brought my attention to this whole capitalization thing:"

Does Mary say anything about: Justice, Truth, Love, Freedom, Reason (universal soul)and Spirit? All of these seem to be purposefully capitalized at times as well.

[David]

Is this how we can interpret Emerson on Luangage?

"If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language [mathematics] that she speaks in."

The Character of Physical Laws by Richard P. Feynman, MIT Press, 1967
http://inside.mines.edu/~dwu/classes/...

[Ashley]

David wrote: "Is this how we can interpret Emerson on Language? "If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language [mathematics] that she speaks in."The Character..."

I love this! Feynman has been recommended a few times (thanks, Goodreads community), 'tis time I looked into the man.

[Chris]

Clari wrote: "I know we tending to be naturally commenting on the philosophy, but I hope it's okay to say how beautiful I am finding the language. It seems every paragraph as at least on sentence you could chop ..."

I agree. A lot of it spoke to my soul. I was completely entranced with the imagery, especially through the opening chapter and half of Beauty. Since I'm so far behind, I read through this assigned section through in one sitting to get a feel for it and enjoyment. Haven't plumbed for the philosophy, although some it is pretty straight forward. More to come.

[Chris]

Genni wrote: I don't know about you guys, but I feel like camping this weekend.

So did you? I had to get out myself after reading "to the body and mind which have been cramped by noxious work or company, nature is medicinal and restores their tone" Amen to that, along with wanting to experience "the western clouds divided and subdivided themselves into pink flakes modulated with unspeakable softness, and the air had so much life and sweetness that it was a pain to come within doors." Makes one want to play hooky from work on a glorious day, doesn't it?

[Genni]

Chris wrote: "Genni wrote: I don't know about you guys, but I feel like camping this weekend.

So did you? I had to get out myself after reading "to the body and mind which have been cramped by noxious work or ..."

Lol. No, I did not get to. :-( My little ones came down with the flu, one after another. But the past couple of days we have been outside a LOT. I don't know if I am closer to being transcendental because of it though...

[David]

I am afraid to go outside now for fear of turning into a transparent eyeball. It is even more creepy knowing that I would not be able to see all of the other transparent eyeballs that are outside too.

[Genni]

David wrote: "I am afraid to go outside now for fear of turning into a transparent eyeball. It is even more creepy knowing that I would not be able to see all of the other transparent eyeballs that are outside too."

Something to truly be afraid of....

[Nemo]

[Genni]

Nemo wrote: ""

Perfect. :D