From
littlemanpoet:
Quote:
As I said above, I think Fordim's these days versus those days, davem's post-Freudian versus pre-Freudian, Sophia's internal versus pervasive, and my own psychological versus moral, are different subsets of the same discussion.
What's at the core? Is it linguistic? Philosophical? Literary versus scientific? Theological (heaven forbid!)? Faith versus Unbelief (uh oh)?
|
I read this, and something clicked on in my head. Unfortunately, like so often happens, it clicked right back off again immediately.
But on further thought, the one of your options, lmp, which struck a chord with me was literary vs. scientific.
If literature (particularly pre-scientific-revolution literature... perhaps the term I want is "mythic") deals in unities then science deals in dividing things up. The basic presumptions of science (which I don't claim to be an expert on, by any means) involve finding the basis of reality--what it's made of and why it works. Ultimately that boils down to physics, lots of little bits rushing around and hitting each other at angles.
While it's not necessarily difficult to imagine water being H2O and then later to feel like water is the same thing it always was, it's a little more difficult with people. Once you get to dividing complex things up, sometimes it's tough to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Hence the loss of unity contributing to a more internal character development: the outside world of actions is some kind of separate piece.
Nice image with the fractals,
davem. Its an image that both fits the idea of subcreation and ties in visually with Tolkien's repeated use of tree motifs.
A bit of a ramble, I'm afraid. But it
is 5 a.m.
Sophia