|
|
|
 |
The following excerpt is from the chapter "On Symbolism" in "On Literature" by Umberto Eco.
"It makes a considerable difference whether the poet seeks the particular as a function of the universal or whether he sees the universal in the particular. In the first case we have allegory, where the particular is valid only as an example, as an emblem of the universal whereas in the second case the true nature of poetry is revealed: the particular case is expressed without thinking about the universal or alluding to it. Now whoever catches this living particular seizes at the same time the universal without realising it, or only realising it later --- Goethe."
P.S.: Spinoza expressed the same in philosophical terms: "Therefore we may never, while we are concerned with inquiries into actual things, draw any conclusions from abstractions; we shall be extremely careful not to confound that which is only in the understanding with that which is in the thing itself. The best basis for drawing a conclusion will be either some particular affirmative essence, or a true and legitimate definition. For the understanding cannot descend from universal axioms by themselves to particular things, since axioms are of infinite extent, and do not determine the understanding to contemplate one particular thing more than another. Thus the true method of discovery is to form thoughts from some given definition. This process will be more fruitful and easy in proportion as the thing be better defined." --- On the Improvement in Understanding (Treatise on Emendation of the Intellect).
P.P.S: The Buddha hinted at this problem in recollection of his own personal experience in the Tapussa Sutta (To Tapussa) (translation from Pali to English by Thanissaro Bhikkhu): "Even I myself, before my Awakening, when I was still an unawakened Bodhisatta, thought: 'Renunciation is good, seclusion is good.' But my heart didn't leap up at renunciation, didn't grow confident, steadfast, or firm, seeing it as peace. The thought occured to me: 'What is the cause, what is the reason, why my heart doesn't leap up at renunciation, doesn't grow confident, steadfast, or firm, seeing it as peace?' Then the thought occured to me: 'I haven't seen the drawback of sensual pleasures; I haven't pursued [that theme]. I haven't understood the reward of renunciation; I haven't familiarized myself with it. That's why my heart doesn't leap up at renunciation, doesn't grow confident, steadfast, or firm, seeing it as peace.' [emphasis added]
Note the words in italics: seen, pursued, understood, familiarized. The Buddha obviously didn't mean intellectually seeing, pursuing, understanding or familiarizing. It is safe to infer that he meant 'seeing through experiencing'. And that experience meant experience of the particular, first and foremost.
If all of the above are viewed from a pedagogical perspective, the current methods of teaching leave a lot to be desired. Pity, the student is meant to accept the universals and fit his entire life experience within those.
| |
|