• In total there are 6 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 6 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Waking Up

#51: July - Aug. 2008 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
Thomas Hood
Genuinely Genius
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:21 pm
16
Location: Wyse Fork, NC
Been thanked: 1 time

Waking Up

Unread post

The title page of the first edition of Walden contains as motto: "I do not propose to write an ode to dejection, but to brag as lustily as chanticleer in the morning, standing on his roost, if only to wake my neighbors up." But what is this waking up? And how does it occur?

To wake up is to become aware of features of existence that the sleeper ordinarily overlooks. Walden is an exercise book in waking up -- An American Book of Koans. It doesn't have to be read this way, and most people miss the mystique. Practice in Walden and apply to the world.
1.62 By the middle of April, for I made no haste in my work, but rather made the most of it, my house was framed and ready for the raising. I had already bought the shanty of James Collins, an Irishman who worked on the Fitchburg Railroad, for boards. James Collins' shanty was considered an uncommonly fine one. When I called to see it he was not at home. I walked about the outside, at first unobserved from within, the window was so deep and high. It was of small dimensions, with a peaked cottage roof, and not much else to be seen, the dirt being raised five feet all around as if it were a compost heap. The roof was the soundest part, though a good deal warped and made brittle by the sun. Doorsill there was none, but a perennial passage for the hens under the door board. Mrs. C. came to the door and asked me to view it from the inside. The hens were driven in by my approach. It was dark, and had a dirt floor for the most part, dank, clammy, and aguish, only here a board and there a board which would not bear removal. She lighted a lamp to show me the inside of the roof and the walls, and also that the board floor
extended under the bed, warning me not to step into the cellar, a sort of dust hole two feet deep. In her own words, they were "good boards overhead, good boards all around, and a good window" -- of two whole squares originally, only the cat had passed out that way lately. There was a stove, a bed, and a place to sit, an infant in the house where it was born, a silk parasol, gilt-framed looking-glass, and a patent new coffee-mill nailed to an oak sapling, all told. The bargain was soon concluded, for James had in the meanwhile returned. I to pay four dollars and twenty-five cents tonight, he to vacate at five tomorrow morning, selling to obody else meanwhile: I to take possession at six. It were well, he said, to be there early, and anticipate certain indistinct but wholly unjust claims on the score of ground rent and fuel. This he assured me was the only encumbrance. At six I passed him and his family on the road. One large bundle held their all -- bed, coffee-mill, looking-glass, hens -- all but
the cat; she took to the woods and became a wild cat, and, as I learned afterward, trod in a trap set for woodchucks, and so became a dead cat at last.

Thoreau deconstructs the Collins shanty to reconstruct his house/temple at Walden, just as he deconstructs and reconstructs conventional religion. The allusion to "the removal of the gods of Troy" in the next paragraph is a hint of the greater significance of this paragraph. Note: the roof is peaked, the window deep and high, the interior dark, and it appears as if surrounded by a wall. Inside this structure is "a patent new coffee-mill," an icon of the new religion of commerce, nailed to an oak sapling. Oh, James Collins is probably Irish Catholic, and this transaction is probably occurring during Easter Week, 1845. What hidden visual image underlies Thoreau's description of the shanty?

It's a cathedral, the surrounding wall of dirt resembling a flying buttress. The phrase "here a board and there a board" cost me a day to resolve. It is an allusion to "Old McDonald Had a Farm."

To read Walden fully, the reader needs to dwell on the text with a contemplative frame of mind. Otherwise, a shanty is just a shanty, and a coffee-mill is just a coffee-mill. Wrestle with the angel and get the blessing.

Tom
User avatar
Lawrence

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
Senior
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:58 pm
15
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 53 times

hermeneutics

Unread post

Thomas, you know how much respect I have for the clarity and thoroughness of your thoughts and the gentle way you present them. I perceive a trend in this discussion which prompts me to refresh everyone's memory about three important words that apply to understanding the author's intent from a text. The following is extracted from Wikipedia.

Exegesis involves an extensive and critical Interpretation of an authoritative writing. Exegesis also is used to describe the Elucidation of Philosophical and legal texts.

One may encounter the terms exegesis and hermeneutics used interchangeably; however, there remains a distinction. An exegesis is the interpretation and understanding of a text on the basis of the text itself. A Hermeneutic is a practical application of a certain method or theory of interpretation often revolving around the contemporary relevance of the text in question.

Essentially, hermeneutics involves cultivating the ability to understand things from somebody else's point of view, and to appreciate the cultural and social forces that may have influenced their outlook. Hermeneutics is the process of applying this understanding to interpreting the meaning of written texts and symbolic artifacts (such as art or sculpture or architecture), which may be either historic or contemporary.

The point of mentioning these two words is the human tendency to involuntarily introduce eisegesis into an interpretation of text.

Eisegesis from the Greek 'to lead in' is the process of interpretation of an existing text in such a way as to introduce one's own ideas. This is best understood when contrasted with Exegesis. While exegesis draws out the meaning from the text, eisegesis occurs when a reader reads his/her interpretation into the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.
User avatar
Thomas Hood
Genuinely Genius
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:21 pm
16
Location: Wyse Fork, NC
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: hermeneutics

Unread post

lawrenceindestin wrote:I perceive a trend in this discussion . . . .

Thank you, Lawrence, but from my trajectory you do not observe a dangerous trend, because I have reached cruising altitude and do not expect to be going any higher :) The chicks must flap their own wings, and the mother hen who rises too far from her brood risks losing them forever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis

You have added to my vocabulary eisegesis. (Penelope won't like it.) Apparently eisegesis is a term of ecclesiastical opprobrium, in practice meaning no more than unorthodox or undogmatic. As I am not institutionalized and have no interest in being orthodox or dogmatic, I would consider it an honor to be called eisegete by those who are. Ecclesiastics who use the term, I imagine, do not mean to imply that they are open to an impartial and objective weighing of evidence.

Wikipedia says: "Exactly what constitutes eisegesis remains a source of debate among theologians, but most scholars agree about the importance of determining the authorial intentions." When author and text are as challenging as Thoreau and Walden, a reader without sympathy and respect is unlikely to discover any "authorial intentions."

Tom
User avatar
Lawrence

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
Senior
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:58 pm
15
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 53 times

I see we are not yet of one spirit

Unread post

Thomas, it appears you read the new post to my blog. But no comment?

Ah to the issue. You quote Thoreau as follows:
the window was so deep and high. It was of small dimensions, with a peaked cottage roof, and not much else to be seen, the dirt being raised five feet all around as if it were a compost heap.
You then stated
What hidden visual image underlies Thoreau's description of the shanty? (and then you answer) It's a cathedral, the surrounding wall of dirt resembling a flying buttress
I say that statment of yours is Eisegesis. I'm glad you find deep meaning in Walden. It is one of my favorite books. However, you know what an itch I have about raising a belief to be a fact for others to believe in and how hard I scratch that itch in my essay. What I'm asking for is honesty. Put a disclaimer before such statements. If you think it is a metaphor, allagory, similie, or foreshadowing then say, "I think even though Thorough describes the dirt as being like a compost heap, I see it as a stantion for his new cathederal which will be the new church replacing the religion of his time."

We are in dialogue, I pick no fight. I look forward to your reply.
User avatar
Thomas Hood
Genuinely Genius
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:21 pm
16
Location: Wyse Fork, NC
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: I see we are not yet of one spirit

Unread post

lawrenceindestin wrote:Thomas, it appears you read the new post to my blog.

Lawrence, I see that you have a certain sensitivity to allusion. All we (Thoreau and I) need do is to cultivate this innate ability a little more, and you will be a Transcendentalist too. And, yes, it's a wonderful story (with one reservation), and I recommend that everyone read it.
lawrenceindestin wrote:I say that statment of yours is Eisegesis.

OK, but if you check out the webpages of persons who use the term eisegesis, I think you might find that they are persons you don't want to be associated with. Anyway, if you mean misinterpretation, Why not say so?
lawrenceindestin wrote:I'm glad you find deep meaning in Walden. It is one of my favorite books. However, you know what an itch I have about raising a belief to be a fact for others to believe in and how hard I scratch that itch in my essay. What I'm asking for is honesty.

Well, I think I'm pretty honest, but I did withhold evidence for my position, and I did so partly to make a simple, concise presentation that this medium requires, but also because I believe in holding a little ammo in reserve. Also, Thoreauvians never tell all. One of the most important facilities at Walden was Thoreau's outhouse, and it is unmentioned in Walden.

This to me looks like evidence:
Note: the roof is peaked, the window deep and high, the interior dark, and it appears as if surrounded by a wall. Inside this structure is "a patent new coffee-mill," an icon of the new religion of commerce, nailed to an oak sapling. Oh, James Collins is probably Irish Catholic, and this transaction is probably occurring during Easter Week, 1845.

lawrenceindestin wrote:Put a disclaimer before such statements. If you think it is a metaphor, allegory, simile, or foreshadowing then say, "I think even though Thoreau describes the dirt as being like a compost heap, I see it as a stanchion for his new cathedral which will be the new church replacing the religion of his time."

Of course every conclusion I reach is hypothetical, based on the evidence I have and the care with which I have reasoned, and the same goes for everyone else. Measure twice, cut once. In justice I'd like for every Walden literalist to qualify statements too: "I think that in spite of the fact that Thoreau was a master of allusion the phrase "the dirt being raised five feet all around as if it were a compost heap" is no more than a pile of dirt." Literalists, of course, aren't going to qualify what they say because they are in the majority. What happens in religion is that persons who do not agree with religious literalism leave. I'd rather people didn't leave Walden.

Tom
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: I see we are not yet of one spirit

Unread post

Literalists, of course, aren't going to qualify what they say because they are in the majority. What happens in religion is that persons who do not agree with religious literalism leave. I'd rather people didn't leave Walden.
Tom, because you designate HDT as a master of allusion is not in itself a warrant for the symbolic reading you prefer. Is HDT speaking to us of things other than what is signified on the surface? Well, your need as a reader will determine this at times. My need will swing me in that direction less often. I think to excoriate "literalists" in the context of Walden is to unnecessarily introduce division to the experience of reading HDT. Most of all, could it be that "the love of things for what they are" (paraphrase Robt. Frost) is something you might place less value on than other readers, and even Thoreau, did? This was a man in love with the reality of the life and forms he saw. True, there were essences and identities beneath the surface that Thoreau insisted were real, too, but "thingness" was primary. I agree that Thoreau may never report a fact just with the intent of leaving it at that, but with the purpose of laying down a trail of symbols? You believe so, but if I do not in a given instance, am I misreading or impoverishing the text?

DWill
User avatar
Lawrence

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
Senior
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:58 pm
15
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 53 times

you do not disappoint me

Unread post

Thomas you say
OK, but if you check out the webpages of persons who use the term eisegesis, I think you might find that they are persons you don't want to be associated with. Anyway, if you mean misinterpretation, Why not say so?
No Thomas, you do not understand. Eisegesis is imputing your life, knowledge, understanding, beliefs, prejudicesis into the meaning of a word a man/woman wrote. There can be no "misinterpretation" because it is impossible to know what the writer intended to say. You can only believe whay you think is accurate. You have not understood my essay. Our issue is not about the word eisegesis but about understanding what an author meant. We can't know that. We can believe what we think he meant but we can't know it.
You rightly say Of course every conclusion I reach is hypothetical, based on the evidence I have and the care with which I have reasoned, and the same goes for everyone else. Measure twice, cut once. In justice I'd like for every Walden literalist to qualify statements too: "I think that in spite of the fact that Thoreau was a master of allusion the phrase "the dirt being raised five feet all around as if it were a compost heap" is no more than a pile of dirt." Literalists, of course, aren't going to qualify what they say because they are in the majority.
Weak argument there my friend Thomas. As you may suspect, I give not one damn if anyone agrees with me conclusions. I've suffered the tyrany of the majority and I lived long enough to rebel from it. The issue for you to resolve, in my opinion, it that literalists and allagoristits, et al, are all operating on their belief. (Hopefully honestly.) And therefore entitled to their opinion, whether accepted by one, all or none.

I love our dialogue. I love your honesty. And I deeply appreciate and am grateful for your tolerating my obdurate behavior.[/quote]
User avatar
Thomas Hood
Genuinely Genius
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:21 pm
16
Location: Wyse Fork, NC
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: I see we are not yet of one spirit

Unread post

DWill wrote:Tom, because you designate HDT as a master of allusion is not in itself a warrant for the symbolic reading you prefer.

Will, I have never claimed that anything was true simply because I said it. What I do claim about Thoreau's allusive language is that it is a fact because I can point out examples. Really, all a doubting person needs do is examine the notes in Harding's or Cramer's annotated edition, or go to Ann Woodlief's site

http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/transcendenta ... au/walden/

and click on the text in red.
DWill wrote:I agree that Thoreau may never report a fact just with the intent of leaving it at that, but with the purpose of laying down a trail of symbols? You believe so, but if I do not in a given instance, am I misreading or impoverishing the text?

Yes, if a person does not understand all that Thoreau intends, he is both misreading and impoverishing the text. If when a person encounters
Thoreau wrote:9.2 Occasionally, after my hoeing was done for the day, I joined some impatient companion who had been fishing on the pond since morning, as silent and motionless as a duck or a floating leaf, and, after practising various kinds of philosophy, had concluded commonly, by the time I arrived, that he belonged to the ancient sect of Coenobites.

his mind wanders off into speculation about the Christian fathers as mine did, he has misread the text. In the Collins shanty paragraph, if a reader does not grasp the allusion in the oak sapling rooted inside the shanty (Odysseus's bed), he has misread.

And note, you said "symbol," not me. Like "eisegenesis," "symbol" and "symbolic" are ill-defined, pejorative terms for many persons, and I try not to use them. Allusion is judgment neutral.

Tom
User avatar
Thomas Hood
Genuinely Genius
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:21 pm
16
Location: Wyse Fork, NC
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: you do not disappoint me

Unread post

lawrenceindestin wrote:No Thomas, you do not understand. Eisegesis is imputing your life, knowledge, understanding, beliefs, prejudicesis into the meaning of a word a man/woman wrote. There can be no "misinterpretation" because it is impossible to know what the writer intended to say.

Hold on, Lawrence! Are you saying that communication between humans is impossible? Do you mean that the true self is hopelessly buried within the body and can't get out? In my opinion most people wear their hearts on their sleeves, and if you pay attention to them, you know what's in their hearts.
lawrenceindestin wrote:As you may suspect, I give not one damn if anyone agrees with my conclusions.

Life isn't that bad, Lawrence. I would like for people to agree with me when I'm doing right and to correct me when I'm doing wrong, although sometime they correct me when I'm doing right and agree with me when I'm doing wrong, so I also use my own judgment. Frankly, a little more agreement would be nice :)

Tom
User avatar
Lawrence

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
Senior
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:58 pm
15
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 53 times

one more time

Unread post

Hold on, Lawrence! Are you saying that communication between humans is impossible?
No Thomas. I believe that oral or written conversation at its best is a defective means of communication. If the writer puts a double entendre behind every word he's writing a puzzle or is being sarcastic. Such a writer is not attempting to convey information.
Do you mean that the true self is hopelessly buried within the body and can't get out?
Yes Thomas. We are born alone. We live alone. And we die alone in community.
In my opinion most people wear their hearts on their sleeves, and if you pay attention to them, you know what's in their hearts.
Yes Thomas, it was said long ago "out of the mouth come the meditation of your heart.
Life isn't that bad, Lawrence.
Alas, Thomas, I have found it worse for me. Would that right conduct and wrong conduct could have been so easily determined. The cry of my heart is we have no standard only laws of men based on superstition, pride and greed.
so I also use my own judgment.
For the reasons last stated men have been doing what they think is right in their own mind for thousands of years.
Frankly, a little more agreement would be nice
I hear you Thomas and it is past time for us to get back to Thoreau. I will go to the site you recommend. I also have to warn you I found my Cliff Notes from college (which were written just after Thoreau worte Walden) so I'll have some real ammo to agree with you.
Post Reply

Return to “Walden - by Henry David Thoreau”