I must object to the inclusion of Jesus in this chapter. As far as I can tell, Jesus doesn't tell you to see the world for yourself - he tells you to see the world as he sees it and teaches it. Listening to him takes priority over seeing for yourself.
Thanks for this comment, Jozef. I am happy to be pressed on this point. I often find it necessary to distinguish the Christian Jesus from the historical Jesus, and while that is relevant generally here I find it more relevant to distinguish between the Christian Jesus and an Emersonian Jesus. Of the Jesus as the Christian tradition has made him up you are surely more right than wrong, but I think the Emersonian Jesus is different.
I'm thinking in particular of Cavell's essay "An Emerson Mood," where he discusses the "Whim" passage from Self-Reliance. Emerson writes, "I shun father and mother and wife and brother, when my genius calls me. I would write on the lintels of my door-post, Whim," in reference to Luke 14:26. In discussing it Cavell says "The general background of substitution could hardly be clearer. What Jesus required of one who would follow him Emerson requires of himself in following his genius." At the end of the chapter, Cavell writes, "To say, "Follow me and you will be saved," you must be sure you are of God. But to say "Follow in yourself what I follow in mine and you will be saved," you merely have to be sure you are following yourself."
I take it that for Emerson and Cavell "following Jesus" is not doing what the Christian tradition says, whatever that is, but following in yourself what Jesus followed in himself. Rather than following what (the Christian tradition says) Jesus said, it is following what he did, i.e. taking Jesus' model as an example to emulate. Though not the most prominent historically, this seems to me a valid interpretation of what it means to "follow Jesus," in Christian terms, and aside from Christianity a better, saner, healthier one.
Oh, I see what you're going for. Personally I have no great desire to reclaim Jesus for whatever purpose, but I can understand why Emerson or you would differ on this point. And all questions of historical veracity aside, I do agree that your reading of Jesus is better, saner, and healthier.
The idea of the divide interests me. The divide may be kept between our truth and everything else, but what happens as we grow? Someone who ventures out amongst the heresy will gain new perspectives, which will likely change their truth or at least how they perceive it. The idea of keeping the divide may not be synonymous with keeping an unchanged divide. To keep the divide we must evolve it separate new heresy and our growing selves.
"The idea of keeping the divide may not be synonymous with keeping an unchanged divide": I think this is the truth and I like the way you put it. The idea of growth has to be brought in, the evolution that happens when we engage new perspectives or hearsay without losing ourselves in the process. There is a rhythm to it, venturing out and returning home. That is the truly healthy state.
I also appreciate that you mention heresy. My assumption is that on a grand scale it is usually the firsthand experiences that produce what is labeled as heresy by the institutions and powers that be, but the way you used the word made me see that, from the point of view of the individual, all those other rumors, ideas and perspectives are like heresy - and we need the ability to entertain those heresies if we are to grow. Thank you, Steve!
Yes. That is what I intended! My experience of truth is heavily influenced by religious institutions. Separating my true self, my home, from these influences is, if possible, extremely complex. With that said, I’ve become aware of personal growth after returning home after periods of wandering beyond the divide.
Seems a little egocentric. One could argue that drifting among the infinitude of possible experiences enriches us. We need not depend solely on our own vision, nor even in our own narrow milieu. By depending so intently on our own vision, we narrow the possibilities for change, even major change.
Thanks for the comment, Ted! The view here is individualistic, definitely, but if you mean "egocentric" in a pejorative sense, then I disagree. I am with you that drifting or exploring the infinitude of possible experiences enriches us, but I think for it to truly be good it needs to be balanced by consideration of your own experience. It must be integrated with your firsthand knowledge. So my conclusion is: "Go as far abroad as you like and bring back what you find to the nearest."
But what can "your own experience" be but an amalgam of what is beyond oneself? One's "firsthand knowledge" derives from one's "firsthand" experience, outside of oneself. Just as biologically one is an amalgam of the genes of one's progenitors. I don't see that there can be an "experience" that is one's own as distinct from the experiential life. That's what I meant by "egocentric," as if all depends only on what is in us intrinsically, deus ex machina. One must start from somewhere, and it behooves us to keep on keeping on, rather than to simply select what seems right at the moment and lean on it. We must change.
Right! I didn't mean to suggest there's some knowledge that is yours that is "pure" and separate from other people, still less from experience in general. As you say, experience connects you with the world, with what is outside yourself. It does so directly, which is one reason I am promoting firsthand experience.
I was thinking rather of the difference between accepting something on testimony or authority or tradition and accepting it because you understand it and have witnessed it in your experience. While both are important, it is easy to neglect the latter, I think, because our highly mediated culture encourages it, so I wanted to give it special emphasis.
I must object to the inclusion of Jesus in this chapter. As far as I can tell, Jesus doesn't tell you to see the world for yourself - he tells you to see the world as he sees it and teaches it. Listening to him takes priority over seeing for yourself.
Thanks for this comment, Jozef. I am happy to be pressed on this point. I often find it necessary to distinguish the Christian Jesus from the historical Jesus, and while that is relevant generally here I find it more relevant to distinguish between the Christian Jesus and an Emersonian Jesus. Of the Jesus as the Christian tradition has made him up you are surely more right than wrong, but I think the Emersonian Jesus is different.
I'm thinking in particular of Cavell's essay "An Emerson Mood," where he discusses the "Whim" passage from Self-Reliance. Emerson writes, "I shun father and mother and wife and brother, when my genius calls me. I would write on the lintels of my door-post, Whim," in reference to Luke 14:26. In discussing it Cavell says "The general background of substitution could hardly be clearer. What Jesus required of one who would follow him Emerson requires of himself in following his genius." At the end of the chapter, Cavell writes, "To say, "Follow me and you will be saved," you must be sure you are of God. But to say "Follow in yourself what I follow in mine and you will be saved," you merely have to be sure you are following yourself."
I take it that for Emerson and Cavell "following Jesus" is not doing what the Christian tradition says, whatever that is, but following in yourself what Jesus followed in himself. Rather than following what (the Christian tradition says) Jesus said, it is following what he did, i.e. taking Jesus' model as an example to emulate. Though not the most prominent historically, this seems to me a valid interpretation of what it means to "follow Jesus," in Christian terms, and aside from Christianity a better, saner, healthier one.
Oh, I see what you're going for. Personally I have no great desire to reclaim Jesus for whatever purpose, but I can understand why Emerson or you would differ on this point. And all questions of historical veracity aside, I do agree that your reading of Jesus is better, saner, and healthier.
The idea of the divide interests me. The divide may be kept between our truth and everything else, but what happens as we grow? Someone who ventures out amongst the heresy will gain new perspectives, which will likely change their truth or at least how they perceive it. The idea of keeping the divide may not be synonymous with keeping an unchanged divide. To keep the divide we must evolve it separate new heresy and our growing selves.
"The idea of keeping the divide may not be synonymous with keeping an unchanged divide": I think this is the truth and I like the way you put it. The idea of growth has to be brought in, the evolution that happens when we engage new perspectives or hearsay without losing ourselves in the process. There is a rhythm to it, venturing out and returning home. That is the truly healthy state.
I also appreciate that you mention heresy. My assumption is that on a grand scale it is usually the firsthand experiences that produce what is labeled as heresy by the institutions and powers that be, but the way you used the word made me see that, from the point of view of the individual, all those other rumors, ideas and perspectives are like heresy - and we need the ability to entertain those heresies if we are to grow. Thank you, Steve!
Yes. That is what I intended! My experience of truth is heavily influenced by religious institutions. Separating my true self, my home, from these influences is, if possible, extremely complex. With that said, I’ve become aware of personal growth after returning home after periods of wandering beyond the divide.
Seems a little egocentric. One could argue that drifting among the infinitude of possible experiences enriches us. We need not depend solely on our own vision, nor even in our own narrow milieu. By depending so intently on our own vision, we narrow the possibilities for change, even major change.
Thanks for the comment, Ted! The view here is individualistic, definitely, but if you mean "egocentric" in a pejorative sense, then I disagree. I am with you that drifting or exploring the infinitude of possible experiences enriches us, but I think for it to truly be good it needs to be balanced by consideration of your own experience. It must be integrated with your firsthand knowledge. So my conclusion is: "Go as far abroad as you like and bring back what you find to the nearest."
But what can "your own experience" be but an amalgam of what is beyond oneself? One's "firsthand knowledge" derives from one's "firsthand" experience, outside of oneself. Just as biologically one is an amalgam of the genes of one's progenitors. I don't see that there can be an "experience" that is one's own as distinct from the experiential life. That's what I meant by "egocentric," as if all depends only on what is in us intrinsically, deus ex machina. One must start from somewhere, and it behooves us to keep on keeping on, rather than to simply select what seems right at the moment and lean on it. We must change.
Right! I didn't mean to suggest there's some knowledge that is yours that is "pure" and separate from other people, still less from experience in general. As you say, experience connects you with the world, with what is outside yourself. It does so directly, which is one reason I am promoting firsthand experience.
I was thinking rather of the difference between accepting something on testimony or authority or tradition and accepting it because you understand it and have witnessed it in your experience. While both are important, it is easy to neglect the latter, I think, because our highly mediated culture encourages it, so I wanted to give it special emphasis.