![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 1999: Re: Age of Awareness
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu) Date: 11/30/99
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.2101 Tuesday, 30 November 1999. From: Anthony Burton <aburton@javanet.com> Date: Monday, 29 Nov 1999 12:21:20 -0800 Subject: 10.2093 Re: Age of Awareness Comment: Re: SHK 10.2093 Re: Age of Awareness This thread has evolved in a deeply important direction, taking wing in its recent Hawkes-Grouse continuation on the matter of the distinction between "intellectual" and "emotional" responses to text, music, poetry, and the like. I fear this distinction presents a false, or at least seriously ambiguous, dichotomy. "Intellectual" can refer to experiences of comprehension that first reach our consciousness in our mental life, and also (among other possibilities) to empty abstractions generated by letting our mental faculties run so to speak on autopilot, reshuffling what we already know in another form. "Emotional" can refer to experiences of comprehension that never rise to the intellectual level-perhaps it might help to call them "intuitive"-and are what I believe Pascal had in mind with his "The heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing", or else (also among other possibilities) to subjective passionate feelings that blind rather than enlighten, that stand in the way of comprehension and the growth of wisdom. In this formulation, the first definitions of "intellectual" and "emotional" in each instance are equally respectable modes of comprehension, and learning to place one's self in the world. Each can lead to an insight, an "aha!" that changes the way one confronts the world and leads one's own life. The second choices lead only to the entrenchment of existing biases, predilections, and habits of thought and behavior without any corresponding growth; they confine and mummify what genius seeks to open up and enliven, and when turned to the study of genius or great creativity, defeat the very phenomenon they examine. Shakespeare, in my opinion, is a rare master of simultaneously addressing both possibilities by engaging comprehension of the first kind through a variety of devices, including the musical quality of verse mentioned by Grouse. This is perhaps overwordy, but it seems important that serious and appreciative readers like Grouse and Hawkes should not feel they are in irretrievable disagreement simply because they employ different faculties of comprehension for entering into Shakespeare's vast and compassionate understanding of how we fit into the world. anthony burton
|
|
|||||