Being true to oneself is certainly important, if honesty and integrity count for anything. "Know thyself' is much quoted good advice. I say "good" because one who does not, can never discover the native springs of his being. nor his inherited character, which are the key to his identity. And that key can lead to greater self-assurance and fortification against the world's Babel. I think the greatest truth about oneself one can learn is the cast of one's character. As you grow into your character--and this happens at different speeds--your personal history unfolds before you as all being of a piece, i.e., when you finally become fully conscious of your type, you for the first time see your whole past as a reflection of it. I've always been this but never knew it one says to oneself. It tells you your location in the human scale of historical types. It tells you to which family of beings you belong. I'm not sure this experience of growing into full self-awareness is common. I doubt parrots can ever know they're parrots for example. I suspect many live their whole lives through without ever learning who or what they were and are, in any kind of definitive way.
Truth is a very big word, covering a world of differing opinions as to what it is. For me personally, to regard anything as true, it must be based on fact that is knowable & to which it is possible to assign a definite character. My truth thus keeps within the limits of what I can observe and characterize, which means I like solid evidence better than imaginative speculation when addressing the topic of reality. I prefer having a case I can prove, to one based on anything that could be regarded as fictive. Whether there's an eternal entity such as Schopenhauer's "will to live" I can't know. All I can do is hope he's wrong about that.
Veritas odium parit observed Terence. It implies he possessed it. It's been said that most don't want to hear the truth, or hear about the real nature of things, about reality. I would say they're inclined to shun and shut their ears to it. I suspect that's because it puts no gloss on the quite visible picture.
I personally hope I belong to no particular 'family of beings'. Indeed I've spent my whole life desperately striving to make sure I don't. I say 'desperately' because there is a considerable plot afoot to make sure you are consigned to some particular gang or army. The Powers That Be find you so much easier to deal with then. So that effectively the real you can be ignored. But I'm damned if I'm going to live out other people's lies. I'm an individual, and that's the way God made me, and that's the way I'm going to live for him, and praise him. It should go without saying that in this endeavour I find poetry a considerable ally.
In the process of self-realisation poetry can play a supreme and even essential part. It holds the mirror up to one's soul like nothing else can. I look on it as a primary spiritual exercise. Such self-examination is an important part of maturation. Compared to it in this respect all the other arts are rather crude.
To be fair, it depends which poetry we’re talking about. A lot of poetry arguably doesn’t have that effect, unless of course one includes the caveat that poetry which fails to achieve this noble end lacks poetry per se.
Admittedly, Plato wasn’t wrong in observing that a lot of Greeks sought out poetry for its Dionysian effects ie its ability to elicit “altered states” and heightened emotional receptivity—without necessarily seeking out the “real thing.”
After all, Dionysus was ultimately the god of altered states, which encompassed both the trance-formational effects of wine and poetry (among other things). In its rightful place and best expression, that kind of experiential knowledge is healthy and desirable; in its worst iterations it’s something like frenzied crowds of Woodstock druggies lool.
Does Kubla Khan fit in agreeably with your altered-state phenomenology? Drugs can open up undiscovered corners of the mind, reveal vistas formerly unseen. Who knows, maybe laudanum could be the king of the muses.
Well, David, I'm talking about my own poetry. If other people want to use their own poetry to delude themselves and lead themselves - and others! - astray that's no concern of mine. (So long as I don't have to read it.)
As for other people's poetry, since I prefer to write honest poetry then naturally I prefer to read honest poetry. And the more honest it is the better I find it to be and the more I like it. Other things being equal.
However I tend to find that the more my conscious mind is focused on formal considerations the more my unconscious mind is set free. And so I am am continually surprised by myself. And so it really is a journey of self-discovery!
I think it would help if students were still assigned passages of authentic poetry to memorize. It would give them a superior criterion by which to judge both speech and thought. Since words are the medium of thought, it would have a salutary influence on their own thinking. If language standards were raised from the low level to which they've fallen, decent speech would be more common, and the public mind would accordingly be sharper and more critical. People would be equipped with a broader basis of comparison. But education today, in the US certainly, seems beyond recovery, due to various reasons, which have combined to prevent learning. Language is an important survival weapon in life, but most are being dispatched from schools unarmed with that critical weapon.
Thanks for resharing this essay! I thought the experience of the last five years was like the experience of the overly zealous boy. I shocked when I saw through the experts on TV. It was not knowledge I sought but it came to me unasked. I can imagine how it would drive you mad if you went searching for it.
I agree, and I know all too well what you are speaking of. Every time I read this poem, I think of the “experience of the last five years”, as you put it. Like you, I did not ask for this knowledge. At the beginning of 2020, I had this overwhelming feeling that something was dreadfully wrong and that all was not as it seemed. I was sixteen at the time. I had no real basis for this feeling at first, but everything I learned in the following months and years has only confirmed my initial gut feeling that something was horribly wrong.
I want to start out by saying that I really enjoyed this essay. “The Veiled Image at Sais” is my favorite Schiller poem. It certainly gives rise to some worthwhile reflections concerning truth and knowledge and the devastating consequences that having the wrong motives for possessing them can bring. David Gosselin correctly references the story of Adam and Eve in this context, but I would suggest that the story of Lucifer’s fall from Heaven is also illustrative of an impure desire to possess sacred knowledge. We are told that Lucifer wanted to be God and grew discontent with his status as an angel due to his pride.
I know that this wasn’t the purpose of the poem, but it also makes me think of how devastating it can be to have some dearly-held illusion shattered (figuratively speaking) before one’s eyes and to suddenly stand in the face of what may be a very ugly representation of reality.
I also enjoyed the numerous excerpts of Schiller’s lecture, “The Mission of Moses”, and I found his theory regarding Moses’ training in the Egyptian Mysteries to be very interesting. All the unknowns surrounding Moses’ years as the adopted son of Pharaoh’s daughter always fascinated me. There’s also some interesting theories out there about Judaism originating from Akhenaten’s abolishment of polytheism and the resulting institution of a monotheistic state religion, but that’s a discussion for another day.
Now, I mean no disrespect by any means, but I will have to be forgiven for expressing a few honest misgivings here. By way of a disclaimer, I am not an essayist myself. I have been asked by more than one person to consider writing literary essays, but I question the adequacy of my current writing skills for that task. So, I speak not as a writer but as a reader. If I’m going to be honest, I can’t help feeling that perhaps David has done himself a disservice by quoting Schiller almost incessantly throughout the duration of this essay. The essay begins with Schiller’s poem and David’s commentary on it. Then the rest of the essay consists predominately of quotes from Schiller’s lecture, with David only contributing a brief paragraph here and a single sentence there. As a reader, I personally think quotes from an established author ought to be used to support a writer’s argument or thesis, not to provide the backbone of it. For this reason, I fear that some would see this essay as being more akin to the work of a novice rather than the seasoned writer that David obviously is.
As for the heavy block quoting, my intention was to make the piece something of a translation double-feature. That way, people would get to really hear Schiller explore a theme not only poetically, but also in his historical essays. Each work offers its own unique set of insights on a broader theme animating Schiller's historical research and poetic compositions.
People know very little of Schiller, so this seemed like an opportunity for people to get to know him, and for me to stay out of the way. That was the thinking. Had the full Mission of Moses essay already been available, I would have admittedly held back a little on the heavy block quoting.
The full "Mission of Moses" study will be featured in the coming New Lyre spring 2025 issue.
Thank you for the response, David. I appreciate you clarifying and explaining all of that. Introducing new readers to Schiller’s historical studies as well as his poems is certainly a worthy endeavor. As for myself, I never so much as heard of Schiller before I came across your publications, and I reckon that is the case with most people. Germany has an unbelievably rich literary tradition to share with the rest of the world, but sadly, many tend to only associate Germany with the Nazism of the World War II era. Best of luck with the “Mission of Moses” translation!
There is a certain mysteriousness in many of the sayings of Jesus, but when you think them through they begin to make sense.
Actually paradox does lie at the heart of reality, as modern physics attests. And then there is Zen with its koans...
I find it difficult not to think of the Bible as an extended koan. One doesn't solve it with words, or even with actions, but with some sort of inner realisation. Or moment of insight, which cannot easily be put into words. So setting out to confuse people need not necessarily be an assertion of power, but an example of what the Buddhists call skillful means - Upaya. People are confused already. The sage is merely pointing this out to them as dramatically as possible.
Thank you... as a student of various mystery schools over the past 30 years or so, I can attest to a certain corruption of the process thru various iterations... but also to a certain truth of the oneness of life and the vastness of the creator... and always I return to my mosaic torah and prophets to integrate it into my understanding... though why I had never connected Moses as you have is a mystery to me!
Are you saying that the monotheism of Moses was derived from the Egyptians? But I thought the Egyptians had lots of gods! And weren't their Pharaohs gods? For whose tyranny Yahweh may have originally been conceived as some sort of antidote.
Did he claim consubstantiality with Aten, so to speak? I suspect his objectve was to consolidate power in his own person, and eliminate the authority of a priesthood standing in for an array of different gods. It may have been a power grab. Doubt he regarded himself as Aten incarnate, but who knows. All happened 3 and a half thousand years ago.
Being true to oneself is certainly important, if honesty and integrity count for anything. "Know thyself' is much quoted good advice. I say "good" because one who does not, can never discover the native springs of his being. nor his inherited character, which are the key to his identity. And that key can lead to greater self-assurance and fortification against the world's Babel. I think the greatest truth about oneself one can learn is the cast of one's character. As you grow into your character--and this happens at different speeds--your personal history unfolds before you as all being of a piece, i.e., when you finally become fully conscious of your type, you for the first time see your whole past as a reflection of it. I've always been this but never knew it one says to oneself. It tells you your location in the human scale of historical types. It tells you to which family of beings you belong. I'm not sure this experience of growing into full self-awareness is common. I doubt parrots can ever know they're parrots for example. I suspect many live their whole lives through without ever learning who or what they were and are, in any kind of definitive way.
Truth is a very big word, covering a world of differing opinions as to what it is. For me personally, to regard anything as true, it must be based on fact that is knowable & to which it is possible to assign a definite character. My truth thus keeps within the limits of what I can observe and characterize, which means I like solid evidence better than imaginative speculation when addressing the topic of reality. I prefer having a case I can prove, to one based on anything that could be regarded as fictive. Whether there's an eternal entity such as Schopenhauer's "will to live" I can't know. All I can do is hope he's wrong about that.
Veritas odium parit observed Terence. It implies he possessed it. It's been said that most don't want to hear the truth, or hear about the real nature of things, about reality. I would say they're inclined to shun and shut their ears to it. I suspect that's because it puts no gloss on the quite visible picture.
I personally hope I belong to no particular 'family of beings'. Indeed I've spent my whole life desperately striving to make sure I don't. I say 'desperately' because there is a considerable plot afoot to make sure you are consigned to some particular gang or army. The Powers That Be find you so much easier to deal with then. So that effectively the real you can be ignored. But I'm damned if I'm going to live out other people's lies. I'm an individual, and that's the way God made me, and that's the way I'm going to live for him, and praise him. It should go without saying that in this endeavour I find poetry a considerable ally.
I wasn't thinking of any currently living "family," I had in mind this or that figure in history with whom one's thinking might bear some kinship.
Yes. That sort of identification plays a great role in finding one's real self.
Or reflections of it, in others who may have seen things somewhat as you do.
In the process of self-realisation poetry can play a supreme and even essential part. It holds the mirror up to one's soul like nothing else can. I look on it as a primary spiritual exercise. Such self-examination is an important part of maturation. Compared to it in this respect all the other arts are rather crude.
To be fair, it depends which poetry we’re talking about. A lot of poetry arguably doesn’t have that effect, unless of course one includes the caveat that poetry which fails to achieve this noble end lacks poetry per se.
Admittedly, Plato wasn’t wrong in observing that a lot of Greeks sought out poetry for its Dionysian effects ie its ability to elicit “altered states” and heightened emotional receptivity—without necessarily seeking out the “real thing.”
After all, Dionysus was ultimately the god of altered states, which encompassed both the trance-formational effects of wine and poetry (among other things). In its rightful place and best expression, that kind of experiential knowledge is healthy and desirable; in its worst iterations it’s something like frenzied crowds of Woodstock druggies lool.
Does Kubla Khan fit in agreeably with your altered-state phenomenology? Drugs can open up undiscovered corners of the mind, reveal vistas formerly unseen. Who knows, maybe laudanum could be the king of the muses.
Well, David, I'm talking about my own poetry. If other people want to use their own poetry to delude themselves and lead themselves - and others! - astray that's no concern of mine. (So long as I don't have to read it.)
As for other people's poetry, since I prefer to write honest poetry then naturally I prefer to read honest poetry. And the more honest it is the better I find it to be and the more I like it. Other things being equal.
However I tend to find that the more my conscious mind is focused on formal considerations the more my unconscious mind is set free. And so I am am continually surprised by myself. And so it really is a journey of self-discovery!
I think it would help if students were still assigned passages of authentic poetry to memorize. It would give them a superior criterion by which to judge both speech and thought. Since words are the medium of thought, it would have a salutary influence on their own thinking. If language standards were raised from the low level to which they've fallen, decent speech would be more common, and the public mind would accordingly be sharper and more critical. People would be equipped with a broader basis of comparison. But education today, in the US certainly, seems beyond recovery, due to various reasons, which have combined to prevent learning. Language is an important survival weapon in life, but most are being dispatched from schools unarmed with that critical weapon.
Thanks for resharing this essay! I thought the experience of the last five years was like the experience of the overly zealous boy. I shocked when I saw through the experts on TV. It was not knowledge I sought but it came to me unasked. I can imagine how it would drive you mad if you went searching for it.
I agree, and I know all too well what you are speaking of. Every time I read this poem, I think of the “experience of the last five years”, as you put it. Like you, I did not ask for this knowledge. At the beginning of 2020, I had this overwhelming feeling that something was dreadfully wrong and that all was not as it seemed. I was sixteen at the time. I had no real basis for this feeling at first, but everything I learned in the following months and years has only confirmed my initial gut feeling that something was horribly wrong.
I want to start out by saying that I really enjoyed this essay. “The Veiled Image at Sais” is my favorite Schiller poem. It certainly gives rise to some worthwhile reflections concerning truth and knowledge and the devastating consequences that having the wrong motives for possessing them can bring. David Gosselin correctly references the story of Adam and Eve in this context, but I would suggest that the story of Lucifer’s fall from Heaven is also illustrative of an impure desire to possess sacred knowledge. We are told that Lucifer wanted to be God and grew discontent with his status as an angel due to his pride.
I know that this wasn’t the purpose of the poem, but it also makes me think of how devastating it can be to have some dearly-held illusion shattered (figuratively speaking) before one’s eyes and to suddenly stand in the face of what may be a very ugly representation of reality.
I also enjoyed the numerous excerpts of Schiller’s lecture, “The Mission of Moses”, and I found his theory regarding Moses’ training in the Egyptian Mysteries to be very interesting. All the unknowns surrounding Moses’ years as the adopted son of Pharaoh’s daughter always fascinated me. There’s also some interesting theories out there about Judaism originating from Akhenaten’s abolishment of polytheism and the resulting institution of a monotheistic state religion, but that’s a discussion for another day.
Now, I mean no disrespect by any means, but I will have to be forgiven for expressing a few honest misgivings here. By way of a disclaimer, I am not an essayist myself. I have been asked by more than one person to consider writing literary essays, but I question the adequacy of my current writing skills for that task. So, I speak not as a writer but as a reader. If I’m going to be honest, I can’t help feeling that perhaps David has done himself a disservice by quoting Schiller almost incessantly throughout the duration of this essay. The essay begins with Schiller’s poem and David’s commentary on it. Then the rest of the essay consists predominately of quotes from Schiller’s lecture, with David only contributing a brief paragraph here and a single sentence there. As a reader, I personally think quotes from an established author ought to be used to support a writer’s argument or thesis, not to provide the backbone of it. For this reason, I fear that some would see this essay as being more akin to the work of a novice rather than the seasoned writer that David obviously is.
Glad you enjoyed.
As for the heavy block quoting, my intention was to make the piece something of a translation double-feature. That way, people would get to really hear Schiller explore a theme not only poetically, but also in his historical essays. Each work offers its own unique set of insights on a broader theme animating Schiller's historical research and poetic compositions.
People know very little of Schiller, so this seemed like an opportunity for people to get to know him, and for me to stay out of the way. That was the thinking. Had the full Mission of Moses essay already been available, I would have admittedly held back a little on the heavy block quoting.
The full "Mission of Moses" study will be featured in the coming New Lyre spring 2025 issue.
Stay tuned for more...
Thank you for the response, David. I appreciate you clarifying and explaining all of that. Introducing new readers to Schiller’s historical studies as well as his poems is certainly a worthy endeavor. As for myself, I never so much as heard of Schiller before I came across your publications, and I reckon that is the case with most people. Germany has an unbelievably rich literary tradition to share with the rest of the world, but sadly, many tend to only associate Germany with the Nazism of the World War II era. Best of luck with the “Mission of Moses” translation!
There is a certain mysteriousness in many of the sayings of Jesus, but when you think them through they begin to make sense.
Actually paradox does lie at the heart of reality, as modern physics attests. And then there is Zen with its koans...
I find it difficult not to think of the Bible as an extended koan. One doesn't solve it with words, or even with actions, but with some sort of inner realisation. Or moment of insight, which cannot easily be put into words. So setting out to confuse people need not necessarily be an assertion of power, but an example of what the Buddhists call skillful means - Upaya. People are confused already. The sage is merely pointing this out to them as dramatically as possible.
Thank you... as a student of various mystery schools over the past 30 years or so, I can attest to a certain corruption of the process thru various iterations... but also to a certain truth of the oneness of life and the vastness of the creator... and always I return to my mosaic torah and prophets to integrate it into my understanding... though why I had never connected Moses as you have is a mystery to me!
Are you saying that the monotheism of Moses was derived from the Egyptians? But I thought the Egyptians had lots of gods! And weren't their Pharaohs gods? For whose tyranny Yahweh may have originally been conceived as some sort of antidote.
Akhenaten switched from poly- to mono- but after his death Egypt reverted to poly-.
Didn't Akhnaten worship himself?
Did he claim consubstantiality with Aten, so to speak? I suspect his objectve was to consolidate power in his own person, and eliminate the authority of a priesthood standing in for an array of different gods. It may have been a power grab. Doubt he regarded himself as Aten incarnate, but who knows. All happened 3 and a half thousand years ago.