On Emerson’s “Self-Reliance”
Maybe after close reading we could stipulate: every sentence of this amazing central essay deserves to be underlined or highlighted. Emerson is unceasing, relentless… and before you leave, and it may take time, more time than we have here, or more than one reading, you just have to get it. And if Emerson gets through, you will be grateful because he ultimately gives you back to yourself.
Potter in an Email to Mary
July 21st, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Potter, Thanks for the great intro!
RWE, “Were you ever instructed by a wise and eloquent man? Remember then, were not the words that made your blood run cold, that brought the blood to your cheeks, that made you tremble or delighted you,—did they not sound to you as old as yourself?”
This quote brouht to my mind two of my favorite wise and eloquent men, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, who I’ve listened to recordings of, and the Dalai Lama who I’ve seen once but mostly read or listened to recordings of. Both of these men with their very different styles and coming from very different religious traditions, strike a deep cord in me. At first when I read Emerson’s “were not the words that made your blood run cold, that brought the blood to your cheeks, that made you tremble or delighted you,—did they not sound to you as old as yourself?”” I thought all that trebling seemed a bit over the top but in fact, I have felt such deep response to the teachings of both MLK & HHDL that I’ve been, to my own surprise, easily moved to tears. Besides having an intellectual aggreement these men strike a deep emotional chord. I believe that must be what Emerson means by recognizing an inner truth, it seems to go beyond thinking and into feeling.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Thank you Peggy Sue- I feel tears also when I recognize what I know. Two things about that: it’s affirmation and connection. Both of those are so important b/c even if we practice self-reliance, we are undeniably social and need to feel connected. I am reading the “Love” essay and this is what I am thinking.
July 21st, 2007 at 10:42 pm
I thought I was sensing some Buddhism here too.
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” – Buddha
But I’ve only read your exerpts! Now I need to hunker down and read the essay.
July 22nd, 2007 at 2:17 pm
As I read the essay, I recalled the words of President Isaac Sharpless’ 1888 commencement address at Haverford College. It seems to me he says much the same thing–in fewer words:
“I suggest that you preach truth and do righteousness as you have been taught, whereinsoever that teaching may commend itself to your consciences and your judgments. For your consciences and your judgments we have not sought to bind; and see you to it that no other institution, no political party, no social circle, no religious organization, no pet ambitions put such chains on you as would tempt you to sacrifice one iota of the moral freedom of your consciences or the intellectual freedom of your judgments.”
July 23rd, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Emerson admired greatly his friend Amos Alcott, the educator. Alcott’s philosophy of education is expressed succinctly here: “Alcott declares that a teacher is one who can assist the child in obeying his own mind.”
Reading “Self-reliance” in conjunction with Emerson’s Mind on Fire is to encounter a dormant primal volcano bubbling deep within.
July 23rd, 2007 at 5:19 pm
A fundamental seed Emerson cultivated and harvested all his life was the belief that “the active soul is the most important thing in the universe.”
One can trace much of his thought to this notion: his conception of heroes, great men, Jesus (as model to be followed not a object to be worshiped), of history (why can not we too enjoy an original relation to the universe?) to this bedrock belief.
Self-reliance in a way emanates out of the belief that the individual (each of us) has access, a privilege, and a right to an unmediated relation to the universe. As a student should feel no shame at disagreeing with her teacher, no fear in the consequences of doing so, nor should we heed the impulse to fear the past, or submit to a past authority (Jesus, Plato, Shakespheare, the founding fathers). We should rather trust ourselves, our minds, and our own relationship to nature.
Fundamentally, Emerson believed that the individual is a new force in the universe and is capable of new insights, new forms, new life. He affirms us in this way.
July 23rd, 2007 at 5:50 pm
The essay offers wonderful aphoristic antidotes to the excesses of our modern bureaucratic-consumerist culture. Still, I wonder: what kind of world would it be if everyone actually lived these precepts?
July 24th, 2007 at 2:11 am
Just saw this quote and thought it appropriate:
July 24th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Thomas says: Fundamentally, Emerson believed that the individual is a new force in the universe and is capable of new insights, new forms, new life. He affirms us in this way.
This notion is more common today (” I’m okay, your okay”) than it was when he wrote it. The depth of what Emerson is saying, the high standard, I find in this:
How rare. Emerson gives examples: Caeser, Jesus, Luther- “all history resolves itself very easily into the biography of a few and stout earnest persons”.
But we are not that. The “man in the street” is not great but let him at least be decent; “Let a man then know his worth and keep things under his feet.” …. Emerson conjures a sot who “now and then wakes up, exercises his reason and finds himself a true prince”
July 27th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Even as I reread Potter’s great introduction and ponder the essay more and more, I remain almost as troubled by its implications as I am impressed and inspired by it. I don’t mean to beat a dead horse here, or raise issues others may not be interested in. However, I am still searching for where the boundaries should be drawn to move this beyond a philosophical stance to practical advice.
In real life, where does self reliance turn into self indulgence?
July 28th, 2007 at 3:15 am
“the forced smile, the muscles…grow tight about the outline of the face and make the most disagreeable sensation; a sensation of rebuke and warning which no brave young man will suffer twice.”
And how much braver the self-reliant young woman who does not suffer a forced smile twice!
Well, a forced smile is one thing. But a stiff upper lip when the chips are down, I think that is another thing. Putting on a brave face for the benifit of others can I think be a positive thing.
But I work in retail… I’m a freaking dang smiler all freaking dang time.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Potter
Thank you very much for your intro. Your excitement for Emerson comes through in your writing! I enjoyed reading it.
Zeke
In real life, where does self reliance turn into self indulgence?
I love this question, Zeke! It’s a question I’ve asked myself as far back as I can remember. The following answer/metaphor helps me:
Think of a cell in the human body. There are numerous types of cells and each provides a unique service/function that no other cell can. Now each cell is self reliant in that it does not need to “ask†another cell, or seek instruction outside itself to discover its function. Its cellular DNA (its soul?) reveals its purpose. It merely has to “listen” and then trust what it hears.
However, the cell is part of something bigger than itself, i.e. the human body. Therefore, it must be aware of the body’s needs and respond appropriately. Now a cell is self indulgent when it violates its purpose and begins to focus on itself without any regard for the body. We refer to that as cancer.
The same is true for us. We are all self reliant in that we don’t need to look for our purpose in a book, the words of a wise man, in history, etc. We need only look inside; or, as The Oracle said to Neo in the Matrix, “Know Thyself.†(I believe Emerson says we merely have to observe nature.) However, we become self indulgent, when we say, “Hey everybody look at me!†or “We have to do it MY way!†then that’s when the community/nature suffers, and ultimately we do as well.
I hope that helps. It’s always sounds better in my head. Then when I read my response I think, “Dear Lord, Bobby! Was Coherent Writing 101 not offered in your school?â€
July 28th, 2007 at 9:40 am
peggysue, on the ‘forced smile’ question: I do think that women have disprportionately suffered from the forced smile approach to life. That said, I don’t think absolutes are very useful. Except for “trust thyself”. If a forced smile feels like the right thing to do in a moment, then by all means…. But it has to come from one’s own gut.
Bobby, I agree that self-reliance doesn’t exclude interdependence, therefore it is not indulgent.
That’s about as much as I can offer for now. Sorry to be so distant but I am moving my business into my home, which requires completing construction on the new living space in the home and there is also suddenly a big push on the medical front – hopefully with some helpful results – so, I may be blogga non grata for several more days.
Haven’t even started Self-Reliance, yet!
July 28th, 2007 at 10:03 am
bobby,
I’ve run across this phrase “Know Thyself†before, was the Oracle’s comment to Neo in the Matrix the origin of this sanction? Does anyone know the genealogy of this maxim? Where lie its roots?
July 28th, 2007 at 10:55 am
flow
I was always under the impression it was Socrates who said that. At least that’s what I remember from college. However, a quick look on the internet shows that it’s attributed to quite a few of the philosophers. Hmmm?
Also, I’ve noticed you’ve mentioned Thomas Moore’s book Care of the Soul a few times. I keep meaning to say that I love that book, and was actually flipping through it last night. I saw that I had underlined a passage on page 153:
“I will never again tell another person how to live, I can only talk to them of their mystery.â€
I actually met Thomas Moore years ago. He was in town promoting his book The Soul’s Religion. I was still in college at the time and doing an independent study with one of my professors. I wanted to study how the “soul†has been perceived through time. Anyway, I got to talk to T. Moore about if after his talk, so that was pretty cool. There’s a really good book called Whatever Happened to the Soul: Scientific and Theological Portraits of Human Nature. I recommend it!
Allison
I agree with you. In fact, I’d say self-reliance and interdependence overlap to the point of being the same thing in that to truly be self-reliant is to move from the paradigm of independence to that of interdependence. Meanwhile, if you need help with the big move, I’ll have peggysue and Sutter come give you a hand. I know they won’t mind
July 28th, 2007 at 11:03 am
I agree, bobby, I think that “Know Thyself” was originally a Greek quote.
Thanks for that generous offer of assistance ;^]
July 28th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Allison,
Good luck moving, yes, I think that is true. There is false cheer that can kind of buck you up until it becomes real and then there is the forced smile that covers simmering resentment… Only the person behind the smile will know for sure. Unless that is, those lips get a little too pursed or smirky – it can be a fine line between a smile and a smirk!
July 28th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Bobby: Thanks for a very helpful analogy. You are probably aware that Richard Dawkins wrote a book titled The Selfish Gene. It’s thesis is that living things are the temprorary vehicles through which genes travel through history. He later commented that he could equally well have called it “The Cooperative Gene” without changing a word of the text and, in the process, have avoided some misunderstanding.
“Selfishness and cooperation are two sides of a Darwinian coin. Each gene promotes its own selfish welfare by cooperating with the other genes in the sexually stirred gene pool which is the gene’s environment, to build shared bodies.”
I shall be looking for examples of where Emerson’s self-reliant man does this. So far, he seems only to be prepared to concede that: “I appeal from your customs. I must be myself. I cannot break myself any longer for you or you. If you can love me for what I am, we shall be the happier. If you cannot, I will still seek to deserve that you should…If you are true, but not in the same truth with me, cleave to your companions; I will seek my own. I do this not selfishly, but humbly and truly. It is alike your interest, and mine, and all men’s however long we have dwelt in lies, to live in truth…You will soon love what is dictated by your nature as well as mine, and if we follow the truth it will bring us out safe at last.”
The words “as well as mine” seem to me to have a possible double meaning. They could mean that our mutual benefit is somehow served by you loving your truth as strongly as I love my own. Or they could mean that as you learn to love your own truth, you will come to love mine as well –though not embracing it– and thus, we will coexist happily.
July 28th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
As I have been thinking about Self Reliance, I have worried that it is an assertion of self rightuousness and selfishness. Along with Bobby, Robert Richardson helps set me towards a more accurate view:
“Self reliance” is Emerson’s essay on the unalienated human being. The essay is not a blueprint for selfishness or withdrawl; it is not anticommunity. It recommends self reliance as a starting point –indeed the starting point– not as a goal. When a better society evolves, it will not, in Emerson’s view, come about as a supression of individuation, but through a voluntary association of fulfilled individuals.”
This is helpful; though “Self Reliance” itself warns me not to accept the thoughts of others if they are not my own!
July 29th, 2007 at 2:05 am
Potter
Two things about that: it’s affirmation and connection. Both of those are so important b/c even if we practice self-reliance, we are undeniably social and need to feel connected.
As a kid, I remember my father would listen to Zig Ziglar on tape. One line that Z. Ziglar said, something which has stuck in my head for almost 30 years, went something like this: One billion people go to bed hungry every night. But three billion people go to be hungry every night for some sincere honest appreciation, a compliment if you will. It’s because of that line that I constantly try to acknowledge people whenever the opportunity arises.
July 29th, 2007 at 2:07 am
Woops! Only the following line should have been in bold:
One billion people go to bed hungry every night. But three billion people go to be hungry every night for some sincere honest appreciation, a compliment if you will.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:29 am
I don’t think RWE would be a very big fan of Zig Ziegler though. The key words, of course, are “sincere honest” appreciation. He probably would be ok with it with those words stressed, but I doubt he’d be able to find much to say to many people.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:57 am
are we stuck on BOLD again?
Bobby, I was thinking about appreciation last night. As I left work I thanked the woman who was coming in to clean for doing her job. I do sincerely and honestly appreciate working in a clean place and not having to do all the cleaning myself but it would still be easy to take for granted. Especially because she does it when people are not there. I know it has meant a lot to me when I’ve been appreciated for work I do. I think it is good to remember to give appreciation. We all feel better for it.
I’ve been thinking about self-reliance in two ways. One is that inner knowing when you are on the right track or there is something that resonates with you so deeply you know you have to do it. I have felt this at times in my life and have never regretted heeding these “gut” feelings.
The other thing is resourcefulness. Maybe because I live on an Island or because I’ve lived without very much money most of my adult life I have learned to be pretty resourcful. It always makes me feel good when I can figure something out or fix it myself. The internet is a great boon for figuring things out on your own. I’m not saying it is a good thing not to have heatlth insurance I just happen to be one of the millions of Americans who don’t have it. I often figure out minor health issues with the internet saving myself a bundle of money.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Zeke
I agree that RWE wouldn’t necessarily be a fan of Z.Z. However, I’m not sure why I agree, and I’m not sure why I feel uncomfortable with the fact that I do agree. What’s your reason(s) for believing RWE wouldn’t be a fan of Z.Z.? Show me the way.
peggysue
Good for you for thanking that cleaning lady!!! When I worked at Microsoft, I tended to work into the late evening when the cleaning crew was there cleaning up after us slobs. When they came into my office, I always stopped whatever I was doing, and thanked the person. Sometimes, I’d spend time talking with them. Most were from Eastern Europe and usually had some interesting stories to tell.
I like your two ways of looking at self-reliance; they’re very practical! Good stuff!
July 29th, 2007 at 11:59 am
BTW
I figured out why we were stuck on bold. I followed the bold to its beginning and noticed that it started with an earlier response of mine. It seems that I had forgotten to close a bold tag. Therefore, everyone else’s response following mine was also in bold. So, when I wrote the response just preceding this one, I put two close bold tags after “Zeke†in my response. The first “†closed Zeke, while the second “†closed the rest, i.e. mine, Zeke’s, and peggysue’s response. So, if/when everyone’s responses are all italicized, bold, etc. just put an extra closed tag to whatever open tag is causing the problem, and all should be fine.
July 29th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
I don’t know that much about Zig Ziegler, so perhaps my comment was unfair. From the little I know, I guess i was questioning whether his compliments would be as “honest and sincere” as yours and PeggySue’s were. Even though it may contain perfectly ethical and sensible elements, the goal of what his kind seem to be selling are ways to “get ahead.” Also, I don’t think Emerson’s view of self reliance has much to do with optimism or even positive thinking. It seems more hard edged to me. It is pretty telling that the twenty first century versions of Emerson the public intellectual turn out to be hustling books on cable TV.
I’m still pondering Richardson’s characterization of the essay as representing “unalienated” man.
July 29th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Zeke
I can’t pretend to be an expert on Z.Z. either. For whatever reason, I just remember hearing that line as a kid, and it stuck. And I agree that Emerson’s view has little to do with positive thinking. I was reading ‘self-reliance’ last night (forgive my French, but Emerson writes some F..King awesome stuff, doesn’t he?), and, besides taking copious amounts of notes, I found myself thinking Emerson says things that are very similar to the idea of ‘loving kindness’ that you read about in Buddhism. I believe somebody may have made the same observation earlier. I found myself picking up a book I have by Pema Chodron, a Buddhist nun that peggysue and I both enjoy reading. (Have you ever met her, peggysue? I’d love to spend six months at Gampo Abbey and hear her talk)
Regarding Richardson’s characterization of the essay as representing “unalienated†man, I read the following in Pema Chodron’s book The Wisdom of No Escape and the Path of Loving-Kindness:
“Basically, making friends with yourself is making friends with all those people too, because when you come to have this kind of honesty, gentleness, and good heartedness, combined with clarity about yourself, there’s no obstacle to feeling loving-kindness for others as well.â€
Does this sound like what Richardson might be saying, Zeke?
July 29th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Bobby: Does this sound like what Richardson might be saying, Zeke?
Yes it does. We’ve only discussed two essays but it’s interesting that both Buddhism and Darwin are emerging as frequent threads in the tapestry.
July 29th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Bobby – plus I put one in my post above after I said “stuck on BOLD” so I guess that makes 3 close bold tags altogether?
I need to actually finish reading the essay… I confess I got side tracked by the new Harry Potter book!
It makes sense that Darwin and Buddhism would come into play in the 19th century. Both were new ideas coming into western thought at the time and must have sparked the imaginations of those who were receptive to them.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
I would love to get your ideas on conformity and non-conformity and phony non-conformity. All these keep you from knowing yourself, how you feel, what you may think. By phony non-conformity I mean non-conformity for the sake of non-conformity perhaps to prove to that you are not like all the rest which kind of implies that you care too much about what others think of you such that is alters your being. You can really get separated from yourself.
I grew up in a very religious home. It was not for me and I knew that early on but also at too early an age I had a battle on my hands about conformity. If I did not conform what I needed to survive emotionally ( love and acceptance) was very much threatened. I think (by the way) that many are or have been brought up this way and it does not prepare them for a life of self-reliance (in the Emersonian sense as per Zeke’s quote from Robert Richardson above) unless there is something strong inside that puts up a fight. Otherwise, one can get buried because there is such a strong need for love and acceptance. I
July 29th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Potter,
Maybe this relates. As a young woman at some point I realized that I was always voting like my Dad. I didn’t want to be voting like my Dad just because it was how he voted so I really studied the issues. I tried to make a case for the other side. In the end I realised that in fact I really did agree with my Dad so I no longer worried that I was doing it just because he did.
If I feel like someone is trying to control me I am inclined to want to do the opposite of what I think they are trying to make me do… but, that is still being controlled by someone even if it is in opposition.
Then there is fashion, like, wearing black and getting your eyebrow pierced because that’s what all the non-conformists are doing – which may make the statement you really want to make but is still another brand of conformity.
July 30th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Yeah- Peggy Sue you get what I mean. I was always turned off by non- conformity for the sake of not conforming. Somewhere soon down the line all this cancels out and you are left with yourself.
My jeans don’t have holes in them ( annoying), and when they did I used to put a patch on and finally throw them out. Fashion is a good example of conformity. Though not a deep subject, it does indicatea need to conform. Women are killing their feet in those unbelievably pointy shoes! Sometimes it’s subtle (how pointy are the points on your shoes? – they should actually be round now….) Non-conformity itself is fashionable and when it’s that, it’s a trap of sorts. The super-rich hedge fund manager can feel less guilty wearing worn out jeans and faded tee’s to feign looking like a construction worker who actually made his holes by being on his knees so much. While the construction worker faded his jeans by exposure to the sun and washing the fund manager’s jeans were “designed” to look that way.
In the old days the colors of non-confrmity,of the bohemians, were olive green and dark red.
Emerson gets very serious about conformity regarding religion though. No one should get between you and yourself and watch out because the preacher can. We sooner quote saints and sages than think for ourselves. We are “timid and apologetic”.
I sense that in myself.
“We are like children who repeat rote the sentences of grandmas and tutors”…..
This is so meaningful to me:
Emerson “For non-conformity the world whips you with displeasure. And therefore a man must know how to estimate a sour face.”
I remember the scene in Wizard of Oz- when the little man behind the curtain was revealed to be behind the big all knowing voice to the Cowardly Lion and his shaking bunch below.
July 30th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Potter, how pointy are the points on your shoes? I only wear birkenstocks. Not just for comfort but they do fit the old hippie stereotype look I’m going for ;^)
I was thinking also about using our senses to precieve reality instead of relying on expersts or the written word and how much advertising and packaging attempt to inform us in spite of what we can learn from our own senses. Like, selling a brand or a “lifestyle” instead of the actual stuff of the product itself. It seems to take us a few steps away from reality.
July 31st, 2007 at 4:20 am
And now an important message from our sponsor
July 31st, 2007 at 12:00 pm
With regards to “non-conformity, a concern I’ve had in the past, i.e. as a former philosophy major, is that talking about non-conformity can be sexy, though often misleading. Here are questions I wrote down for myself. I’d be curious as to what other people think:
What does it mean to be a non-conformist?
What exactly am I/we not conforming to?
Can, in fact, one truly be a non-conformist? If so:
What is/are the benefit(s)* of being a non-conformist?
What is/are the cost(s)* of being a non-conformist?
What is/are the benefit(s)* of being a conformist?
What is/are the cost(s)* of being a conformist?
What’s the difference – if any – between breaking a rule and breaking conformity?
If the entire population thought as Emerson did, then would we all be non-conformists or would we all be conformists?
Are we conforming to Emerson by the very fact that we’re all reading and agreeing with him (at least most of the time)?
* By benefit and cost, I mean to both self and society.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:05 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Does Robert Frost’s poem The Road Not Taken speak about non-conformity?
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth.
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same.
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I–
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:50 pm
For what it is worth, I think there is a distinction between nonconformity and self reliance. The nonconformist looks at society and chooses to go a different way. But s/he is still responding to an outside stimulus. I think Emerson’s self reliance is different in that he seeks to find his truth within and then is more than happy to welcome others to join him if they wish or, if not, to allow them to go their own separate ways.
July 31st, 2007 at 6:07 pm
I agree with Zeke if he means that nonconformity (as opposed to being a nonconformist) is a response that takes guidance from within. If you see yourself as a “nonconformistâ€, if you call yourself one, I am already suspicious that it’s for the sake of simply going a different way than all the rest to prove yourself different, to distinguish yourself in some superficial way. It labels the person, not the process.
I don’t see the self-reliant person who seeks within as one who properly therefore must exclude all else or exclude conformity. How could we have a society without conformity to communal laws and values for instance? How can a person live within society without conforming somewhat? You cannot walk down the street stark naked.
So the person that “looks at society and chooses to go a different way†means what? He can call himself a nonconformist, I call him asocial. Whether he is truly self-reliant as well is a question.
July 31st, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Bobby, thanks for the input on the “know thyself†thing and for the book recommendation. I too am very interested in the historical ideas and conceptions that have descended to us concerning the soul. I look forward to tracking down a copy of Whatever Happened to the Soul: Scientific and Theological Portraits of Human Nature. I would love to have a few minutes to spend with Thomas Moore! What a seer!
Concerning the questions you pose regarding conformity. I have a comment I’d like to share, but allow me to preface this remark by saying that RWE is brand new to me, and I just picked up my copy of Essays yesterday. I made my way through the introduction and the first couple of paragraphs of Self-Reliance, so please forgive me if my comment is a little off base.
I wonder to what degree “conformity†has less to do with exterior conditions and reality and more to with in-form-ity! That which “informs†us, forms us from the inside.
According to James Hillman, author of The Soul’s Code, each of us arrives at birth to inherit the body and inherent in the personality is a unique blend of influences and factors that together compose and determine our character, including our diamon, our genius and our fate. Any movement against this composition is a movement against our self and likely to induce suffering, or dis-ease or worse.
My comment is this: maybe RWE’s notion of conformity has very little to do with perceived complicity to external trends and ideals (cultural conditioning, peer pressure, parental expectations, law, fashion, etc.) and more to do with the judicious use of our vital substance, our awareness, our imagination, our energy for personal development. Any acquiescence to, or embrace of normative or external ideals not consistent with the original idea implicit in the uniqueness of our character, undermines our opportunity to “know our self†and appreciate that which “informs†us (the in-visible manifest in our personality), the essence of our character, that which makes us wholly and truly unique?
In the absence of this appreciateion/awareness we fail to achieve individuation, fail to achieve at-one-ment (atonement), fail to become integral, and remain divided against our self with some aspect of the self (and thus the world around us) always seeming and appearing as other (or alien). Resulting in alienation.
When we take heed of, and respect and nurture that which informs us, we benefit from a sense of integralness (wholeness), and an empowered intuition (a precursor to wisdom), and connectedness to divinity (present moment awareness of eternity – a direct and unmistakable experience of, and participation wit the ineffable.) The mystery revealed and yet more mysterious than ever.
Reducing this idea to the bumper sticker: don’t conform, inform!
July 31st, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Bobby- that poem gives me the chills. Thanks.
If it’s not a great example of self-reliance it seems close. He was not certain but he chose the way least traveled. Did he choose that way because it was least traveled? I don’t know what to say about this because he seemed to feel no strong pull from within for one way over the other except for that one that wanted wear. Other than that, they really seemed the same. But he had to choose one, thinking maybe he would come back to the other, probably not. So this is a moment of indecision and then decision is made simply because it was less traveled.
The last part- that it made all the difference- gives me the chills. I interpret that spiritually- that he actually felt he made the right choice and that choice somehow made a substantial difference. I have moments in my life that mean that much to me such that it’s hard not to feel guided in some way- internally/externally.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:39 pm
I really want to respond to everyone right now, but have to leave in a few minutes. So, before I go:
Your welcome for the poem, Potter. I, too, think it’s a great poem. My question, though, is does he really choose the path less taken? Or better yet, is it even possible to take the path less taken
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same.
BTW, Potter, thanks for bringing up the conformity vs. non-conformity in both your introduction for this essay, and later on in this thread. Personally, I believe on one level the differences as so subtle as to be overlooked yet at the same time so uniquely different it’s be impossible to mix them up. Huh?
Okay, have to leave, but will try to respond some more later this evening.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:22 pm
What I should have added to my interpretation of Frost’s poem is that it seems as though he is using intuition to decide. Emerson speaks of intuition. He says it is the fountain of action and the thought; it cannot be analyzed; it is a deep force; we don’t know how it arises. It’s an amazing passage and I am not quoting but taking from my notes. Intuition is what you want to be able to uncover at such a moment of decision or indecision. Self-reliance, then, is at least in part, gaining access to intuition.
Bobby, I stopped at the very lines you bolded above and I really don’t know what he means. Did the one path look less worn but then not really? He was looking down as far as he could see and one actually did look less travelled. It’s kind of contradictory but the key is “though as for that the passing there”. I have interpreted that as the beginnings of both paths that seemed the same. It’s kind of mysterious.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Sorry that should read ( omitting an extraneous “the”):
He says it is the fountain of action and thought; it cannot be analyzed; it is a deep force; we don’t know how it arises.
July 31st, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Having long admired Frost’s poem, I think we need to be careful about attributing more to the narrator than Frost does. The bolded lines are indeed the key to the poem. To me they indicate an absence of any special consciousness: “Though one path looks more alluring for a moment, the other is actually just as good. I’m neither a conformist or a nonconformist. I could have taken that one, but I took this one. Who knows why? I just did.”
The point is that choices have consequences, but that doesn’t mean we bring any more wisdom to the choices. In that reading it would be an antithesis to Emerson rather than an illustration of his Self Relieance.
July 31st, 2007 at 10:37 pm
I’d like to add a quote from the Gospel of Thomas attributed to Jesus the Nazarene. Doesn’t this teaching of Jesus speak to RWE’s notion of nonconformity? I find it intriguing that Socrates, Jesus and Emerson appear to be teaching essentially the same thing. Does anyone see a parallel in Buddhism (or other traditions)?
Jesus said, “If those who lead you say to you, ‘See the kingdom is in the sky’, then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea’, then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty.â€
August 1st, 2007 at 1:56 pm
I have read Self-Reliance and I have a couple of accusation and an indictment.
First the accusations: Emerson was a plagiarist and a fool!
Show me anything original in the entire essay. Every principle expounded, virtually every paragraph, every word, yea, even every syllable is already to found practically verbatim in mouths of Mercury, Hermes and Thoth (and others). Does translation from one language to another dissolve or excuse the crime? Isn’t all of this as old as the Emerald Tablet?
And fool! Does he not expect that we would recognize him? Shall we stripe off the mask and remove the cloak of skin and see him for who he truly is?
And the indictment; a most heinous and grievous crime against humanity. The erection of a maypole. The willful and intentional act of presenting material known to invoke celebration, elation and jubilance thus distracting those dancing around it from the work we are here to do.
I offer as evidence the essay itself and the confession implicit in it. However, I recognize it may be tricky to try him, given the difficulty in assembling a jury of his peers.
August 1st, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Flow- at the higher elevations no doubt Jesus, Buddha, Emerson are having a “sacra conversazione” where the language spoken is completely understood across time and cultures; all differences are dissolved. As we recognize these thoughts we get pulled in. This is an area where originality means nothing, nobody owns anything. In a sense it’s a joy to be the victim of such theft. I take your post as high praise for what you have read.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:18 pm
(Rapping my gavel)
Order! Order in the court! Order! (pause for effect) Mr. flow! The charges you bring against Mr. Emerson today are of the most serious in nature. The court does not need to remind you that a man’s character is in your hand. . .
Okay, back to being serious
flow,
I’m sure you’ll enjoy Whatever Happened to the Soul. Feel free to email me at moonkey1@gmail.com if you ever wish to discuss the soul’s family tree, or anything else.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:25 pm
There are some authors whose books are a permanent feature next to my reading chair. Below are some quotes (I read them a few times a week) taken from those books that I believe are relevant/equivalent to Emerson’s self-reliant essay, particularly to the passage found below:
Emerson:
What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I have wholly from within? my friend suggested, – “But these impulses may be from below, not from above.†I replied, “They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil’s child, I will live then from the Devil.†No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. . . I am ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names, to large societies and dead institutions.
Parker J. Palmer (member of the Religious Society of Friends [Quaker]):
If, as I believe, we are all made in God’s image, we could all give the same answer when asked who we are: “I Am who I Am.†One dwells with God by being faithful to one’s nature. On crosses God by trying to be something one is not. Reality – including one’s own – is divine, to be not defied but honored.
. . . what Thomas Merton calls “true self.†This is not the ego self that wants to inflate us (or deflate us, another for of self-distortion), not the intellectual self that wants to hover above the mess of life in clear but ungrounded ideas, not the ethical self that wants to live by some abstract moral code. It is the self planted in us by the God who made us in God’s own image – the self that wants nothing more, or less, than for us to be who we were created to be. True self is true friend. One ignores or rejects such friendship only at one’s peril.
The punishment imposed on us for claiming true self can never be worse than the punishment we impose on ourselves by failing to make that claim.
Rabbi Zusya (Hassidic sage):
In the coming world, they will not ask me: “Why were you not Moses?†They will ask me: “Why were you not Zusya?â€
Pema Chodron (American Buddhist nun and renowned meditation master):
In one of the Buddha’s discourses, he talks about the four kinds of horses: the excellent horse, the good horse, the poor horse, and the really bad horse. The excellent horse moves before the whip even touches its back; the good horse runs at the lightest touch of the whip; the poor horse doesn’t go until it feels pain, and the very bad horse doesn’t budge until the pain penetrates to the marrow of its bones. When most people hear this sutra, they always want to be the best horse. What I have realized through practicing is that it isn’t about being the best horse or the good horse or the poor horse or the worst horse. It’s about finding our own true nature and speaking from that, acting from that. Whatever our quality is, that’s our wealth and our beauty: that’s what other people respond to.
While I was reading, the word ‘sincerity’ popped into my head:
Sincerity is the virtue of speaking truly about one’s feelings, thoughts, desires.
1. free of deceit, hypocrisy, or falseness
2. genuine; real
We’ve all seen the movie Matrix. Since the movie is about the main character Neo struggling to find his true nature, I thought I’d look up some quotes from the movie:
Neo: I’m not The One.
Oracle: Sorry, kid. You got the gift, but it looks like you’re waiting for something.
Neo: What?
Oracle: Your next life, maybe. Who knows? That’s the way these things go.
Morpheus: Neo, sooner or later you’re going to realize just as I did that there’s a difference between knowing the path and walking the path.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:36 pm
I am indeed awe-struck by the brilliance of Emerson’s rendering. It strikes me as a superb articulation of timeless wisdom. Genuine, Authentic. Invocative. Communicated with astonishing power and searing insight. Resonating with the ageless music of the spheres yet infused with currency. Pure delight.
I am reminded of the words of Bob Marley, “one good thing about music, when it hits you, you feel no pain.â€
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:55 am
I don’t know if Emerson’s notion of God meshes with Palmer’s ( as bolded by Bobby) which is an external God who makes us, plants in us, and wishes for us, punishes. I think not.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I see we’re writing in bold again. I’m not sure why peggysue does this to us.
Potter
Interesting point you make about Emerson’s notion of God. Does anyone know exactly what is Emerson’s view on God, e.g. was he a theist, deist, none of the above?
Nevertheless, my point in submitting those quotes was I noticed that, though each author (even the Oracle
) is writing/teaching from a “different†faith/believe, the theme of finding/knowing one’s true nature, and then working/living from that is a fundamental principal shared by each. Like Emerson says, “if I am the Devil’s child, I will live then from the Devil. No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature.†Or Pema Chodron when she speaks of the four different kinds of horses. It’s not about being the best horse or the worst horse. It’s about finding our own true nature and speaking from that.. Parker J. Palmer says there are moments in life when we find “that the life I am living is not the same as the life that wants to live in me.†However, knowing that is only the beginning, or, as Morpheus says to Neo in the movie Matrix, “sooner or later you’re going to realize. . .there’s a difference between knowing the path and walking the path.” So, the next time you find yourself standing in front of two roads diverged in a yellow wood, or given the choice of taking the blue pill or the red pill, the question is: Whatcha gonna do? Who you gonna listen to?
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:06 pm
and everything is italicized too!? Well I’ll put a stop to THAT! Much better
Potter
In the past, you’ve written about growing up in a very religious household, and how you had to conform purely to survive. I was raised in the evangelical church, and, though I may not have had the same issues you spoke of, I also realized the whole “our way is the only way, Happy Birthday world you’re now 6000 and 1 years old, and speaking with a lisp is a sure sign you’re going straight to hell†was NOT for me! Subsequently, about seven years ago I became Catholic, or, as most would say I merely jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire
My point is, years ago, I read the book Let Your Life Speak by Parker J. Palmer. In it he discusses this very idea of how we as individuals have a tendency to live the life that our culture/society tells us we must live, how we’re handed a script, and then expected to read our lines. “If you are poor, you are supposed to accept, with gratitude, half a loaf or less; if you are black, you are supposed to suffer racism without protest; if you are gay, you are supposed to pretend that you are not.†He continues, “how tempting it would be to mask one’s truth in situations of this sort – because the system threatens punishment if one does not.†Wow! That sounds like the Agent Smith character in the movie Matrix, or the Borg in the Star Trek shows: “Resistance is futile.†Hmmm? Perhaps they should have named the Neo character R.W. Emerson instead. That way all the kids would think reading Emerson was cool! Of course the PTA meetings would then be full of irate parents demanding to know why their child is refusing to do his chores because it violates his nature. 
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:07 pm
damn! let’s try this again
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:07 pm
test
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:19 pm
I demand the spirit of italics to leave!
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
pretty please
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
YES!!!
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:32 pm
I got out of bold by starting a new paragraph.
Bobby,
I understood your point and thanks for the good stuff. I am trying to understand Emerson’s idea of God. Stephen Whicher edited a book “Selections from Ralph Waldo Emerson” which is very good, in fact recommended. It’s so good it’s been in print since 1960, & praised by that guru, Harold Bloom. It connects some of Emerson’s other writings with his essays. If you look in the index under “God” it gives “Soul” “Reality” “Spirit” “Unity” as part of the same category, or meaning (for Emerson). That already tells you a lot. But I have this notion that you can’t get anything definitive from Emerson, like trying to catch a river flowing. You get a sense of what he means, how his idea of God develops or gets affirmed as well as expressed in different ways. So I think what he means changes as his life moves forward. But I have not dug deep enough to know. I was looking forward to a discussion on this and I hope that we will come to it in one of these threads. In the meantime I’ll keep reading.
As I have been warned above in regard to Robert Frost, I’ll have to be careful that to impose my own thoughts on God onto Emerson ( though somehow I don’t think he would mind).
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:37 pm
That should read ” I’ll have to be careful NOT to impose my own thoughts on God onto Emerson ( though somehow I don’t think he would mind).
(As long as I did not claim they were his. Had he lived a hundred and twenty-five years longer who knows what he would be writing.)
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Potter
Thanks for recommending Stephen Whicher’s book on Emerson. I’ll probably order it in the next few weeks. Amazon has 69 used copies available. Hmm? Why would those 69 someones want to sell that book? You know, Potter, that’s a group the Bush Administration should be concerned with
You said:
But I have this notion that you can’t get anything definitive from Emerson, like trying to catch a river flowing. You get a sense of what he means, how his idea of God develops or gets affirmed as well as expressed in different ways.
I thought of the poem “Ask Me†by William Stafford:
Some time when the river is ice ask me
mistakes I have made. Ask me whether
what I have done is my life. Others
have come in their slow way into
my thought, and some have tried to help
or to hurt: ask me what difference
their strongest love or hate has made.
I will listen to what you say.
You and I can turn and look
at the silent river and wait. We know
the current is there, hidden; and there
are comings and goings from miles away
that hold the stillness exactly before us.
What the river says, that is what I say.
I also found this quote by Stafford:
“I keep following this sort of hidden river of my life, you know, whatever the topic or impulse which comes, I follow it along trustingly. And I don’t have any sense of its coming to a kind of crescendo, or of its petering out either. It is just going steadily along.”
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Bobby, you say: In the past, you’ve written about growing up in a very religious household, and how you had to conform purely to survive.
The point is I suffered because I did not conform. Emerson’s words hit home. I was torn between what I was hearing coming from inside and what those I loved and needed were telling me on the outside. This went on for years. Fortunately, I won. I decided which was more important. The rest sorted itself out accordingly.
Sounds like Palmer helped you.
Thanks for the above!
August 8th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Hmmmmmmm…
I think something needs to be tweaked a little to keep this summer reading thing vitally and viably going. Maybe set the “Emerson Summer Discussion” icon more prominently on the site, more towards the center, as a start? And any ideas on drawing more people in, more of the ROS regulars from the past, maybe, to begin with?
I’ve been short on time the past few weeks, and haven’t been able to contribute much as of yet to this thread. I do think, as “Self-Reliance” is obviously a central Emerson essay, that this thread needs to be given whatever time it needs. I think it deserves at least one more kick, another flurry of posts, before moving on to “Compensation,” if at all.
OK, here’s my attempt at a close reading of a line from the first paragraph:
“the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is, that they set at naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men but what they thought.”
It might be tempting to understand “set at naught” as something along the lines of, “treat as nothing” or “disregard as nothing,” dismiss entirely in favor exclusively of one’s own thoughts. And Emerson does provoke us, throughout the essay, in taking the notion of self-reliance as far as it’ll go. But I don’t think he means that we should treat the works of the past and of others as “naught,” as nothing. In fact, in the context of his essays overall, and this one in particular, he _can’t_ possibly mean that.
What he means, I think, is something like “set at zero” or “set at baseline.” Kind of like setting up a physics experiment: you set time t = 0 at whatever point you need to start the experiment or to calculate results. Or like holding other variables constant, at baseline, in order to investigate the specific variable of interest. This isn’t to deny that other things are going on, or that events have happened before t = 0 – that would be absurd. It’s a way to set up and frame whatever new investigation you’re carrying out. So, in this light, Emerson is saying something like, your own life, your own mind, your own thoughts, this is the new experiment carrying itself out. Other words have been written, other thoughts have been thought, previous to you. But time moves onward. This present moment is the leading edge of a wave. And every moment is, potentially, a new beginning, another start, to be marked as t = 0. Events and works have come before, yes, but at the service of our own present activities and investigations, happening NOW. Our lives, our work, are additions to, advances on, what has gone on before.
So, Emerson seems to be saying, to my ears at least, set up your own experiment, your own additional investigation, your own start, “setting at naught,” at baseline, at t = 0, all that has come before.
And again, this is inextricably bound up with his view of the mind, of “the active soul,” of “Reason” in the Kantian sense, as free, as causally independent of what precedes it or lies outside of it. Consciousness, as long as we are conscious of it, of its character and quality, is not subject to causal determinism. What happens prior to or outside of it does not determine what it must think or do. And yet still Emerson counsels us to accept our limitations, “the place the divine providence has found for you,” “that plot of ground” given to us to till. Consciousness, the human self, is free, yet is placed – “thrown” – into the world, and must make do with what it has, and perform its work within the world within which it finds itself.
August 8th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
A certified Great American Poet (GAP) I have never really understood is Walt Whitman. Today I was listening to the disc of jazz arrangements that Fred Hersch made using text from Leaves of Grass. Suddenly, the poetry began to make sense for me! The progress came from our discussions of Self Reliance. Here are some of the lines that struck me:
I CELEBRATE myself;
And what I assume you shall assume;
For every atom belonging to me, as good belongs to you.
have heard what the talkers were talking, the talk of the beginning and the end;
But I do not talk of the beginning or the end.
There was never any more inception than there is now,
Nor any more youth or age than there is now;
And will never be any more perfection than there is now,
Nor any more heaven or hell than there is now.
And I know that the hand of God is the promise of my own,
And I know that the spirit of God is the brother of my own; 85
And that all the men ever born are also my brothers, and the women my sisters and lovers;
And that a kelson of the creation is love;
And limitless are leaves, stiff or drooping in the fields;
And brown ants in the little wells beneath them;
And mossy scabs of the worm fence, and heap’d stones, elder, mullen and poke-weed.
******
Anyone more expert on Whitman want to weigh in on the connections?
August 8th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Just to let everyone know, I traded dates with Sutter so, instead of “Compensationâ€, we’re actually doing “Spiritual Laws†and then “Compensationâ€. I emailed Mary my overview of “Spiritual Laws†yesterday, so it should be up sometime tomorrow. I should warn everyone that my overview is somewhat unusual in that I took the approach of asking myself the question: When in my life have I come closest to experiencing the life I believe Emerson is trying to tell us we can/should live? I then worked from there, asking more questions, and then coming to a conclusion based on what I read in “Spiritual Lawâ€.
Again, my overview should be up sometime tomorrow. Meanwhile, as a sort of experiment, it might be interesting to have each of you ask when in your life you’ve experienced those moments which Emerson talks about, and then look to see if there’s a common thread/theme which all our moments share.
August 9th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Zeke – there’s a direct line from Emerson to Whitman. Whitman wrote in his journals “I was simmering, simmering, simmering; Emerson brought me to a boil.” And the story of Emerson discovering Whitman is pretty amazing and amusing. Long story short: Emerson, already very famous, receives a somewhat odd looking self-published book of poetry from a then utterly unknown Whitman. Emerson reads it, and writes back to him, saying that it’s “the most extraordinary piece of wit and wisdom that America has yet produced.” Whitman then stamps this piece of personal correspondence as a blurb onto the next edition. Emerson could have been upset by this, I guess, but apparently he took it in stride.
Whitman, in a way, was the poet Emerson wanted to but could never be. And it’s remarkable, a little eerie even, how Emerson calls for a new kind of poet and poetry in “The Poet,” and Whitman comes along and fulfills it point for point.
OK, I’ll go ahead and burden you with some stuff I wrote for the “History” lead-in, which I edited out for length, about Emerson’s influence on Whitman and others:
I also want to say something on Emerson’s influence, his relation to other American writers following after him. Chris discussed Emerson with Harold Bloom, in an interview before the beginning of ROS, I believe. Bloom perhaps tends to overstate the impact of the writers he loves, but, with Emerson, the line of influence seems to me very evident. This might be a stretch on my part, but I like to think of Emerson’s position in American literature as something like a superego, not harsh or overly punitive, but relatively benevolent, though nevertheless admonishing. Perhaps a more appropriate term would be ego ideal, “the unattained but attainable self†as he writes in History (this concept, by the way, is at the core of what Stanley Cavell calls Emersonian Perfectionism, his own elaboration of Emerson’s ethical philosophy). Emerson wasn’t by any means the first American writer – Washington Irving came before him, and I suppose you can count some of the “founding fathers†(a problematic term, I know, but it works, for better or worst, as shorthand) as literary figures. But Emerson was the first, it seems to me, to call for a new, original, literary form or style or mode of expression befitting the American experiment, as a democracy, and, importantly, as a continental country (whole set of issues/problems, yes, about claiming or striving for an original or “indigenous†American literary voice, as beneficiaries of European colonialism – though, to Emerson’s credit, check out his letter protesting Cherokee removal to Martin Van Buren: http://www.swarthmore.edu/Humanities/kjohnso1/cranch.htm).
So, Emerson called for something new, and, in doing so, started something new himself. And this quality of the clarion call, informing the tenor and tone of Emerson’s writings, is characteristic of the superego or ego ideal, the conceiving of and striving for what _ought_ to be. But there’s a strain, a sternness, that comes with the clarion call. Emerson was a preacher, after all, and the pontificating from the pulpit sticks around still. So, Whitman heard the call, and was able to slide in a little more libido into the proceedings, to complement the sterner superego. The continuity and contrast between Emerson and Whitman is especially evident in their respective poetry – Emerson’s lines come across as tight, constricted, compared with Whitman’s more relaxed, sensual, open free form lines. Thoreau heard the call, having read Emerson’s Nature as an undergrad, and went on to work out in more detail our relation to our environment, its specifics and implications (Emerson’s “Nature,” his first published work, is more about the human mind in its relation to the world, than about nature per se – Thoreau fleshed out the texture and detail). So Thoreau practically instantiated Emerson’s ideals out in the world. I’m simplifying and caricaturing a bit, but I just wanted to offer a sketch and sense of Emerson’s rippling influence.
August 9th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Thanks for the summary mynocturama. I was vaguely aware of th ebiographical stuff from reading Richardson and from the radio show with Susan Cheever, but you fill in the stylistic influence. I agree about the relative merits of their poetry: even when I didn’t/son’t understand Whitman, it is clear that he is a poet on a different order from Emerson and I think you captured the reason well.
Cheever referred to the Concord group as what sociologists call a “genius cluster.” I like that image.
August 9th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Zeke = zeke317 ?
August 9th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Thank you for such interesting posts, Mynocturama, Zeke ( one Zeke?) , Bobby. I agree that this thread needed the extra time and I hope we can continue this one as we go on to the others as we have on the “History” thread. So there is a lot of juggling ahead for participants but, as Mynocturama suggests, the essays connect to each other.
I did get personal regarding “Self-Reliance”. I agree Bobby that this is a good approach. Emerson has fortified me personally. It’s not so abstract. As well I bring my own experience to my reading as you all do.
I also find the connection to Buddhism to be right there at the “naught” that Mynocturama focusses on: at the point where Emerson’s stresses one’s own intuition, own life experiences, indeed the present moment ( though he does not say that specifically) as all there is. I hear him saying pay attention to your own response to that which is in front of you, that is primary. That which came before has relevance insofar as it occupies you and process it in your mind. This is liberating. From this point you grow and realize your own potential. Emerson argues against conformity; it’s an abdication.
Note: according to the last published schedule here I was to post for “Love” tomorrow August 10th. As we are “behind”- I say moving more slowly than we thought and adjusting nicely- I would be most happy to move my date forward until “Spiritual Law” and “Compensation” are under way. Can we publish a new more realistic schedule- the next round of target dates? I do think we need target dates.
August 9th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
One Zeke. Two screen names over the years. And a computer that sometimes arbitrarily logs on as the “wrong” one. Sorry for any confusion.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
In reading the reactions to Emerson’s “Self-Reliance” on this page (and I did not read all of them completely) I was struck by the occasional swerve into an understanding of “self reliance,” that, I think, contravene Emerson’s proposal. The problem arises from the various shades of meaning that Emerson attaches to his terms, “self” and “individual.” While I think his terminology is sometimes unclear (he was not burdened with that hobgoblin of a little mind, consistency) I think it is abundantly clear in his argument that the provocations and actions of a self-reliant individual will NOT contradict the basic principles of nature. Self-reliant actions will probably violate social taboos and the norms of custom, but not the basic processes of nature.
I offer three quotations in support of that reading:
“We lie in the lap of immense intelligence, which makes us receivers of its
truth and organs of its activity. When we discern justice, when we discern
truth, we do nothing of ourselves, but allow a passage to its beams. If we
ask whence this comes, if we seek to pry into the soul that causes, all
philosophy is at fault. Its presence or its absence is all we can affirm. Every
man discriminates between the voluntary acts of his mind and his involuntary
perceptions, and knows that to his involuntary perceptions a perfect faith is due.”
“Thoughtless people contradict as readily the statement of perceptions as of
opinions, or rather much more readily; for they do not distinguish between
perception and notion. They fancy that I choose to see this or that thing. But
perception is not whimsical, but fatal. If I see a trait, my children will see it
after me, and in course of time all mankind,– although it may chance that
no one has seen it before me. For my perception of it is as much a fact as
the sun.”
“Why then do we prate of self-reliance? Inasmuch as the soul is present there
will be power not confident but agent. To talk of reliance is a poor external
way of speaking. Speak rather of that which relies because it works and is.”
For Emerson, “self-relliance” might more properly be called “reliance on and conformity to natural process.” Emerson does not mean that individuals are free to say or do whatever they may think is true. Only “thoughtless persons” contradict the fatality of pereception; the true aristocrats of consciousness subordinate their INDIVIDUAL will to the “immense intelligence” of which we are the “agent” rather than pretend to be an independent point of awareness
The irony is for Emerson, the self is most “self-reliant” when it is most integrated into the rhythms and powers of nature. While Emerson definitely opposes relationships of social dependency wherein the self is a craven functionary in a structured world, I think that we misread him when we understand his proposal as a call for radical independence of the self or a liberation into whimsy and personal expression. A self-reliant poet is also the one who is speaking for nature’s processes (and I think that is how Emerson read Whitman’s “Song of Myself” and why both men saw Whitman as Emerson’s true ephebe).
I am fairly certain that Emerson would disagree with Claude McKay’s epigram (quoted above), “If a man is not faithful to his individuality, he cannot be loyal to anybody,” and I am even more certain that McKay would consider Emerson’s idea of self-reliance as containing a hidden agenda of social conformity.
August 24th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Thoughtful post Redding. Please post more.
Briefly, on the question of whether Emersonian Self-Reliance actually contains “a hidden agenda of social conformity,” I’d recommend Lawrence Buell’s very good “Emerson” – he addresses the shadings and meanings of Emerson’s “Self,” and does a good job of making clear and accessible and explicit Emerson’s argument, which exists in a condensed and implicit form in the essays themselves.
And as far as Emersonian “individualism” goes, I’ll just say for now that it is, I think, very much a means to an end, not an end onto itself. Namely, Self-Reliance as a means of being “an organ of activity” of the “immense intelligence” we lie in the lap of. Otherwise, if it weren’t a means to something larger, something more, than it wouldn’t have much point at all. And, yes, this does open up ambiguities as to what we are the organ of when we are being self-reliant – we may very well feel self-reliant, spontaneous and energetic, in the service of some ulterior ideology, unbeknowst to ourselves. And ambiguities concerning the “self” abound in Emerson. For instance, Emerson seems to imply that in the deepest seat of the “private” self lies access to a larger, “public” self, more authentically “public” than what we normally think of as “public” (reputation, status, etc…). So it can get tricky and slippery.
Anyway, thanks again for your post. Look forward to reading more.
August 24th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
“than” should read “then,” as in “then it wouldn’t have much point at all.”
August 25th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Nice to see redding’s interesting post. I, too, hope you will keep participating. You say: I think it is abundantly clear in his argument that the provocations and actions of a self-reliant individual will NOT contradict the basic principles of nature. Self-reliant actions will probably violate social taboos and the norms of custom, but not the basic processes of nature.(my emphasis)
I agree. I think I would state it even more strongly by changing “will not” to “cannot.” Man is part of Nature and Nature (including man) originates in Spirit. As potter expressed better than I can, the quest is to find –and acccept– one’s place IN nature. This can only be done by transcending selfish desires; at one’s most self reliant, one is least selfish.
August 26th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
The analysis by Lawrence Buell that mynocturama recommends does tease out the very paradox that, I think, motivates Emerson’s proposals. Buell puts it this way: “Emersonian Self-Reliance is easy to sum up but tricky to pin down. It seems to be founded on a self-contradiction: we are entitled to trust our deepest convictions of what is true and right insofar as every person[’s inmost identity is a transpersonal universal” (Buell 59).
Buell’s treatment of the essays on Napoleon and Margaret Fuller as amplifications and amendments to the earlier “Self-Reliance” essay are useful reminders that by the 1850s the reformist optimism of America’s 1830s and 1840s had begun to darken. Buell makes the nice observation that the “Napoleon” essay appears in 1850, two years after the revolutions of 1848 that had a sobering impact on a United States lurching toward sectarian war.
Buell’s analysis, however, does emphasize lineaments for a “larger public self” featured in mynocturama’s description:
mynocturama: And, yes, this does open up ambiguities as to what we are the organ of when we are being self-reliant – we may very well feel self-reliant, spontaneous and energetic, in the service of some ulterior ideology, unbeknowst to ourselves. And ambiguities concerning the “self†abound in Emerson. For instance, Emerson seems to imply that in the deepest seat of the “private†self lies access to a larger, “public†self, more authentically “public†than what we normally think of as “public†(reputation, status, etc…). So it can get tricky and slippery.
Buell: “Other questions remain. Preeminently: How can we know when we are being self-reliant rather than merely headstrong?” (Buell 69).
I would be interested in the evidence for any limitations that Emerson postulate for that “larger public self” (that would be analogous to the “higher laws” for which Thoreau agues in Walden.
But just to finish the point, I would say that the ambiguities that mynocturama sees opening up can become so overwhelming that they render any search for self-reliance into a self-consuming pursuit of a vague will-o-the-wisp with which Hawthorne and Melville are preoccupied.
mynocturama calls these problems of ambiguity and uncertainty “tricky and slippery.” I wonder if he would accept “naive” and “dangerous” as additional appropriate adjectives? To focus on the “natural self” as a universal ethical touchstone at the beginning of the 21st Century — after a entire century of nightmare killer regimes using “natural reason” or “natural humanity” as ethical rationales — raises, I would think, more problems than it resolves. Emerson would agree with Zeke’s statement, “at one’s most self reliant, one is least selfish,” but Lawrence Buell, at least, argues that Emerson’s writings (unlike those of Thoreau or Whitman) provide too little basis for distinguishing those two conditions.
Interest in Emerson’s ideas is widespread, and large segments of the American population gives unexamined credence to his proposals with little awareness that he advocated them. Nor do our contemporary citizens sense the difficulties for ethical or political action in the Emersonian observation that “the democrat is a young conservative; the conservative is an old democrat” (quoted and analyzed in Buell 84). In that formulation, we are all trapped on one end or another of a see-saw without liberty or personal independence, and Emerson’s famous call for “Whim” looks more like an epistemological sleight of hand than a fresh beginning.
It seems to me that we do need a different starting point from “self-reliance” as Emerson outlines it to serve as a ground for a future together.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
I think redding raises some interesting challenges. I have not read Buell, but Richardson helped me understand that the words self reliance and association are “equally charged.” Transcendentalism requires a simultaneous imperative for 1) the well being of the individual as the purpose of any social organization, and 2) recognition that autonomous individuals cannot exist aprart from others.
Thus, the individual is paramount. But the individual has no value in isolation. This sounds very much like quantum physics to me.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Anyone up for a Hawthorne discussion? Hyatt Waggoner described Emerson and Hawthorne as being the the two harbringers of the American Philosophy–both pulling in opposite directions.