What all of Emerson's essays have in
common is his affirmation of the
connection and relationship of the
individual with what he calls
Someone else might say “God.”
It's possible others would call it
Another: “the spirit of the whole.”
Or let's say, “the holy spirit”.
“Ghost,” if you like—“geist” or
“gist of the matter.”
“Do you enjoy a personal relationship
with Jesus Christ?” one might ask.
With Hermes? Mercury? Coyote?
Crow? Trickster? All representing
mediators, mediating wholes and
parts: this world and nether..
Socrates would wonder how well
you know and relate to your own
private Idios Daemon who guides
you through the valleys of the
shadows of death—paraklete-like.
And in olden days,
Poets prayed to the
MUSE to help
Football teams have been known to
pray before a game—to help them
play their best, if not win.
Is all this above the same deal?
of a common archetype?
Regional and local
variations on a
Or does each representation signify
something quite radically different?
[Vote: which team to you play for
SAMES or DIFFERENCES?
You must chose. One or the other.
IT makes all the difference in the
The nature of the relationship
of part and parts to the whole-which-is-
participants: that is the To Be or not
To Be Question. That is what Emerson’s
essays are all about. All of them.
Need we argue? (Of course. We must.
Or what’s a college for?)