Each intellectual discipline stems from the same root. Let me oversimplify – which is, to say, romanticise, poeticise. The shape of the western soul was moulded from the formless (or form-less) clay that lay in the hearts of the ancient poets. These poets of old, however, were not just literary men – they were also philosophers, they were also priests. Men of faith, reason and beauty; bound together in one mortal soul. Yea, this was a time before our souls were cleaved – before the split of the rational and the irrational – before faith, reason and beauty became discordant and began to look dispalatable to one another. These priests and philosophers, nevertheless, remained first and foremost poets. Those with eyes to see clearly perceive that beauty was these poet’s primordial guiding light. Yea, these poets – guided by their will to beauty – were the pride of Ancient Greece and, thus, the forefathers of western civilisation.
Yet, when internal pressures became too great – when the soul of the poet finally cleaved and ruptured – the priest and the philosopher were finally born as distinct and competing entities. These new historical beings each grasped at opposite poles of a once proud, now decadent, unity – each claiming their own pole, their own mode of life, their own “truth”, as the best and only. Truth was born as a new idol, an idol elevated to the highest of values, an idol to be invoked alongside the thought: “I believe that I am correct and you should – you must – too”. This preoccupation with “truth” later gave birth to and was, perhaps – redeemed? – by the scientist, as our instruments and methods for pursuing that most beautiful of idols became increasingly refined. With this new emergence, with this new pre-occupation, the poet slipped into perverse shadows – making an occasional disjointed whisper or whimper, yet possessing none of the vigour, none of the boldness of voice, none of the rawness of passion and the unity of spirit, which elevated the sages of old.
And what does all this mean? Well, please excuse a little naturalistic fallacy and genealogical contriteness: the pursuit of beauty birthed us, the pursuit of beauty propels and compels us – beauty, therefore, must now play Hermes and guide humanity once again? A fallacy indeed, but, nevertheless, a beautiful one at that.
[[ This is as an aesthetic rewriting of the theory explicated in Blog Post #2. This is written in a much more aphoristic style. Whereas post #2 explicated a philosophical theme through systematic, rational argument, designed to be rationally apprehended, this post intends to evoke a kind of “experience”, designed to be apprehended by both rational and non-rational parts of the self. Stylistically, this piece is obviously heavily influenced by Nietzsche – and I believe he is trying to accomplish the same feat described above. ]]