Reflections – Week 6
Descartes 1596 – 1650 – A Discourse on the Method
Rumi 1207 - 1273 – Love is a Stranger
Christine de Pizan 1365 - 1434 – The Book of the Duke of True Lovers
I’m happy to report that my academic future has never been brighter: In seminar this week, our guest lecturer on Descartes stated that confusion is the beginning of knowledge. The session itself was fantastic and provided much insight into Discourse and the times in which it was written.
Since the lecture, I’ve had to revisit a lot of what I had already written for this blog prior to class. Much of what I'd written was based on shaky foundations. However, after much contemplation alone in my room, I decided not to make like Descartes and start afresh. Rather, I will split the first part of this blog (regarding Descartes) into two parts: The first with my pre-lecture comments and the second with some more "accurate" information, garnered from the lecture.
In starting my reading of A Discourse on the Method I could not help but admire Descartes’ courage on several levels. On theology, for instance, he supports as fact that “the revealed truths that lead to [heaven] are beyond our understanding” and that he “would not dare to submit them to [his] own puny reasoning powers”. (How humble). On the topic of philosophy, he modestly states that he’s not so presumptuous as to hope to succeed better than others. But what is most impressive is how he concludes that much of what he believed in is actually based on shaky foundations. (His reasoning here is that over the years, centuries, millennia, regarding any number of given topics, scholars and experts have come to adopt “facts” that are not entirely true, and therefore have given a false picture of what may be generally regarded as true. These falsities, one on top of the next, are like rotten wood supporting a home that can cause the crumbling and eventual downfall of that home (a metaphor)). Not only does he conclude this, but he acts on it. He resolves to start anew, to study and look at the world in a new way, and to instigate the precepts he has formulated so as to come to something sure, something concrete - concrete to build his own foundations.
What distress and sense of feeling lost this must have caused someone as educated as Descartes! He must have felt the same way as though he had totally discarded his faith in God. Not that he should have, but it seems to me to be of importance that he did not. Near the end of Part 1, 8-9, Descartes asserts his belief that philosophy and “other disciplines” (theology not included, apparently) are on unstable ground. Curiously, his religion doesn’t seem to warrant such inspection or censure.
Whatever humility I saw in him was somewhat diminished when I read that he had found proof of the existence of God and of the immortal soul. These are quite lofty claims and I am skeptical and doubtful, just as Descartes method suggests I should be. Descartes sheds quite a lot of his educational past before philosophically starting fresh but seems to keep very close to his vest the belief that god exists. (Although he would not have claimed to have proof for the existence of God, he has a strong belief in him… could his formulation that God exists be a form of “wishful thinking” as it is proposed to have been for many other religions?). I dunno, but at first glance, if Descartes can use Reason to assert that the thought “I exist” is impossible to doubt, and to conclude from there that God exists, then this has to be a good example of the perversion of Reason.
Wait. Maybe if I type out his reasoning, (no doubt without doing Descartes justice - I’ve not read his other works and have only just read his Discourse), this will allow me to somewhat understand his thinking so I can concede that perhaps there is something to it. Just like Plato, Descartes is dubious of the senses and declares that he will not believe in anything they tell him (Part Four, 32). He goes a step further and “rejects as false all the reasoning that [he] hitherto accepted as valid proof”. On the words “I am thinking therefore I exist”, Descartes “thereby concludes that he is a substance whose whole essence that resides only in thinking and which in order to exist has no need of place and is not dependent on any material thing”. From this he concludes that this “I” is the Soul and that it is separate from the body.
Descartes appreciates that there is greater perfection in knowing than doubting. By the fact that he doubts, he recognizes his imperfection and can visualize perfection. From there, how does he conclude that there must be a perfect being (God) allowing him to recognize his own imperfection? I don’t know his philosophy well, but it seems to me that he did not properly apply his precepts on this one; (Precept #1 - “…carefully avoid both prejudice and premature conclusions”).
In starting my reading of A Discourse on the Method I could not help but admire Descartes’ courage on several levels. On theology, for instance, he supports as fact that “the revealed truths that lead to [heaven] are beyond our understanding” and that he “would not dare to submit them to [his] own puny reasoning powers”. (How humble). On the topic of philosophy, he modestly states that he’s not so presumptuous as to hope to succeed better than others. But what is most impressive is how he concludes that much of what he believed in is actually based on shaky foundations. (His reasoning here is that over the years, centuries, millennia, regarding any number of given topics, scholars and experts have come to adopt “facts” that are not entirely true, and therefore have given a false picture of what may be generally regarded as true. These falsities, one on top of the next, are like rotten wood supporting a home that can cause the crumbling and eventual downfall of that home (a metaphor)). Not only does he conclude this, but he acts on it. He resolves to start anew, to study and look at the world in a new way, and to instigate the precepts he has formulated so as to come to something sure, something concrete - concrete to build his own foundations.
What distress and sense of feeling lost this must have caused someone as educated as Descartes! He must have felt the same way as though he had totally discarded his faith in God. Not that he should have, but it seems to me to be of importance that he did not. Near the end of Part 1, 8-9, Descartes asserts his belief that philosophy and “other disciplines” (theology not included, apparently) are on unstable ground. Curiously, his religion doesn’t seem to warrant such inspection or censure.
Whatever humility I saw in him was somewhat diminished when I read that he had found proof of the existence of God and of the immortal soul. These are quite lofty claims and I am skeptical and doubtful, just as Descartes method suggests I should be. Descartes sheds quite a lot of his educational past before philosophically starting fresh but seems to keep very close to his vest the belief that god exists. (Although he would not have claimed to have proof for the existence of God, he has a strong belief in him… could his formulation that God exists be a form of “wishful thinking” as it is proposed to have been for many other religions?). I dunno, but at first glance, if Descartes can use Reason to assert that the thought “I exist” is impossible to doubt, and to conclude from there that God exists, then this has to be a good example of the perversion of Reason.
Wait. Maybe if I type out his reasoning, (no doubt without doing Descartes justice - I’ve not read his other works and have only just read his Discourse), this will allow me to somewhat understand his thinking so I can concede that perhaps there is something to it. Just like Plato, Descartes is dubious of the senses and declares that he will not believe in anything they tell him (Part Four, 32). He goes a step further and “rejects as false all the reasoning that [he] hitherto accepted as valid proof”. On the words “I am thinking therefore I exist”, Descartes “thereby concludes that he is a substance whose whole essence that resides only in thinking and which in order to exist has no need of place and is not dependent on any material thing”. From this he concludes that this “I” is the Soul and that it is separate from the body.
Descartes appreciates that there is greater perfection in knowing than doubting. By the fact that he doubts, he recognizes his imperfection and can visualize perfection. From there, how does he conclude that there must be a perfect being (God) allowing him to recognize his own imperfection? I don’t know his philosophy well, but it seems to me that he did not properly apply his precepts on this one; (Precept #1 - “…carefully avoid both prejudice and premature conclusions”).
“I was certain that none of those things which manifested any imperfection was in Him, but that all the others were. In this way I could see that doubt, inconstancy, sadness, and such things could not be in Him, given that I would have been myself very glad to be free of them… because I had already recognized in my own case that the nature of the intellect is distinct from the nature of the body and considering that all composition is evidence of dependence, and that dependence is manifestly a defect, I concluded that it could not be one of God’s perfections to be composed of these two natures, and that, as a consequence, He was not so composed; but that, if there were in the world any bodies or other intelligences or other natures which were not wholly perfect, their being must depend on His power, in such a way that they could not continue to subsist for a single moment without Him.”
The above quote, on second reading, is very reminiscent of Augustine’s “house divided”. Here Descartes describes the duality of man; one part being superior to the other. The other thing I wonder about is the “perfection of God”. Wouldn’t a perfect, omnipotent being, who encompasses All, be able to experience sadness (if He fancied it), for example? The God in Genesis and throughout the Old Testament is full of human emotions, and not always the most praiseworthy emotions. If anything, to be able to experience all possible sensations (to be capable of something, regardless of what it is) is closer to Perfection than to be somehow excluded from (not being capable of) feeling certain sentiments. Is Descartes’ belief more inline with a Platonic God or a Catholic God? My reaction is that it is Platonic since the God he talks about doesn’t really seem anthropomorphic. Moreover, in Part 4, he stresses his belief that there is a realm independent from the real world that informs us.
In terms of Descartes and the heart, I don’t think he had it quite right as far as the blood’s consistency changing from the heart to the extremities. Again, he implies that because the workings of the heart are independent of what we think, the body and soul are separate. The body is a mechanism, a machine. At this point in my reading, I wondered what Descartes’ reaction would have been had he been presented with Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection; might he have accepted religion as a human adaptation? It’s probably not the most relevant thought, but it did pop into my mind as ideas tend to do. Descartes analyzes his thoughts in a way that I don’t wholly understand and would like to know more of. The heart functions as it does due to adaptations along the way, adaptations that the human mind was never conscious of. The theory of the functioning of the heart from his day has been revised; perhaps his own theories too. But what is Descartes legacy? How seriously is his philosophy taken today and what ramifications did it have at publication?
Now, having said all that, these are just my gut reactions to my first reading of Descartes’ Discourse and I understand that it was meant for a more general audience compared to his Meditations which give a more detailed and systematic account of his thinking. I am not so arrogant to presume that I can topple Descartes’ reasoning; (that kind of arrogance is akin to stating that I’ve found proof of God’s existence (a joke)).
Near the middle of Part 4 (36), Descartes’ faith in mathematics shines through. As many learn in elementary school, the Cartesian grid is a flat plane where geometry can be applied. Of course this is a total abstraction in a 3-dimensional world and triangle angles adding to 180 degrees only applies on a flat Cartesian grid as discussed in Discourse:
Ok, that aside, Descartes systematically spells out how desires reduces one’s ability to achieve happiness and explains a way to shed desires, much like a Stoic would: “…to change my desires rather than to change the order of the world, and in general to settle for the belief that there is nothing entirely in our power except our thoughts”. He then goes on about how difficult it is to change one’s thinking in this way (as the B. Gita and Aurelius’ Meditations also suggest).
In Part 5, Descartes mentions everything he has been able to show based on his reasoning. The long list includes “the laws of nature”, showing that even if god created many worlds, “there could not be any in which the [laws of nature] could fail to be observed”. I must be missing something vital here, because I don’t understand how he can make such a claim even by following his own precepts.
Descartes regarding animals, their inability to speak and their total lack of reason made me wonder why he thinks that speech is dependent on reason. To me, that would suggest that communication is dependent on reason too. Animals of all sorts communicate (bees, for instance, by the way they fly and birds through song).
What became clear after the seminar was that many parts of the discourse are cryptic because he wanted to save himself from the Catholic church. Why did he not think that the church would not catch on, though? I suppose they did, and his book was banned, but at least he was not put on trial.
So, other "class notes" and reflections [not the most interesting reading; I apologize]: Descartes rejects philosophy and his culture realizing that people cannot agree anything that is important. The book of the world offers no certainty except “2+3=5” (mathematics - people don't generally go to war for this but they might for the sake of upholding the belief transubstantiation).
Let’s symbolize a problem as “10”. 10= 5+5; but what is 5? 5=2+3;… 2=1+1; 1=1/2+1/2 (the smaller you get, the more complex the system becomes, since at "half plus half", you must not only know addition, but must now explain division etc…). This is a regression that gets more and more complicated.
Descartes believes that by reasoning through a problem, by dividing it up into smaller pieces, you will eventually reach something self-evident, like "1+1". He is striving towards a body of knowledge that is similarly self-evident; He wants to apply the reasoning of 1+1 (unity) to the other disciplines. Paragraphs 19-20 - Math the only certainty; Trust in the method - trust reasoning. This is the heart of the method. Similarly, Locke, in a non-mathematical way, divides country into province, cities, neighbourhoods, home... all the way down to the individual. To the "I". Descartes always focuses on “I”… I, I, I in both Discourse and Meditations. His first precept, expressed differently: You all have to become “epistemically autonomous” as an individual. Basically saying Descartes cannot teach you the method, you have to discover it on your own.
Descartes demonstrates that even if God exists, He cannot tinker with his reasoning. He foresaw the future in his method: Medicine - no pain; Politics - no conflict; Machanics - no sweat = PARADISE. Milton wrote that humans can regain paradise only through Christ; Descartes - Paradise on earth, through human Reason.
From Transcendence - Plato (Augustinians) or God, to Immanence - Centre of Truth: I, Self, Ego. (Taking place within the mind; remaining within).
The third precept: “positing an order” - Hypothesizing- a conjecture! How can Reason say that which we do not yet understand? This is where imagination comes in! I doubt for the sake of certainty - to see if there might be truth or not. Hypotheses/conjecture-making requires imagination, freedom AND to have freedom, you need a mind separate from the mechanical body.
...And so my notes end. I admit I am confused but feel sure that Descartes will be revisited sometime in the future. Until then I don't feel confident developing the above ideas. I know they seem scattered and are certainly not 100% accurate. For me to develop them into an essay from my limited understanding would be to pave a road over marshlands: cracks will appear before long.
My notes and thoughts on Rumi and Christine de Pisan follow, but they are more or less in "note form". Generally, having the books in front of you will be useful as I reference specific pages in the books.
On to Rumi.
There does seem to be a paradox here: Rumi’s poetry is so passionate, but not in a sensual sense the way that Sappho’s poetry is. Rumi’s passion comes from his profound love for God, a spiritual entity; his passion is not one of the senses, but one of the heart. This does not mean that this passionate love is always to God - he recognizes that it can be destructive to reason - p.31: “Though reason is learned and has its honours, it pawned its cap and robes for a cup of love.” p. 53 “Love is reckless; not reason. Reason seeks a profit. Love comes on strong, consuming herself, unabashed.” “Religion seeks grace and favour… but those who gamble these away are God’s favorites.” - His advice: Love recklessly, passionately!
The reverence with which Rumi spoke of God was not the only thing that reminded me of Augustine. In Be Lost in the Call, God replies to David, “O, prisoner of time…”
I wonder if Augustine regarded his dead friend (the one who I suspected to be his lover) the same as Rumi did Shamsi. Rumi speaks of Shams of Tabriz very affectionately but this is not uncommon for Sufis. In a sense they were both seekers and lovers of higher spirituality, so they may be considered “spiritual lovers”. Apparently there is no real evidence that they had anything but a purely intellectual love affair. Not that there would have been anything wrong with an affair of a different type.
I wonder if Augustine regarded his dead friend (the one who I suspected to be his lover) the same as Rumi did Shamsi. Rumi speaks of Shams of Tabriz very affectionately but this is not uncommon for Sufis. In a sense they were both seekers and lovers of higher spirituality, so they may be considered “spiritual lovers”. Apparently there is no real evidence that they had anything but a purely intellectual love affair. Not that there would have been anything wrong with an affair of a different type.
It is taught that one should love one’s master but if this love is too strong it might impeded the student’s “annihilation in God”. After Shamsi vanishes - was he murdered? Did he leave for Rumi’s own spiritual development? - Rumi came to write thousands of couplets describing unitive experiences where he gets back in unity with Shamsi. Annihilation in God following annihilation in the master.
The Ruby p. 14-15. First 2 stanzas could describe passionate love, but I think this is the love of divinity, not of love for a (sexual) partner. “Before the stone becomes a ruby, it is its own enemy. Not one but two exist” DUALITY ends at unity (the one and the many?)
The stone shines only inward, its shining is hidden although the “pit” of the stone is a ruby. “If it says ‘I’, it is all darkness” - Ego; (not divine Ego). “Always see infinite life in letting the self die” - Renewal.
The Root of the Root of Yourself p. 16-17. Seeking union with the Beloved (one’s primal root) - this is “Love”. “Once you get hold of selflessness, you’ll be dragged from your ego.”
“You were born from a ray of god’s majesty and have the blessings of a good star. Why suffer at the hands of things that don’t exist?” Comparing the simplicity, mystery and distance of god’s grace while pointing out what is corrupting is very near at hand, earthly.
From the last stanza, this poem praises Shams or Tabriz. Shams “worked” on Rumi’s soul with him; as the student needs someone to work with him to break down barriers in his spiritual path, Shams was critical in Rumi’s development as a spiritual seeker (and poet).
Love is a Stranger p.18-19. Bottom of p. 18, shows the naturalness and effortlessness of returning to the depths of yourself to make your “prison a palace”.
On the Deathbed p. 23. At the beginning - a conversation between body and soul? “While the tyrant… blood money.” Is this a comment on denying death when all is well?
The War Inside p.26. A “house divided”? Here, is he begging to be fixed? Begging to be shown the way by someone - by Shams?
Clothes Abandoned on the Shore p. 30. Is this poem a reminder of our true essence?
The Pull of Love p. 31. Hallaj’s words, his unity with the divine: A piece of this cloth, a sip of this wine, can turn one’s reason inside out. It moves one’s world. This exemplifies the power and the mystery of god. “It’s right that this separation he helped me feel lurks like a monster within my heart. Yet heaven’s wild and unbroken colt was trained by the hand of his love. Though reason is learned and has its honours, it pawned its cap and robes for a cup of love…” Poem ends with the idea, again, that once you grab hold of selflessness, your ego will be dragged away. Once in tune with this love, you will not want to leave but will surrender yourself to it. Another interpretation is that the "coat" that is being grabbed hold of is a symbol of wealth and once one fastens himself to it, it will not let go of him.
The Ruby p. 14-15. First 2 stanzas could describe passionate love, but I think this is the love of divinity, not of love for a (sexual) partner. “Before the stone becomes a ruby, it is its own enemy. Not one but two exist” DUALITY ends at unity (the one and the many?)
The stone shines only inward, its shining is hidden although the “pit” of the stone is a ruby. “If it says ‘I’, it is all darkness” - Ego; (not divine Ego). “Always see infinite life in letting the self die” - Renewal.
The Root of the Root of Yourself p. 16-17. Seeking union with the Beloved (one’s primal root) - this is “Love”. “Once you get hold of selflessness, you’ll be dragged from your ego.”
“You were born from a ray of god’s majesty and have the blessings of a good star. Why suffer at the hands of things that don’t exist?” Comparing the simplicity, mystery and distance of god’s grace while pointing out what is corrupting is very near at hand, earthly.
From the last stanza, this poem praises Shams or Tabriz. Shams “worked” on Rumi’s soul with him; as the student needs someone to work with him to break down barriers in his spiritual path, Shams was critical in Rumi’s development as a spiritual seeker (and poet).
Love is a Stranger p.18-19. Bottom of p. 18, shows the naturalness and effortlessness of returning to the depths of yourself to make your “prison a palace”.
On the Deathbed p. 23. At the beginning - a conversation between body and soul? “While the tyrant… blood money.” Is this a comment on denying death when all is well?
The War Inside p.26. A “house divided”? Here, is he begging to be fixed? Begging to be shown the way by someone - by Shams?
Clothes Abandoned on the Shore p. 30. Is this poem a reminder of our true essence?
The Pull of Love p. 31. Hallaj’s words, his unity with the divine: A piece of this cloth, a sip of this wine, can turn one’s reason inside out. It moves one’s world. This exemplifies the power and the mystery of god. “It’s right that this separation he helped me feel lurks like a monster within my heart. Yet heaven’s wild and unbroken colt was trained by the hand of his love. Though reason is learned and has its honours, it pawned its cap and robes for a cup of love…” Poem ends with the idea, again, that once you grab hold of selflessness, your ego will be dragged away. Once in tune with this love, you will not want to leave but will surrender yourself to it. Another interpretation is that the "coat" that is being grabbed hold of is a symbol of wealth and once one fastens himself to it, it will not let go of him.
What I really liked about this poem is the end. In the last stanza there is an abrupt change from action to and narration and the poem ends as if no more can be said using words. On that note, a few of the poems end with the mention and praise of Shams, quite out of the blue, as to press the point that continuing would be futile because the idea is beyond words.
p. 37, 38. The idea of one being scattered. Is this not a reminder of the multiplicity of duality? Of the distance from unity?
Song of the Reed p. 50-52. First 10 lines - an expression of love as his foundation and the desire to return to unity, oneness, the divine.
p.51 - comments on attachment and greed; the never-ending nature of human desire.
Love is Reckless p. 53. “Love is reckless. Not reason. Reason seeks a profit. Love comes on strong, consuming herself, unabashed.” Comparing “reason” and the passion of love. Love is unstoppable and although it has the power to “take over” and probably to blind, it does not seek a profit. True love is to give it, to return it, to live for it. Put in this light, regardless of what negatives might come out of the passion of love, it is better than reason. Reason, if seeking profit, takes one to meaningless, empty ends. The last stanza is indeed a suggestion to love recklessly and passionately.
When a Man and a Woman Become One p. 54-55. Timelessness of unity with the Beloved.
I Am Not.. p. 56-57. “I have put duality away and seen the two worlds as one. One I seek, one I know. One I see, one I call. He is the first. He is the last. He is the Outward. He is the Inward.”
When Names Did Not Exist p. 58. A description before “the Fall”. It is this state - the divine Ego - that we want to reunite with…
A World With No Boundaries p. 61-63. On p. 62, he talks of our mission in this life: “This is the time of union, the time of eternal beauty. It is the time of luck and kindness; it is the ocean of purity... The morning of happiness has dawned. No, it is the light of God.”
p. 63 - describes the nature of the True Self.
The Inner Garment of Love p. 69-71. “Where is intimacy found if not the give and take of Love?” Rumi is commenting on the fact that seekers, those who KNOW the power of the divine and who strive towards unity with the Beloved, are able to transmit love to one another at a deeper level. Love begins when you give up your will. Sacrifice this will.
“Give your heart to this, the rest is second-hand” The artificiality of mundane earthly things, disconnected from the divine.
“Embrace that entity to which nothing can cling”- Almost a contradiction!
“Both the rose and the thorn appear together in spring, and the wine of the grape is not without its headaches.”
LAST THREE STANZAS ON PAGE 70 - Don’t wait to Love; be fearless!
“Don’t be impatient bystanders on this path. By god there is no death worse than expectation”
“Set your heart on hard cash … listen … if you are not a slave:
STRIVE: “Don’t falter on the horse of the body; go lightly on foot… The Body is a Rose p. 72-73. This poem really outlines the growth of the human soul and the transience of its forms - plant à animal à human à angel… “while the body may age, the soul becomes young.”
Empty the Glass of Your Desire p. 74-75. Illusions of the material world: “And three pitiful meals a day is all that weapons and violence can earn. At night when the Beloved comes will you be nodding on opium?”
“When the earth is this wide why are you asleep in a prison? Think of nothing but the source of thought. Feed the soul, let the body fast.”
“Abandon life and the world, and find the life of the world” - Know that the world, what there is to discover, is SO much greater than you are. So much bigger than you are.
The Grave is a Veil p. 84. “The veil is a grave before the gathering of paradise. When you see that lowering down, think of rising. What harm is in the setting moon or sun? What seems a setting to you is a dawning.”
“Though it may seem a prison, this vault releases the soul. Unless a seed enters the earth, it doesn’t grow. Why are you doubting this human seed? Unless the bucket goes down, it won’t come up full.”
Rumi often mentions that once you have experienced this unity with the Beloved you will want to remain there and will perhaps strive to remain there for the rest of your days. “Look into your heart and see the splitting moon within each breath. Having seen that vision how can you still dream? When the wave of “Am I Not?” struck, it wrecked the body’s ship”. (from A World With No Boundaries).
p. 37, 38. The idea of one being scattered. Is this not a reminder of the multiplicity of duality? Of the distance from unity?
Song of the Reed p. 50-52. First 10 lines - an expression of love as his foundation and the desire to return to unity, oneness, the divine.
p.51 - comments on attachment and greed; the never-ending nature of human desire.
Love is Reckless p. 53. “Love is reckless. Not reason. Reason seeks a profit. Love comes on strong, consuming herself, unabashed.” Comparing “reason” and the passion of love. Love is unstoppable and although it has the power to “take over” and probably to blind, it does not seek a profit. True love is to give it, to return it, to live for it. Put in this light, regardless of what negatives might come out of the passion of love, it is better than reason. Reason, if seeking profit, takes one to meaningless, empty ends. The last stanza is indeed a suggestion to love recklessly and passionately.
When a Man and a Woman Become One p. 54-55. Timelessness of unity with the Beloved.
I Am Not.. p. 56-57. “I have put duality away and seen the two worlds as one. One I seek, one I know. One I see, one I call. He is the first. He is the last. He is the Outward. He is the Inward.”
When Names Did Not Exist p. 58. A description before “the Fall”. It is this state - the divine Ego - that we want to reunite with…
A World With No Boundaries p. 61-63. On p. 62, he talks of our mission in this life: “This is the time of union, the time of eternal beauty. It is the time of luck and kindness; it is the ocean of purity... The morning of happiness has dawned. No, it is the light of God.”
p. 63 - describes the nature of the True Self.
The Inner Garment of Love p. 69-71. “Where is intimacy found if not the give and take of Love?” Rumi is commenting on the fact that seekers, those who KNOW the power of the divine and who strive towards unity with the Beloved, are able to transmit love to one another at a deeper level. Love begins when you give up your will. Sacrifice this will.
“Give your heart to this, the rest is second-hand” The artificiality of mundane earthly things, disconnected from the divine.
“Embrace that entity to which nothing can cling”- Almost a contradiction!
“Both the rose and the thorn appear together in spring, and the wine of the grape is not without its headaches.”
LAST THREE STANZAS ON PAGE 70 - Don’t wait to Love; be fearless!
“Don’t be impatient bystanders on this path. By god there is no death worse than expectation”
“Set your heart on hard cash … listen … if you are not a slave:
STRIVE: “Don’t falter on the horse of the body; go lightly on foot… The Body is a Rose p. 72-73. This poem really outlines the growth of the human soul and the transience of its forms - plant à animal à human à angel… “while the body may age, the soul becomes young.”
Empty the Glass of Your Desire p. 74-75. Illusions of the material world: “And three pitiful meals a day is all that weapons and violence can earn. At night when the Beloved comes will you be nodding on opium?”
“When the earth is this wide why are you asleep in a prison? Think of nothing but the source of thought. Feed the soul, let the body fast.”
“Abandon life and the world, and find the life of the world” - Know that the world, what there is to discover, is SO much greater than you are. So much bigger than you are.
The Grave is a Veil p. 84. “The veil is a grave before the gathering of paradise. When you see that lowering down, think of rising. What harm is in the setting moon or sun? What seems a setting to you is a dawning.”
“Though it may seem a prison, this vault releases the soul. Unless a seed enters the earth, it doesn’t grow. Why are you doubting this human seed? Unless the bucket goes down, it won’t come up full.”
Rumi often mentions that once you have experienced this unity with the Beloved you will want to remain there and will perhaps strive to remain there for the rest of your days. “Look into your heart and see the splitting moon within each breath. Having seen that vision how can you still dream? When the wave of “Am I Not?” struck, it wrecked the body’s ship”. (from A World With No Boundaries).
Chrstine de Pisan
Does she start the book belittling it? - “my mind is occupied with other matter the which is more pleasing to me…” (p. 1) What's on her mind!?
p.26 - “give me a sleeve from off one of your bodices…” Is this an exaggeration and a mockery of chivalry? Although she answers positively to his request, her answer prefaced with a statement that he should choose another lady. (Ambiguous!) …Is this lover is being played for a fool?
p. 32 - a joke? He tries to be humble by saying that he should not brag of his (jousting) exploits but adds that he did perform very well and that his “lady” saw this and greatly praised him for this … (p. 69, he signs his letter to his mistress: “Your very humble and obedient slave”)
p.53/54 - a bit much… exaggeration. “…a speedy death has been my only desire…”
p.59 - cousin tells princess that he is close to death by reason of love.
p.73 she requests, in a letter, that he keep their involvement secret.
p. 88 - She swears that if she even suspects that his motivations are not chivalrous and his intentions pure, then she will never see him again.
Observations/Questions:
(the lady has ALL of the power in this relationship. Is the Christine de Pisan mocking chivalry and empowering women? Is this comedy for women or is she actually suggesting that women employ these techniques (as she does in other works of hers)?)
It seems as though Christine de Pisan is making a mockery of men - how pathetic this lover seems! It would be a sad man who reacts this way to a woman’s love, as if he has nothing else in life other than her. Not to belittle love, but there is no reason to want to die for months on end because you’ve been rejected.
Was C de P writing this way to show how far away the ideal of chivalry was to reality? I can’t believe that men actually behaved this way at a time when there was such disorder? Black Death decimated much of Florence (1370s), mercenaries were employed in the fighting of city states, there was an economic collapse…although all of these did help spark the Renaissance in Italy…
p. 32 - a joke? He tries to be humble by saying that he should not brag of his (jousting) exploits but adds that he did perform very well and that his “lady” saw this and greatly praised him for this … (p. 69, he signs his letter to his mistress: “Your very humble and obedient slave”)
p.53/54 - a bit much… exaggeration. “…a speedy death has been my only desire…”
p.59 - cousin tells princess that he is close to death by reason of love.
p.73 she requests, in a letter, that he keep their involvement secret.
p. 88 - She swears that if she even suspects that his motivations are not chivalrous and his intentions pure, then she will never see him again.
Observations/Questions:
(the lady has ALL of the power in this relationship. Is the Christine de Pisan mocking chivalry and empowering women? Is this comedy for women or is she actually suggesting that women employ these techniques (as she does in other works of hers)?)
It seems as though Christine de Pisan is making a mockery of men - how pathetic this lover seems! It would be a sad man who reacts this way to a woman’s love, as if he has nothing else in life other than her. Not to belittle love, but there is no reason to want to die for months on end because you’ve been rejected.
Was C de P writing this way to show how far away the ideal of chivalry was to reality? I can’t believe that men actually behaved this way at a time when there was such disorder? Black Death decimated much of Florence (1370s), mercenaries were employed in the fighting of city states, there was an economic collapse…although all of these did help spark the Renaissance in Italy…
No comments:
Post a Comment