anima mundi: the soul of the world
digging through some old journals, and wanted to share this one, which was my first ever journal entry, circa 1999. (note: whereas i had kept "diaries" and "journals" in the past, this point in time was when i was thick in the throes of religious studies, and specifically wanted to start recording my fledgling theological thoughts.)
7/19 9:16 pm
my bizarre and fascinating imagination has finally dictated my need to purchase a journal, for purposes of keeping record of my theological progress - my archetypal journey - to illustrate to myself this personal paradigm shift as it unfolds.
sitting in tate street coffee house (greensboro, NC) this afternoon, reading james hillman's brilliant essay entitled "the soul of the world," i began an almost silent dialogue with the "traditionally inanimate" (or "unanimated"?) matter around me - the chair, table, coffee mug - and then also with a pair of flies mating before me. it began as awareness of one fly - playfully penetrating the cleavage between the "sides" of my coffee mug. i guess i've always been one to talk to insects, albeit through violent vocabulary - "piss off, you bastard!"
however, hillman has deeply impressed - even ingrained - in my head some of the most bizarre notions. perhaps the fly was simply in dialogue with the mug? (my mug, since i have paid rent for that mug for the duration of my coffeeshop visit.) after all, aren't i ignoring "my" mug? perhaps it invited the fly in for a conversation. hmmm....
what is the coffee mug? from whence does it originate? just some collection of natural resources, a non-scientific person such as myself can only imagine. yet, before the eye of the common beholder, it is merely a receptacle for a hot, steamy, tasty, LEGAL drug - caffeine. the mug deserves/begs attention from me, the temporary landlord/employer/owner. but i turn my attention away from it - too busy, wrapped up in hillman, until he clues me back in:
"eros descends from being a universal principle, an abstraction of desire, into the actual erotics of sensuous qualities in things: materials, shapes, motions, rhythms . . . rather, all things, whether constructed or natural, by presenting their virtues, carry soul."
all along, the mug was ever-present, trying to speak to me. saying what? probably something as simple as, "don't take me for granted!"
so, does the "immaterial" world speak? that vast expanse of lifeless, loveless, objectified matter? maybe i should find the homeless goth dude who hangs out on tate street, who REALLY wanted my skull t-shirt. i should ask him if the shirt "spoke" to him - as he surely seemed to be called to it.
hell, maybe I should just ask the shirt.
7/21 12:45 pm
so, if it be acceptable, as hillman posits, that my coffee mug does have "soul," then perhaps it also has personality? self-perception? self-awareness? self-definition? as i glance again at my new beverage container (it is a new day, hence a new mug), my perception of possibility widens. (or perhaps my possibility of perception widens?) i am left with even more questions, as in addition to hillman, I have been reading in tandem tom robbins' "skinny legs and all," in which he writes:
"the inertia of objects is deceptive. the inanimate world appears static, "dead," to humans only because of our neuro-muscular chauvinism. we are so enamored of our own activity range that we blind ourselves to the fact that most of the action in the universe is unfolding outside our range, occurring at speeds so much slower or faster than our own that it is hidden from us. . . . we regard the objects that polka-dot our daily lives as if they were rigid, totally predictable solids, frozen inferiorly in time and space. yet, how can we be so sure that we know what things are doing when we aren't looking at them? when our eyesight is inadequate to truly look at them?"
has the mug its own personality, an expression of the anima mundi, separate and distinct from me? according to descartes' notion of "clear and distinct ideas," this mug is clear, is distinct; this mug simply IS. yet, is it the same manifestation of soul and existence i was formally introduced to which spawned the necessity to go out and buy this journal in which to record these theological musings? or, is it a different manifestation? thus, is there a singular, monolithic "soul of the coffee mug" which traverses coffee houses across the nation, unifying mugs in solidarity, or is there a separate, "clear and distinct" personality for each individual mug? if the latter, then this coffee shop is packed to the rafters, bursting at the seams with anima mundi.
mr. coffee mug: I raise my glass to you . . . er, I raise . . . you . . . to you??
7/19 9:16 pm
my bizarre and fascinating imagination has finally dictated my need to purchase a journal, for purposes of keeping record of my theological progress - my archetypal journey - to illustrate to myself this personal paradigm shift as it unfolds.
sitting in tate street coffee house (greensboro, NC) this afternoon, reading james hillman's brilliant essay entitled "the soul of the world," i began an almost silent dialogue with the "traditionally inanimate" (or "unanimated"?) matter around me - the chair, table, coffee mug - and then also with a pair of flies mating before me. it began as awareness of one fly - playfully penetrating the cleavage between the "sides" of my coffee mug. i guess i've always been one to talk to insects, albeit through violent vocabulary - "piss off, you bastard!"
however, hillman has deeply impressed - even ingrained - in my head some of the most bizarre notions. perhaps the fly was simply in dialogue with the mug? (my mug, since i have paid rent for that mug for the duration of my coffeeshop visit.) after all, aren't i ignoring "my" mug? perhaps it invited the fly in for a conversation. hmmm....
what is the coffee mug? from whence does it originate? just some collection of natural resources, a non-scientific person such as myself can only imagine. yet, before the eye of the common beholder, it is merely a receptacle for a hot, steamy, tasty, LEGAL drug - caffeine. the mug deserves/begs attention from me, the temporary landlord/employer/owner. but i turn my attention away from it - too busy, wrapped up in hillman, until he clues me back in:
"eros descends from being a universal principle, an abstraction of desire, into the actual erotics of sensuous qualities in things: materials, shapes, motions, rhythms . . . rather, all things, whether constructed or natural, by presenting their virtues, carry soul."
all along, the mug was ever-present, trying to speak to me. saying what? probably something as simple as, "don't take me for granted!"
so, does the "immaterial" world speak? that vast expanse of lifeless, loveless, objectified matter? maybe i should find the homeless goth dude who hangs out on tate street, who REALLY wanted my skull t-shirt. i should ask him if the shirt "spoke" to him - as he surely seemed to be called to it.
hell, maybe I should just ask the shirt.
7/21 12:45 pm
so, if it be acceptable, as hillman posits, that my coffee mug does have "soul," then perhaps it also has personality? self-perception? self-awareness? self-definition? as i glance again at my new beverage container (it is a new day, hence a new mug), my perception of possibility widens. (or perhaps my possibility of perception widens?) i am left with even more questions, as in addition to hillman, I have been reading in tandem tom robbins' "skinny legs and all," in which he writes:
"the inertia of objects is deceptive. the inanimate world appears static, "dead," to humans only because of our neuro-muscular chauvinism. we are so enamored of our own activity range that we blind ourselves to the fact that most of the action in the universe is unfolding outside our range, occurring at speeds so much slower or faster than our own that it is hidden from us. . . . we regard the objects that polka-dot our daily lives as if they were rigid, totally predictable solids, frozen inferiorly in time and space. yet, how can we be so sure that we know what things are doing when we aren't looking at them? when our eyesight is inadequate to truly look at them?"
has the mug its own personality, an expression of the anima mundi, separate and distinct from me? according to descartes' notion of "clear and distinct ideas," this mug is clear, is distinct; this mug simply IS. yet, is it the same manifestation of soul and existence i was formally introduced to which spawned the necessity to go out and buy this journal in which to record these theological musings? or, is it a different manifestation? thus, is there a singular, monolithic "soul of the coffee mug" which traverses coffee houses across the nation, unifying mugs in solidarity, or is there a separate, "clear and distinct" personality for each individual mug? if the latter, then this coffee shop is packed to the rafters, bursting at the seams with anima mundi.
mr. coffee mug: I raise my glass to you . . . er, I raise . . . you . . . to you??
Comments