Kaboom!
Alas, the end has arrived. I am glad we had this whole blog session. Once in a while one needs an "intelligent" conversation otherwise, the brains rot due to the extreme idiotic radiation exposed from daily life. T.O. is a simple and indeed, at the same time, a very complex and deep question which is one of the many questions that make up of the all-grand one. "Why are we here?"
Though "redemption" has a highly significant religious power behind it, due to the fact that we hear of it so often in relevance to it, it is a universal desire. An apology for accidentally knocking into someone can be considered redemption, not only trying to make up for a criminal intent, (though the person who you just knocked into might sue you.... crazy liberals.) To redem one's self is just another part of T.O. like Tom, who is trying to redem himself. Whether or not Tom would've redemmed himself if he had the chance is another question, but the fact of wanting, the burning ambition, and the mind set of him trying to redem himself is inadvertly affecting all those around him. His act of leadership can be looked as a selfish action when considered that the only reason he leads is because of the desire, but aren't everyone selfish? I volunteer at the Foothills hospital and the true first reason was to look good on my resume, but after my obligation was over, I worked even 10 hour shifts during the summer because I felt satisfied that I can do some good. Though it helps out the hospital and all those associated with it, the true beneficiary of the stunt was me.
So, redemption of one's self is just another example of many regarding T.O. Perhaps, because of the selfish desires of people wanting to satisfy themselves which in turn help others, T.O. can help answer the big daddy, "Why are we here?"
GST IS NOT INCLUDED IN BLOG
*BLOGS SUBJECT TO CHANGE
XD
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Emerson on Literature
Seeing as how this will likely be my last post, I thought that I'd close with a quote by Ralph
Waldo Emerson, the father of T.O. himself. It runs- "In the highest civilization, the book is still the highest delight. He who has once known its satisfaction is provided with a resource against calamity."
This really illustrates what The Grapes of Wrath is all about. Literature one of the purest forms of communication, and it seems obvious that both Emerson and Steinbeck placed an extremely high value on the written word. It is thus fitting that Grapes has become likely the most well known example of T.O. in literature.
That's all I'm likely to have time to put in today, and I believe that the blog is due in tomorrow. It's a shame that we didn't have much time to post in the last week, but we still touched on some good topics.
Waldo Emerson, the father of T.O. himself. It runs- "In the highest civilization, the book is still the highest delight. He who has once known its satisfaction is provided with a resource against calamity."
This really illustrates what The Grapes of Wrath is all about. Literature one of the purest forms of communication, and it seems obvious that both Emerson and Steinbeck placed an extremely high value on the written word. It is thus fitting that Grapes has become likely the most well known example of T.O. in literature.
That's all I'm likely to have time to put in today, and I believe that the blog is due in tomorrow. It's a shame that we didn't have much time to post in the last week, but we still touched on some good topics.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
A Quote- More on Reiligion
While flipping through Grapes of Wrath, I stumbled across a seemingly incidental quote
that nevertheless got me thinking about T.O., religion, and those folks that seem most united by T.O. (the migrants searching for work).
The quote is on page 207, when a man looking for work says "Runnin' a furrow four miles long that ain't stoppin' or goin' aroun ' Jesus Christ Hisself" In context, I took this to mean that the new industry has no respect for the old ways, nor does it have any respect for Jesus Christ. On the other hand the Joads, and other migrant workers like them, seem to have an often unspoken respect for religion, especially individuals such as Jesus Christ. This isn't a fanatical devotion to religion, nor is it a complete renunciation of it, but it is there, inherent, and accepted. Basically, they have a healthy appreciation of religion, which unites them.
This is a bit of a stretch, but I think that it stands. Let's keep up the posts on T.O. and religion, they're quite interesting.
that nevertheless got me thinking about T.O., religion, and those folks that seem most united by T.O. (the migrants searching for work).
The quote is on page 207, when a man looking for work says "Runnin' a furrow four miles long that ain't stoppin' or goin' aroun ' Jesus Christ Hisself" In context, I took this to mean that the new industry has no respect for the old ways, nor does it have any respect for Jesus Christ. On the other hand the Joads, and other migrant workers like them, seem to have an often unspoken respect for religion, especially individuals such as Jesus Christ. This isn't a fanatical devotion to religion, nor is it a complete renunciation of it, but it is there, inherent, and accepted. Basically, they have a healthy appreciation of religion, which unites them.
This is a bit of a stretch, but I think that it stands. Let's keep up the posts on T.O. and religion, they're quite interesting.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Mini post
This is just a mini post, hopefully to spur on some more conversation, and discussion.
Since the whole religion aspect of the book seems to have a direct influence on T.O. I think we should explore it.
First of all, the Jesus Christ - John Casy parallel. We've heard some examples of his parallels, I have read some of the bible, and the most familiar part to me (and to most people I think) is the part where Jesus sacrifices himself for the sins of the others. There is almost an exact parallel to this in Grapes of Wrath, the part in Hooverville, where the police officer comes and starts trouble with the "contractor". Casy takes the fall for the trouble, he sacrifices himself for the good of the Joad family, and the whole encampment.
Let's hear what you guys think on the religious aspect of Grapes of Wrath, and it's connection to T.O.
Since the whole religion aspect of the book seems to have a direct influence on T.O. I think we should explore it.
First of all, the Jesus Christ - John Casy parallel. We've heard some examples of his parallels, I have read some of the bible, and the most familiar part to me (and to most people I think) is the part where Jesus sacrifices himself for the sins of the others. There is almost an exact parallel to this in Grapes of Wrath, the part in Hooverville, where the police officer comes and starts trouble with the "contractor". Casy takes the fall for the trouble, he sacrifices himself for the good of the Joad family, and the whole encampment.
Let's hear what you guys think on the religious aspect of Grapes of Wrath, and it's connection to T.O.
The REAL Last Post
Hey!
T.O. has been a great topic for this novel, just because it's all it's talking about. After reading all your posts, I can only say that my first statement is solid as ever.
As Tom leads the group, it seems that he does not think about himself, rather the men and women he leads. I think that it is however, false. I think he feels the need to redeem himself, he has had some harsh times and to fit back in, Tom uses his past to contribute to the group. He wants to achieve some spiritual good in himself, so I believe, that is why he has taken the grand task of leading his people. When he leads them, the people also see in him a desire. Perhaps not all of them know his true desires, but the strong, solid desire inspires and allows them to move on. Though they may have different goals, they all have the same desire to do something, there for bonding them. Just as humans in real life has.
World War 2 is just another example, countries bonded together to fight their enemies, but then if you think about it, they all have the same desire to defeat the other party, there for not only connecting those countries who are allied, but connecting them to the enemy. There was a TV movie on Global that used to play every Christmas, or Christmas eve, called "Silent Night," (http://imdb.com/title/tt0338434/). It's a fact-based World War II story set on Christmas Eve, 1944, where we find a German Mother and her son seeking refuge in a cabin on the war front. When she is invaded by three American soldiers and then three German soldiers, she successfully convinces the soldiers to put aside their differences for one evening and share a Christmas dinner. We may get the impression that the two sides may have hated each other, but the two sides are basically the same. In that movie, you can see that both the Americans and Germans have same interests, hobbies, and even sing together depite the fact they are on the opposite sides in the bloodiest war of Earth's history. A true sign of T.O.
I highly suggest watching the movie.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0032551/
I've seen it when I was around eleven years old, but even then, the movie had a huge impact on me. It may sound funny, but I always get flash back to certain scenes of the movie during my life like a Deja-vu. I can't name any the top of my head, but when you guys get a chance, you have a feeling that you can't help thinking it's some how directly related with you, forming sort of a bond.
T.O. has been a great topic for this novel, just because it's all it's talking about. After reading all your posts, I can only say that my first statement is solid as ever.
As Tom leads the group, it seems that he does not think about himself, rather the men and women he leads. I think that it is however, false. I think he feels the need to redeem himself, he has had some harsh times and to fit back in, Tom uses his past to contribute to the group. He wants to achieve some spiritual good in himself, so I believe, that is why he has taken the grand task of leading his people. When he leads them, the people also see in him a desire. Perhaps not all of them know his true desires, but the strong, solid desire inspires and allows them to move on. Though they may have different goals, they all have the same desire to do something, there for bonding them. Just as humans in real life has.
World War 2 is just another example, countries bonded together to fight their enemies, but then if you think about it, they all have the same desire to defeat the other party, there for not only connecting those countries who are allied, but connecting them to the enemy. There was a TV movie on Global that used to play every Christmas, or Christmas eve, called "Silent Night," (http://imdb.com/title/tt0338434/). It's a fact-based World War II story set on Christmas Eve, 1944, where we find a German Mother and her son seeking refuge in a cabin on the war front. When she is invaded by three American soldiers and then three German soldiers, she successfully convinces the soldiers to put aside their differences for one evening and share a Christmas dinner. We may get the impression that the two sides may have hated each other, but the two sides are basically the same. In that movie, you can see that both the Americans and Germans have same interests, hobbies, and even sing together depite the fact they are on the opposite sides in the bloodiest war of Earth's history. A true sign of T.O.
I highly suggest watching the movie.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0032551/
I've seen it when I was around eleven years old, but even then, the movie had a huge impact on me. It may sound funny, but I always get flash back to certain scenes of the movie during my life like a Deja-vu. I can't name any the top of my head, but when you guys get a chance, you have a feeling that you can't help thinking it's some how directly related with you, forming sort of a bond.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Last Post
This will likely be my last post, so I'll try to keep it short and not bring up a dozen new topics at the last minute.
In regards to Sam's recent comments, I have to say that I hadn't connected Tom's plain speaking manner to T.O.. I don't however think that Tom necessarily says what everyone is thinking, but does in fact say what is beneficial to others, and therefore to the greater good. For example, Tom, like the rest of the Joad family never tells Rose of Sharon that Connie has left her. This is likely because, given the difficulties the Joad family was having, this truth was simply unnecessary and would not have helped anyone. When the truth has the ability to directly help someone, and in turn help the health of the oversoul, Tom tells the truth when others might not (as with the one-eyed man). I do also belive that Tom is one of the greatest examples of the strength of T.O.. Most everything he does within the scope of the novel is motivated by a desire to ameliorate the greater good of a group. This first applies to the Joad family, and when he can no longer help them, he leaves to aid others in need ( the whole "wherever there's a..." speech).
Even though it's rather obvious, I'll also mention the fact that Rose of Sharon becomes an individual who is greatly representative of T.O.. I am of course referring to the final act of the novel in which she breast feeds the starving man. this is truly an example of selflessness and devotion to humanity.
Kevin also seems to have hit on an excellent point in saying that suffering has a great potential to unite humanity. After all, those individuals in Grapes of Wrath who often seem to work against the concept of T.O. are those who are rich and complacent, such as the owners of the fruit farms. These individuals likely never knew any strife, and therefore cannot comprehend the situation of the less fortunate, or why they should feel compassion for them. in a social context, this is probably one of the novel's greatest messages.
Well, that's it. It's a shame we didn't have the time to more fully explore the idea of T.O. in Grapes, but I do think that we hit on many good ideas in our discussion.
In regards to Sam's recent comments, I have to say that I hadn't connected Tom's plain speaking manner to T.O.. I don't however think that Tom necessarily says what everyone is thinking, but does in fact say what is beneficial to others, and therefore to the greater good. For example, Tom, like the rest of the Joad family never tells Rose of Sharon that Connie has left her. This is likely because, given the difficulties the Joad family was having, this truth was simply unnecessary and would not have helped anyone. When the truth has the ability to directly help someone, and in turn help the health of the oversoul, Tom tells the truth when others might not (as with the one-eyed man). I do also belive that Tom is one of the greatest examples of the strength of T.O.. Most everything he does within the scope of the novel is motivated by a desire to ameliorate the greater good of a group. This first applies to the Joad family, and when he can no longer help them, he leaves to aid others in need ( the whole "wherever there's a..." speech).
Even though it's rather obvious, I'll also mention the fact that Rose of Sharon becomes an individual who is greatly representative of T.O.. I am of course referring to the final act of the novel in which she breast feeds the starving man. this is truly an example of selflessness and devotion to humanity.
Kevin also seems to have hit on an excellent point in saying that suffering has a great potential to unite humanity. After all, those individuals in Grapes of Wrath who often seem to work against the concept of T.O. are those who are rich and complacent, such as the owners of the fruit farms. These individuals likely never knew any strife, and therefore cannot comprehend the situation of the less fortunate, or why they should feel compassion for them. in a social context, this is probably one of the novel's greatest messages.
Well, that's it. It's a shame we didn't have the time to more fully explore the idea of T.O. in Grapes, but I do think that we hit on many good ideas in our discussion.
POW RIGHT IN THE KISSER
Howdy,
I know this is ridiculous, but this is my first real post for this blog. Since I missed over a week of school, I had so much work to catch up over the past week staying up all the time, but that's no excuse.
Wow. I have read Grapes of Wrath a few years back and barely remember seeing a movie in regards to this novel, but when I read it this time, Amazing. Now, I have read so called "Great Novels," such as Crime and Punishment and Leaves of Grass, but they were all boring. Sure, a lot of philosophy was adapted into those novels, but Grapes of Wrath has not only of philosophy, but relevance to one's life, a sense of excitement and most importantly, a sense of realism. One of those relevancy is the infamous T.O.
Transcendental over soul, is a repeated concept in Grapes of Wrath which is plainly hard to ignore all throughout the book, but particularly on page, 26, "it's love... love people so much I'm fit to bust..." And True Dat. This whole book is about love, love to your family, and how far each person is going to go for it. At first, after reading some one's previous post, I thought that family was an excellent topic to barge in with. Then I thought, now days, family isn't what it used to be. For instance, it was always family first, family business, family love, or maybe it was just an Italian thing. While Grapes of Wrath has insane levels of love shared between the family members, in the modern times, all we hear on the news is "Husband kills Wife over Love Affair," "Wife Runs Away with Children to Lebanon." I hope the reason why we hear mostly about negative aspects of human lives rather than "good," is that's what media companies think is interesting.
Personally, I believe there is more good on this Earth than bad, but whenever we hear bad things, we tend to remember much more of it, thousand times more. I think most families have good intentions, and "... so much [love] [they're] fit to burst," but then what makes families in the past so much different from the "now?" Let's take the Great Depression. Like the Joads family, everyone has had a terrible time and is now heading to California. They have one dream. The families he lead all merge, in their hearts, all the children seems to be every one's children, and the dream to find a safe haven, is their one dream.
So, from what I understand, it seems when the world was in more peril, more people seem to bond. Just like during the tsunami disaster in South-East Asia, billions of donations poured in from around the world, whether it was political, or whether it was just humane, people united eventually to try to get those victims literally, out of the water and on their feet.
As to religion, many of you stated that religion is not a factor in T.O. but I think otherwise, while I am not a religious man myself, my grandparents on my mother's side are Super Catholics, and my dad's side is Uber Buddhists. Though both religions promote peace and well being a like, just because the other party is promoting peace and well being in different ways, they will tear at each other's throats. There for, religion is a definite no-no subject in my household, so I don't believe in one. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be religion. Spiritually is what some folks were saying that leads people to the ultimate T.O., but if you look at society, so many people rely, if not enslaved (perhaps too strong of a word), to religion for their spiritual guidance. So, religion is a nessecity in this very Earth an even though it divides us, it unites us, because we are all looking for the same thing, "hope for the best."
So in order for us, humans, to become more "peaceful" and "united," there has to be more disasters, perils, and division among us.
Have a nice day,
P.S. I haven't re-read my post over yet, I'll do it later in the evening when I get my thirty pages of Chem done. I'll post another one.
psst...I have made comments... Let's "discuss." =D
I know this is ridiculous, but this is my first real post for this blog. Since I missed over a week of school, I had so much work to catch up over the past week staying up all the time, but that's no excuse.
Wow. I have read Grapes of Wrath a few years back and barely remember seeing a movie in regards to this novel, but when I read it this time, Amazing. Now, I have read so called "Great Novels," such as Crime and Punishment and Leaves of Grass, but they were all boring. Sure, a lot of philosophy was adapted into those novels, but Grapes of Wrath has not only of philosophy, but relevance to one's life, a sense of excitement and most importantly, a sense of realism. One of those relevancy is the infamous T.O.
Transcendental over soul, is a repeated concept in Grapes of Wrath which is plainly hard to ignore all throughout the book, but particularly on page, 26, "it's love... love people so much I'm fit to bust..." And True Dat. This whole book is about love, love to your family, and how far each person is going to go for it. At first, after reading some one's previous post, I thought that family was an excellent topic to barge in with. Then I thought, now days, family isn't what it used to be. For instance, it was always family first, family business, family love, or maybe it was just an Italian thing. While Grapes of Wrath has insane levels of love shared between the family members, in the modern times, all we hear on the news is "Husband kills Wife over Love Affair," "Wife Runs Away with Children to Lebanon." I hope the reason why we hear mostly about negative aspects of human lives rather than "good," is that's what media companies think is interesting.
Personally, I believe there is more good on this Earth than bad, but whenever we hear bad things, we tend to remember much more of it, thousand times more. I think most families have good intentions, and "... so much [love] [they're] fit to burst," but then what makes families in the past so much different from the "now?" Let's take the Great Depression. Like the Joads family, everyone has had a terrible time and is now heading to California. They have one dream. The families he lead all merge, in their hearts, all the children seems to be every one's children, and the dream to find a safe haven, is their one dream.
So, from what I understand, it seems when the world was in more peril, more people seem to bond. Just like during the tsunami disaster in South-East Asia, billions of donations poured in from around the world, whether it was political, or whether it was just humane, people united eventually to try to get those victims literally, out of the water and on their feet.
As to religion, many of you stated that religion is not a factor in T.O. but I think otherwise, while I am not a religious man myself, my grandparents on my mother's side are Super Catholics, and my dad's side is Uber Buddhists. Though both religions promote peace and well being a like, just because the other party is promoting peace and well being in different ways, they will tear at each other's throats. There for, religion is a definite no-no subject in my household, so I don't believe in one. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be religion. Spiritually is what some folks were saying that leads people to the ultimate T.O., but if you look at society, so many people rely, if not enslaved (perhaps too strong of a word), to religion for their spiritual guidance. So, religion is a nessecity in this very Earth an even though it divides us, it unites us, because we are all looking for the same thing, "hope for the best."
So in order for us, humans, to become more "peaceful" and "united," there has to be more disasters, perils, and division among us.
Have a nice day,
P.S. I haven't re-read my post over yet, I'll do it later in the evening when I get my thirty pages of Chem done. I'll post another one.
psst...I have made comments... Let's "discuss." =D
I'm Back
Sorry about the amount of time that has elapsed csince my last post, I couldn't log on, and then I had to wait for Andrew to invite me again. But now I'm back.
Now I have plenty to say to, I read Ryan's last post and it seems to me to that our topic (T.O.) is mostly concerned with the "inter"chapters. The chapters that seem not to have anything to do with the actual story, but therein lies the rub. They have everything to do with the story, they have to do with the atmosphere and the mood of the people living along the path westward, Ryan mentioned the car salesman, and Mae the waitress, but I'd like to mention chapter 17 whichi to me is the most T.O.'d chapter in the whole book.
Chapter 17 is all about the life of the travelers, and their tent towns all along the highway, It has to do with their unwritten codes and laws. To me this is exactly the meaning of T.O., because T.O. is the interconnectiveness (I think thats a word) of everybody and these unwritten codes symbolizes that everybody is connected and that everybody must respect these laws, even though nobody has come right out and said they have to. They all just sort of felt that it was the right set of rules to abide by, and this idea that they all silently agreed on what the rules should be is T.O., a connection between them all.
Okay since I haven't posted in a while, I'll start a new thread of discussion right before monday. What do you guys think of Tom Joad, or any of the other characters in terms of T.O.?
I think that the most significant character, in terms of T.O. is Noah. Because his whole life he's lived as a loner, he knows he's bizarre. He feels that he's not apart of the T.O. , he doesn't feel connected to the rest of his family, or even to anyone else. In terms of T.O. Noah is almost excluded. If Noah is excluded from T.O., then Tom is the symbolic voice to T.O.. Tom always seems to say just what everybody is thinking, and he seems to be the person that is always doing what is neccessary. If T.O. had a voice it would be Tom Joads voice, because T.O. would want to say all the things that everybody thinks, but never says. A good example of this quality in Tom is when he and Al go to the one-eyed junker man for a con-rod. Tom comes right out and says just what every other person who's met the one-eyed was thinking, but was too afraid to say it.
So there the have it, there's my insight for the day.
Now I have plenty to say to, I read Ryan's last post and it seems to me to that our topic (T.O.) is mostly concerned with the "inter"chapters. The chapters that seem not to have anything to do with the actual story, but therein lies the rub. They have everything to do with the story, they have to do with the atmosphere and the mood of the people living along the path westward, Ryan mentioned the car salesman, and Mae the waitress, but I'd like to mention chapter 17 whichi to me is the most T.O.'d chapter in the whole book.
Chapter 17 is all about the life of the travelers, and their tent towns all along the highway, It has to do with their unwritten codes and laws. To me this is exactly the meaning of T.O., because T.O. is the interconnectiveness (I think thats a word) of everybody and these unwritten codes symbolizes that everybody is connected and that everybody must respect these laws, even though nobody has come right out and said they have to. They all just sort of felt that it was the right set of rules to abide by, and this idea that they all silently agreed on what the rules should be is T.O., a connection between them all.
Okay since I haven't posted in a while, I'll start a new thread of discussion right before monday. What do you guys think of Tom Joad, or any of the other characters in terms of T.O.?
I think that the most significant character, in terms of T.O. is Noah. Because his whole life he's lived as a loner, he knows he's bizarre. He feels that he's not apart of the T.O. , he doesn't feel connected to the rest of his family, or even to anyone else. In terms of T.O. Noah is almost excluded. If Noah is excluded from T.O., then Tom is the symbolic voice to T.O.. Tom always seems to say just what everybody is thinking, and he seems to be the person that is always doing what is neccessary. If T.O. had a voice it would be Tom Joads voice, because T.O. would want to say all the things that everybody thinks, but never says. A good example of this quality in Tom is when he and Al go to the one-eyed junker man for a con-rod. Tom comes right out and says just what every other person who's met the one-eyed was thinking, but was too afraid to say it.
So there the have it, there's my insight for the day.
More on Characters and T.O.
Seeing as how we don't have much time to wrap up this blog, I'll add a bit to the discussion of how various characters represent T.O., focusing on some seemingly secondary characters in the novel.
Firstly, we have the used car saleman. He appears primarily in the seventh chapter, and seems to be a representation of a capitalist of the type that would have been becoming prominent at the time Grapes of Wrath was written. He is concerned exclusively with his job, and does not think twice of exploiting others for his own profit. The impersonality of this character is increased by the fact that he thinks more about cars than other individuals. Evidently, this is not in line with the concept of T.O.. I believe however, that the car salesman is a demonstration of how not acting for a greater good, separates one from the unity of the oversoul, and brings misery. We must ask ourselves, is the salesman contented in any way? He comes off as being quite stressed and isolated. His concern with material wealth has separated him from his fellow man. In a way this is characteristic of mankind's fall from the Golden Age into an era dominated by a damned desire of having.
At the other end of the spectrum is Mae waitress, who has her moment in the sun in chapter 15.
She expresses concern for others, particularly the downtrodden families heading to California. Although she is to a certain degree concerned with profitability (she will after all have to exist in the increasingly capitalist/materialist world), she ultimately is a benefactor to the less fortunate, selling them bread and candy for much less than its actual value. We also see that she is quite content in the company of those who enter her shop, and even looks forward to having people come in. This is obviously a character wo is very much in line with the idea of being part of an oversoul, and has achieved a state of grace because of it.
Ultimately, I think that these characters make a primarily social commentary. They illustrate how modern society can isolate one from the oversoul, and how this generally leads to stress and unhappiness. I'll try to get at least one more post up before the day is out.
P.S.: Shall we set a deadline for posting? If so, what time should it be?
Firstly, we have the used car saleman. He appears primarily in the seventh chapter, and seems to be a representation of a capitalist of the type that would have been becoming prominent at the time Grapes of Wrath was written. He is concerned exclusively with his job, and does not think twice of exploiting others for his own profit. The impersonality of this character is increased by the fact that he thinks more about cars than other individuals. Evidently, this is not in line with the concept of T.O.. I believe however, that the car salesman is a demonstration of how not acting for a greater good, separates one from the unity of the oversoul, and brings misery. We must ask ourselves, is the salesman contented in any way? He comes off as being quite stressed and isolated. His concern with material wealth has separated him from his fellow man. In a way this is characteristic of mankind's fall from the Golden Age into an era dominated by a damned desire of having.
At the other end of the spectrum is Mae waitress, who has her moment in the sun in chapter 15.
She expresses concern for others, particularly the downtrodden families heading to California. Although she is to a certain degree concerned with profitability (she will after all have to exist in the increasingly capitalist/materialist world), she ultimately is a benefactor to the less fortunate, selling them bread and candy for much less than its actual value. We also see that she is quite content in the company of those who enter her shop, and even looks forward to having people come in. This is obviously a character wo is very much in line with the idea of being part of an oversoul, and has achieved a state of grace because of it.
Ultimately, I think that these characters make a primarily social commentary. They illustrate how modern society can isolate one from the oversoul, and how this generally leads to stress and unhappiness. I'll try to get at least one more post up before the day is out.
P.S.: Shall we set a deadline for posting? If so, what time should it be?
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
More on T.O and Religion
I've found an interesting quote that continues on the theme of religion, and to me suggests (as Andrew did) the possibility of a T.O that is religious. "Jesus said, "Whereever two or more are gathered together, I am in their midst
"Jesus said, "Wherever two or more are gathered together, I am in their midst." Jesus said this because wherever two or more are gathered together, there is communion, there is language, there is imagination, there is God. God is a product of a creative imagination, and God is that imagination taken flight." (The full lecture this was taken from can be found here: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=891845&lastnode_id=0 )
I think that this statement summarizes rather well the religious potential of T.O., proposing that God is not necessarily an individual entity, but humanity itself (althogh I'm certain you could interpret this differently). The lecture also places an emphasis on the importance of language and communication. This gains in relevance when one considers that Steinbeck said during his Nobel Prize acceptance speech that "Literature is as old as speech. It grew out of human need for it and it has not changed except to become more needed.". The rest of this speech as well as other sources suggest that Steinbeck placed a immense value on communication and literature. Could the importance of speech and communication be intrinsic to the idea of T.O. in Grapes ?
Casy, the greatest interpreter of T.O. in the novel also seems to suggest this. He spends time isolated from society, hoping to find himself. His conclusion is that he must return to society, as he does by joining the Joad family. This necessitates a move from introspection to open communication with others. Also, a lack of communication between individuals is what creates many of the conflicts between individuals in Grapes.
In brief, I think that proper communication is indeed necesary to the idea of an oversoul. Furthermore, I agree with Andrew that T.O. could be a religious force, but not of the type we traditionally associate with religion.
P.S.: Sorry for not commenting more on the various characters, and how they represent T.O.. I'll try to get to it tomorrow.
P.P.S.: Has anyone found any images that illustrate the concept of T.O.?
"Jesus said, "Wherever two or more are gathered together, I am in their midst." Jesus said this because wherever two or more are gathered together, there is communion, there is language, there is imagination, there is God. God is a product of a creative imagination, and God is that imagination taken flight." (The full lecture this was taken from can be found here: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=891845&lastnode_id=0 )
I think that this statement summarizes rather well the religious potential of T.O., proposing that God is not necessarily an individual entity, but humanity itself (althogh I'm certain you could interpret this differently). The lecture also places an emphasis on the importance of language and communication. This gains in relevance when one considers that Steinbeck said during his Nobel Prize acceptance speech that "Literature is as old as speech. It grew out of human need for it and it has not changed except to become more needed.". The rest of this speech as well as other sources suggest that Steinbeck placed a immense value on communication and literature. Could the importance of speech and communication be intrinsic to the idea of T.O. in Grapes ?
Casy, the greatest interpreter of T.O. in the novel also seems to suggest this. He spends time isolated from society, hoping to find himself. His conclusion is that he must return to society, as he does by joining the Joad family. This necessitates a move from introspection to open communication with others. Also, a lack of communication between individuals is what creates many of the conflicts between individuals in Grapes.
In brief, I think that proper communication is indeed necesary to the idea of an oversoul. Furthermore, I agree with Andrew that T.O. could be a religious force, but not of the type we traditionally associate with religion.
P.S.: Sorry for not commenting more on the various characters, and how they represent T.O.. I'll try to get to it tomorrow.
P.P.S.: Has anyone found any images that illustrate the concept of T.O.?
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Character meanings
An interesting thought just struck me. If organized religion divides humanity, then what does that mean about our good fellow JC? (John Casy, aka: Jesus Christ) Well, we can see when we begin the novel that he is a preacher, and not a terribly good one. You could say that his soul was divided, in much the same way that religion divides humanity so too does the religion of one man divide him. Over the course of the book Jim becomes disillusioned and lost, eventually he finds himself and leads and unifies the migrant workers.
Now is the question, was this intentional?
Was Steinbeck trying to tell us that if religion could just change, then instead of being a dividing force it could be unifying? Granted that Jim underwent a pretty radical change, but it was also a parallel to Jesus' own life. Maybe he means that Jesus was always a unifying force, but after he died(permenantly), his image became less and less powerful?
This is a really interesting line for me, I'm gonna look up Steinbeck's past for my next post and see if I can figure anything out from that.
PS: Sorry for the delay, had a crazy busy weekend. Regionals on friday, model UN saturday and Sunday as well as my tutoring job on sunday.
PPS: I had planned on refuting some of Sam's preamble but I'm way too tired now, 'night all.
Now is the question, was this intentional?
Was Steinbeck trying to tell us that if religion could just change, then instead of being a dividing force it could be unifying? Granted that Jim underwent a pretty radical change, but it was also a parallel to Jesus' own life. Maybe he means that Jesus was always a unifying force, but after he died(permenantly), his image became less and less powerful?
This is a really interesting line for me, I'm gonna look up Steinbeck's past for my next post and see if I can figure anything out from that.
PS: Sorry for the delay, had a crazy busy weekend. Regionals on friday, model UN saturday and Sunday as well as my tutoring job on sunday.
PPS: I had planned on refuting some of Sam's preamble but I'm way too tired now, 'night all.
Characters, and How They Represent T.O.
Seeing as how there haven't been any new posts in a while, I thought that I would ask a question to get things going.
Different characters in The Grapes of Wrath seem to reaffirm the concept of T.O., or present different aspects of it. Some, like Ma Joad embody the concept of the necessity of unity and the strength that can be found in it. On the other end of the spectrum Noah and Connie set off on their own, shunning the group. These two characters are simply never heard from again and are not cast in a postive light by the rest of the Joad family. Anyhow, what do you all think of these and other characters as they relate to T.O. in the novel?
Different characters in The Grapes of Wrath seem to reaffirm the concept of T.O., or present different aspects of it. Some, like Ma Joad embody the concept of the necessity of unity and the strength that can be found in it. On the other end of the spectrum Noah and Connie set off on their own, shunning the group. These two characters are simply never heard from again and are not cast in a postive light by the rest of the Joad family. Anyhow, what do you all think of these and other characters as they relate to T.O. in the novel?
Thursday, February 22, 2007
More on T.O.
Hello again.
Many new posts here, almost all to do with the meaning of T.O. I can't say that I am convinved by some of the apparently physics driven explanations of T.O. that Andrew has presented- specifically the alteration of particulate placement by the mental focus of goodwill. This is likely due to a personal bias against such seemingly abstract concepts, but I simply have a hard time believing that the effort of one or many minds can directly alter the state of matter through thought alone, no matter how linked they are. Rather, I tend to think of T.O. , especially in the context of The Grapes of Wrath, more as something that can be manifested in the physical world by the unison of many people and the changes that they effectuate through honest, hard labor. In other words, in the mere ability to unite, people demonstrate a link and ability to work together towards changing their environment if they choose.
I'll also add my voice to those who have stated that T.O. can be, a spiritual concept rather than a religious one. I do however question how T.O. does relate to religion in The Grapes of Wrath. At what point do religion and this theory of an oversoul meet, and are they compatible? I've already mentioned that religion seems to drive a wedge between into the supposed oversoul of man by creating barriers between men. This is apparent in The Grapes of Wrath in the government camp, where the religious "fundamentalists" create dissension in an otherwise contented community. It can however be said that the oversoul is not incompatible with the idea of an organised religion, but actually with religion as it is commonly perceived and perpetuated by man. In simpler terms, The Grapes of Wrath seems to imply that most organized religions are in some form corrupt, and turn man away from his natural state of unity with his brothers.
That's all for now. I have some further ideas on the subject, but those already presented are confused enough as it is, so I'll try to organise them before I post them here.
Many new posts here, almost all to do with the meaning of T.O. I can't say that I am convinved by some of the apparently physics driven explanations of T.O. that Andrew has presented- specifically the alteration of particulate placement by the mental focus of goodwill. This is likely due to a personal bias against such seemingly abstract concepts, but I simply have a hard time believing that the effort of one or many minds can directly alter the state of matter through thought alone, no matter how linked they are. Rather, I tend to think of T.O. , especially in the context of The Grapes of Wrath, more as something that can be manifested in the physical world by the unison of many people and the changes that they effectuate through honest, hard labor. In other words, in the mere ability to unite, people demonstrate a link and ability to work together towards changing their environment if they choose.
I'll also add my voice to those who have stated that T.O. can be, a spiritual concept rather than a religious one. I do however question how T.O. does relate to religion in The Grapes of Wrath. At what point do religion and this theory of an oversoul meet, and are they compatible? I've already mentioned that religion seems to drive a wedge between into the supposed oversoul of man by creating barriers between men. This is apparent in The Grapes of Wrath in the government camp, where the religious "fundamentalists" create dissension in an otherwise contented community. It can however be said that the oversoul is not incompatible with the idea of an organised religion, but actually with religion as it is commonly perceived and perpetuated by man. In simpler terms, The Grapes of Wrath seems to imply that most organized religions are in some form corrupt, and turn man away from his natural state of unity with his brothers.
That's all for now. I have some further ideas on the subject, but those already presented are confused enough as it is, so I'll try to organise them before I post them here.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
This is my first post, and i know it's somewhat late. I don't have the internet at my house at the moment so I am currently sitting in a copy shop, wondering if I'll have enough money to pay for the time this will take me! But 35 cents a minute is a small price to pay for the priceless discussions of our blog.
I was reading Sam's post and wanted to comment on it, but i decided my idea was pretty much what I wanted to express in my post anyway, so I'm going to do it.
Sam said that he thinks that the transcendental oversoul has nothing to do with religion, and I personally agree. Especially becuase near the beginning of the book Casy the preacher makes the distinction himself. He looks shyly at Joad, and asks him to not take offense before he expresses his idea. He ponders that perhaps instead of the holy spirit being exclusivley Jesus and God, that "All men and women we love, maybe that's the holy sperit, the human sperit, the whole shebang." In his own slack-jawed way, underneath the shade of the big tree, i think he summed it up quite well. I'm not finished the novel yet, but I am certian that this will be an idea that presents itself again and again. And given the setting of the story, and the hardships that people in the country faced at that time, I also think it's an extremely important theme. It was probably running through everyone's mind at the time. When you are sitting on your porch watching your dying crops and choking on dust, you probably have lots of time to think of the bigger picture.
The thing about Casy saying something like this is that it's the type of thought that you don't expect to hear someone talk about, even if you are thinking about it constantly. Joad, who isn't even a religious man himself, can't even look at Casy's eyes after he lets out his secret beliefs.
And then he says: "you can't hold no church with idears like that." And this pretty much sums up what Sam said.
To me, I think that the concept of T.O. in this book will be able to be peeled away in layers, like a philosophical artichoke. And perhaps by the end we will come away with an understanding of what John Stienbeck wanted us to learn. For now all I can say for certian is that it is a very spiritual thing, but not a religious thing.
So, I'm going to walk home now and read some more, so I can back up my ideas tommorow! hopefully my home computer will be fixed by then.
I was reading Sam's post and wanted to comment on it, but i decided my idea was pretty much what I wanted to express in my post anyway, so I'm going to do it.
Sam said that he thinks that the transcendental oversoul has nothing to do with religion, and I personally agree. Especially becuase near the beginning of the book Casy the preacher makes the distinction himself. He looks shyly at Joad, and asks him to not take offense before he expresses his idea. He ponders that perhaps instead of the holy spirit being exclusivley Jesus and God, that "All men and women we love, maybe that's the holy sperit, the human sperit, the whole shebang." In his own slack-jawed way, underneath the shade of the big tree, i think he summed it up quite well. I'm not finished the novel yet, but I am certian that this will be an idea that presents itself again and again. And given the setting of the story, and the hardships that people in the country faced at that time, I also think it's an extremely important theme. It was probably running through everyone's mind at the time. When you are sitting on your porch watching your dying crops and choking on dust, you probably have lots of time to think of the bigger picture.
The thing about Casy saying something like this is that it's the type of thought that you don't expect to hear someone talk about, even if you are thinking about it constantly. Joad, who isn't even a religious man himself, can't even look at Casy's eyes after he lets out his secret beliefs.
And then he says: "you can't hold no church with idears like that." And this pretty much sums up what Sam said.
To me, I think that the concept of T.O. in this book will be able to be peeled away in layers, like a philosophical artichoke. And perhaps by the end we will come away with an understanding of what John Stienbeck wanted us to learn. For now all I can say for certian is that it is a very spiritual thing, but not a religious thing.
So, I'm going to walk home now and read some more, so I can back up my ideas tommorow! hopefully my home computer will be fixed by then.
A little info on T.O. (It's a start!!)
A COMMON BELIEF SYSTEM FOUNDED IN 1844
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882 A.D.) coined the word OVER-SOUL while a divinity student at Harvard University. The word comes from the Greek word, Psyche, meaning "the Soul" and Huper, meaning "over" or "hyper." This name was readily acceptable to global students, of all faiths, as a generic, non-sectarian term meaning "over abiding presence" i.e., the Creator. The philosophical concept was developed by the Greek philosopher Plato (427-347 B.C.). He affirmed the existence of absolute goodness, which he characterized as something beyond description and as knowable ultimately only through intuition. Religious philosophers applied this concept of transcendence to Divinity, maintaining that God can be neither described nor understood in terms that are taken from human experience.
The belief in a "higher power" sometimes referred to as Supreme Intelligence, has been well established from the beginning of time, throughout all the civilizations of the world. The earliest cave drawings evidence the searching heart of Mankind in the intuitive visualizations of a "higher power" --- the unseen Creator and administrator of Nature. Every successive civilization of the world has asserted beliefs in an unseen reality transcending the known which they assert may be approached through a variety of prescribed means. How can one define that which is universal, yet not uniform?
Emerson believed that Reason, the highest capacity of mind, was a sensitive receiver of universal signals of meaning, that once we allow our understanding to inform our reason, we make Nature serve our character, which is expressed by the higher aspects of human life, namely philosophy, religion, art, morals, ethics and culture. It is only when human life in its guise as civilization ignores the Laws of Nature that we fail and fall into chaos. War, repression, depressions, plagues, and revolutions all result from this ignorance or denial of Universal Law as seen through the workings and symbols of Nature.
The Over-Soul is Emerson's celebration of the mystery of the human soul in matter and its mysterious existence as "part and particle" with the eternal One. The image of the "One" or the essential unity of the universe that is the Absolute is a concept which is both Eastern and Neoplatonic. Emerson describes this One as infusing all of the life and forming the nature of human nature. It is God emanating through-out the universe and concentrating his nature in human consciousness.
His vision made it necessary, however, that revelation be essential to human experience. If it were not, then all religious faith would be dependent upon the past, as reported in the sacred texts and passed down from one cultural group to another, to the end that the essential vitality would be lost forever. This kind of secondary transmission would mean that all revelation was of necessity collective, referring to a people and not to individuals.
In 1836, free thinking men and women from the New England area began having meetings to discuss the philosophical and socio-economic changes they envisioned for a changing cultural narrative in the United States. This informal group, led by Ralph Waldo Emerson, consisted of Dr. Frederick Henry Hedge, Margaret Fuller, George Ripley, Convers Francis, Theodore Parker, Bronson Alcott, James Clarke, and Orestes Brownson. The assemblage became known as the Hedge Group, or as it was sometimes called, the Transcendental Club. They created the publication known as "The Dial" to make their philosophy known to the public.
The publication went on to become the main source of poetry, prose, and literary writings of the time. In the next three or four decades, most of the liturgy, philosophical, social, and religious leaders of New England were connected in one way or another with this transition from conformity. These diverse philosophies would eventually become the great American consciousness and lead directly to the loosening of the traditional theological tenets and ecclesiastical structures of the major Protestant denominations, particularly the Baptism, Methodism, and Presbyterianism as they established Evangelical missions to win converts among the general population.
Transcendentalism has been identified with the monastic mind set as it has invested itself upon monks going all the way back to the time of St. Ambrose of Milan (347-397 A.D.) and St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.); the New Testament writers before them, and indeed virtually all of the Old Testament writers. The whole being sometimes referred to as the Judeo-Christian transcendentalist ethic, the asserted basis of all United States Law. Countless encyclopedias, bibles, dictionaries, philosophical and technological articles, books, theses, testaments and even gospels have been written on this subject.
"That Unity, that OVER-SOUL, within every man's particular being is contained and made with all other; that common heart, of which all sincere conversation is the worship, to which all right action is submission; that over-powering Reality which confutes our tricks and talents, and constrains every one to pass for what he is, and to speak from his character; and not from his tongue, and which evermore tends to pass into our thought and hand, and becomes wisdom, and virtue, and power and the whole; and wise silence, the universal beauty, to which every part and particle is equally related; the eternal One." Ralph Waldo Emerson
Emerson's friend Noah Webster included the word OVERSOUL in his dictionary; Oversoul (n) "the spiritual element of the universe which is infinite and from which finite souls draw their being and support. Merrian Webster's 10th Collegiate Edition defines Oversoul as "the absolute reality and basis of all that exists, conceived as a spiritual being in which the ideal nature imperfectly manifests in human beings and is perfectly realized.
Many of the notables of history added their names to the long list of Americans who have embraced the concepts and teachings of Emerson. Such names as Henry David Thoreau, Walt Whitman, Helen Keller, Frank Lloyd Wright, John Muir, and Johnny Appleseed --- are just a few. Mahatma Gandhi, read Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" and named India's non-violent struggle for independence Satyagraha (in protest against civil and religious abuses); Martin Luther King Jr. wrote about how he became fascinated with Thoreau's view of the government and used it as the basis for his civil rights movement. Literary efforts inspired the words given to such songs as The Battle Hymn of the Republic by James Freeman Clarke and Juliet Ward Howe, and America the Beautiful by Samuel Grey Ward.
Emerson's Oversoul has become a philosophical teaching as well as an Associative Religion, tracing its roots all the way back to the writings of Job, Moses, Plato, Socrates, Kant, Hagel, Eckhart, and Swedenborg. While the American "common belief system" was advanced by Emerson in his essays: Over-soul, Nature and Self-Reliance, the transcendental thoughts go back to 1517, the Reformation and Martin Luther, which affirmed the justification of faith within the inner man.
Emerson taught that the basic concept of religion, received from our forefathers, was the inalienable ability of an individual to communicate with his/her Creator, one on one, in Nature. Emerson felt that moderns seem able only to see those things through the eyes of the earlier generations. "Why, " he asks --- and the question is intended to shatter our complacency --- "Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the Universe? Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs?"
Over-Soul religiosity has essentially evolved into a moral philosophy, an idealistic system of thought based upon the belief in the essential unity of all creation, the innate goodness of man, the supremacy of insight over logic and experience for the revelation of the deepest truths. Oversoul religiosity proclaims the dignity of the individual; cuts the roots of institutional tyranny; and turns the mind to imagination, hope, exploration and self-reliance. This philosophy embodies the very essence of American values and is taught in virtually every Western University of the free world.
The Oversoul Associative Religion is then a direct extension of these original "free thinkers" who embraced the teachings and open mindedness associated with a New Consciousness and Spirituality which has been "institutionalized" into a World Religion. From the beginning of the Oversoul, men and women of all races have played a prominent role in developing this Spirituality. The Oversoul continues to encourage openness, and in so doing is an advocate and embraces diversity --- of age, race, ethnicity, gender, economic status, abilities and marital status.
Copyright © 1998 by OVERSOUL WORLD MINISTRIES . All Rights Reserved.
Web design May
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882 A.D.) coined the word OVER-SOUL while a divinity student at Harvard University. The word comes from the Greek word, Psyche, meaning "the Soul" and Huper, meaning "over" or "hyper." This name was readily acceptable to global students, of all faiths, as a generic, non-sectarian term meaning "over abiding presence" i.e., the Creator. The philosophical concept was developed by the Greek philosopher Plato (427-347 B.C.). He affirmed the existence of absolute goodness, which he characterized as something beyond description and as knowable ultimately only through intuition. Religious philosophers applied this concept of transcendence to Divinity, maintaining that God can be neither described nor understood in terms that are taken from human experience.
The belief in a "higher power" sometimes referred to as Supreme Intelligence, has been well established from the beginning of time, throughout all the civilizations of the world. The earliest cave drawings evidence the searching heart of Mankind in the intuitive visualizations of a "higher power" --- the unseen Creator and administrator of Nature. Every successive civilization of the world has asserted beliefs in an unseen reality transcending the known which they assert may be approached through a variety of prescribed means. How can one define that which is universal, yet not uniform?
Emerson believed that Reason, the highest capacity of mind, was a sensitive receiver of universal signals of meaning, that once we allow our understanding to inform our reason, we make Nature serve our character, which is expressed by the higher aspects of human life, namely philosophy, religion, art, morals, ethics and culture. It is only when human life in its guise as civilization ignores the Laws of Nature that we fail and fall into chaos. War, repression, depressions, plagues, and revolutions all result from this ignorance or denial of Universal Law as seen through the workings and symbols of Nature.
The Over-Soul is Emerson's celebration of the mystery of the human soul in matter and its mysterious existence as "part and particle" with the eternal One. The image of the "One" or the essential unity of the universe that is the Absolute is a concept which is both Eastern and Neoplatonic. Emerson describes this One as infusing all of the life and forming the nature of human nature. It is God emanating through-out the universe and concentrating his nature in human consciousness.
His vision made it necessary, however, that revelation be essential to human experience. If it were not, then all religious faith would be dependent upon the past, as reported in the sacred texts and passed down from one cultural group to another, to the end that the essential vitality would be lost forever. This kind of secondary transmission would mean that all revelation was of necessity collective, referring to a people and not to individuals.
In 1836, free thinking men and women from the New England area began having meetings to discuss the philosophical and socio-economic changes they envisioned for a changing cultural narrative in the United States. This informal group, led by Ralph Waldo Emerson, consisted of Dr. Frederick Henry Hedge, Margaret Fuller, George Ripley, Convers Francis, Theodore Parker, Bronson Alcott, James Clarke, and Orestes Brownson. The assemblage became known as the Hedge Group, or as it was sometimes called, the Transcendental Club. They created the publication known as "The Dial" to make their philosophy known to the public.
The publication went on to become the main source of poetry, prose, and literary writings of the time. In the next three or four decades, most of the liturgy, philosophical, social, and religious leaders of New England were connected in one way or another with this transition from conformity. These diverse philosophies would eventually become the great American consciousness and lead directly to the loosening of the traditional theological tenets and ecclesiastical structures of the major Protestant denominations, particularly the Baptism, Methodism, and Presbyterianism as they established Evangelical missions to win converts among the general population.
Transcendentalism has been identified with the monastic mind set as it has invested itself upon monks going all the way back to the time of St. Ambrose of Milan (347-397 A.D.) and St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.); the New Testament writers before them, and indeed virtually all of the Old Testament writers. The whole being sometimes referred to as the Judeo-Christian transcendentalist ethic, the asserted basis of all United States Law. Countless encyclopedias, bibles, dictionaries, philosophical and technological articles, books, theses, testaments and even gospels have been written on this subject.
"That Unity, that OVER-SOUL, within every man's particular being is contained and made with all other; that common heart, of which all sincere conversation is the worship, to which all right action is submission; that over-powering Reality which confutes our tricks and talents, and constrains every one to pass for what he is, and to speak from his character; and not from his tongue, and which evermore tends to pass into our thought and hand, and becomes wisdom, and virtue, and power and the whole; and wise silence, the universal beauty, to which every part and particle is equally related; the eternal One." Ralph Waldo Emerson
Emerson's friend Noah Webster included the word OVERSOUL in his dictionary; Oversoul (n) "the spiritual element of the universe which is infinite and from which finite souls draw their being and support. Merrian Webster's 10th Collegiate Edition defines Oversoul as "the absolute reality and basis of all that exists, conceived as a spiritual being in which the ideal nature imperfectly manifests in human beings and is perfectly realized.
Many of the notables of history added their names to the long list of Americans who have embraced the concepts and teachings of Emerson. Such names as Henry David Thoreau, Walt Whitman, Helen Keller, Frank Lloyd Wright, John Muir, and Johnny Appleseed --- are just a few. Mahatma Gandhi, read Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" and named India's non-violent struggle for independence Satyagraha (in protest against civil and religious abuses); Martin Luther King Jr. wrote about how he became fascinated with Thoreau's view of the government and used it as the basis for his civil rights movement. Literary efforts inspired the words given to such songs as The Battle Hymn of the Republic by James Freeman Clarke and Juliet Ward Howe, and America the Beautiful by Samuel Grey Ward.
Emerson's Oversoul has become a philosophical teaching as well as an Associative Religion, tracing its roots all the way back to the writings of Job, Moses, Plato, Socrates, Kant, Hagel, Eckhart, and Swedenborg. While the American "common belief system" was advanced by Emerson in his essays: Over-soul, Nature and Self-Reliance, the transcendental thoughts go back to 1517, the Reformation and Martin Luther, which affirmed the justification of faith within the inner man.
Emerson taught that the basic concept of religion, received from our forefathers, was the inalienable ability of an individual to communicate with his/her Creator, one on one, in Nature. Emerson felt that moderns seem able only to see those things through the eyes of the earlier generations. "Why, " he asks --- and the question is intended to shatter our complacency --- "Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the Universe? Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs?"
Over-Soul religiosity has essentially evolved into a moral philosophy, an idealistic system of thought based upon the belief in the essential unity of all creation, the innate goodness of man, the supremacy of insight over logic and experience for the revelation of the deepest truths. Oversoul religiosity proclaims the dignity of the individual; cuts the roots of institutional tyranny; and turns the mind to imagination, hope, exploration and self-reliance. This philosophy embodies the very essence of American values and is taught in virtually every Western University of the free world.
The Oversoul Associative Religion is then a direct extension of these original "free thinkers" who embraced the teachings and open mindedness associated with a New Consciousness and Spirituality which has been "institutionalized" into a World Religion. From the beginning of the Oversoul, men and women of all races have played a prominent role in developing this Spirituality. The Oversoul continues to encourage openness, and in so doing is an advocate and embraces diversity --- of age, race, ethnicity, gender, economic status, abilities and marital status.
Copyright © 1998 by OVERSOUL WORLD MINISTRIES . All Rights Reserved.
Web design May
This is a conversational blog, gentlemen!
I am seeing some brilliant comments but no dialogue. Work on this, ok.
MS. J
MS. J
Evidence of T.O. In Reality
Hey everyone,
Now, much the same as Sam I'm not quite done reading it through the first time, hopefully I can go over it again later and find a whole bunch of realtions with the book. This post, however, is about my knowledge pre-grapes of the concept of a Transcendental oversoul. Now I can't really give total sources for all my information as it is more of an amalgamate of what I've learned over the years through reading and movies and such. Good starting points would be The Universe In a Single Atom By the Dalai Lama, Dancing Wu Li Masters by Someone I forget and "What the Bleep do we Know?" A movie by someone I forgot as well. For me, the idea of Transcendental Oversoul (T.O.) as I understand it, is that humans have the ability to alter reality through their will proportionally to the amount. This is represented by the hypothesis that if everyone in the world simultaneously wished for world peace it would happen. I've heard this before and I've considered it a self-fulfilling prophecy, if everyone in the world was willing to wish for peace then they obviously wouldn't be fighting. At any rate, I've since seen alot of interesting studies that are in favor of the human's ability to influence things with their mind, though the effect is minute.
The most pertinent of these is research done by a japanese scientist by the name of Yamamoto, if my memory servers (which it probably doesn't). What he did was he took 10 bottles of water that were exactly alike, looking at them before any stimulation under a blacklight microscope, and then he subjected them to different mental stimuli. For the first bottle of water he had it blessed by a zen buddhist monk, when he looked at it again under the microscope the formation of the particles, which had been shapeless and random, had taken on a more beautiful, crystiline formation. No physical change was made, in temperature light or movement. For the next bottles he taped different pieces of paper with words on them onto the outside of the bottles. Afterwards he examined the water again under a blacklight microscope, the bottles of water which had kind or positive words on the had beautiful, crystilline formations. On one bottle of water he wrote "I hate you, I'm going to kill you." The water from this bottle was arrayed blobishly and was without a doubt uglier than the bottles with nice words.
Another example which goes more into the idea that the collective mind can bring world peace is a case test done by the city of washington in which, for a year, they employed 2500 spiritualists from assorted religions to do nothing but pray for goodwill within the city. The city police cheif predicted that it would take 4 feet of snow for the crime rate to drastically decrease however at the end of the case study it was shown that there had been a 25% reduction in violent crimes throughout that year with no "observable cause" (aka: no 4 feet of snow or anything that someone who didn' know about the study would attribute it to.).
Interesting stuff, certainly lends a bit of credibility to the theory. So whether you agree with me or think it's all a load of bullocks you should feel free to comment. Let's get a bit of back and forth going, make this more of a discussion and less of a storage for a bunch of essays. I'll find as many links between the text and T.O. as I can by friday, let's see how many we as a group can get.
I'm tired now, Night all.
Now, much the same as Sam I'm not quite done reading it through the first time, hopefully I can go over it again later and find a whole bunch of realtions with the book. This post, however, is about my knowledge pre-grapes of the concept of a Transcendental oversoul. Now I can't really give total sources for all my information as it is more of an amalgamate of what I've learned over the years through reading and movies and such. Good starting points would be The Universe In a Single Atom By the Dalai Lama, Dancing Wu Li Masters by Someone I forget and "What the Bleep do we Know?" A movie by someone I forgot as well. For me, the idea of Transcendental Oversoul (T.O.) as I understand it, is that humans have the ability to alter reality through their will proportionally to the amount. This is represented by the hypothesis that if everyone in the world simultaneously wished for world peace it would happen. I've heard this before and I've considered it a self-fulfilling prophecy, if everyone in the world was willing to wish for peace then they obviously wouldn't be fighting. At any rate, I've since seen alot of interesting studies that are in favor of the human's ability to influence things with their mind, though the effect is minute.
The most pertinent of these is research done by a japanese scientist by the name of Yamamoto, if my memory servers (which it probably doesn't). What he did was he took 10 bottles of water that were exactly alike, looking at them before any stimulation under a blacklight microscope, and then he subjected them to different mental stimuli. For the first bottle of water he had it blessed by a zen buddhist monk, when he looked at it again under the microscope the formation of the particles, which had been shapeless and random, had taken on a more beautiful, crystiline formation. No physical change was made, in temperature light or movement. For the next bottles he taped different pieces of paper with words on them onto the outside of the bottles. Afterwards he examined the water again under a blacklight microscope, the bottles of water which had kind or positive words on the had beautiful, crystilline formations. On one bottle of water he wrote "I hate you, I'm going to kill you." The water from this bottle was arrayed blobishly and was without a doubt uglier than the bottles with nice words.
Another example which goes more into the idea that the collective mind can bring world peace is a case test done by the city of washington in which, for a year, they employed 2500 spiritualists from assorted religions to do nothing but pray for goodwill within the city. The city police cheif predicted that it would take 4 feet of snow for the crime rate to drastically decrease however at the end of the case study it was shown that there had been a 25% reduction in violent crimes throughout that year with no "observable cause" (aka: no 4 feet of snow or anything that someone who didn' know about the study would attribute it to.).
Interesting stuff, certainly lends a bit of credibility to the theory. So whether you agree with me or think it's all a load of bullocks you should feel free to comment. Let's get a bit of back and forth going, make this more of a discussion and less of a storage for a bunch of essays. I'll find as many links between the text and T.O. as I can by friday, let's see how many we as a group can get.
I'm tired now, Night all.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Finally Logged On
Hello all.
I hope the reading is going well for everyone. Not knowing how much each of us has read, I thought that I would mention some of the most direct references to the meaning of transcendental oversoul in The Grapes of Wrath. These seem to be on pages 26 and 437 (I've probably missed some). These passges (both spoken by, or referring to, the words of Jim Casy) basically outline what Sam has already said: that the notion of transcendental oversoul is the idea that all of humanity posseses one soul, linking all of the individual human components. The second passage goes on to propose that an individual soul is no good on its own, but finds its true stength only when united with other souls. Furthermore, the description on pages 202-203 of many families achieving a greater potential by working in unspoken unison certainly seems to support the idea of the presence of an oversoul, as well the necessity for everyone to work together to achieve their full potential. I'll also mention that I found that the text suggested that it is human institutions and constructs (mainly capitalism and religion) that divide the oversoul, and prevent it from functioning as one. I hope to post some more precises notions soon. Are there any more ideas as to the definition of transcendental oversoul?
P.S.: I'll also apologise for dragging my feet on this post (Google stubbornly refused to acknowledge the validity of my password for several hours)
P.P.S.: I'd have to say that my favorite movie at the moment is "The Proposition".
I hope the reading is going well for everyone. Not knowing how much each of us has read, I thought that I would mention some of the most direct references to the meaning of transcendental oversoul in The Grapes of Wrath. These seem to be on pages 26 and 437 (I've probably missed some). These passges (both spoken by, or referring to, the words of Jim Casy) basically outline what Sam has already said: that the notion of transcendental oversoul is the idea that all of humanity posseses one soul, linking all of the individual human components. The second passage goes on to propose that an individual soul is no good on its own, but finds its true stength only when united with other souls. Furthermore, the description on pages 202-203 of many families achieving a greater potential by working in unspoken unison certainly seems to support the idea of the presence of an oversoul, as well the necessity for everyone to work together to achieve their full potential. I'll also mention that I found that the text suggested that it is human institutions and constructs (mainly capitalism and religion) that divide the oversoul, and prevent it from functioning as one. I hope to post some more precises notions soon. Are there any more ideas as to the definition of transcendental oversoul?
P.S.: I'll also apologise for dragging my feet on this post (Google stubbornly refused to acknowledge the validity of my password for several hours)
P.P.S.: I'd have to say that my favorite movie at the moment is "The Proposition".
My blogging debut
So this a blog...
Let's get down to things, honestly I haven't yet completed "The Grapes of Wrath", but as with everything in life, before we analyze the transcendental oversoul of the book, we must decide what a transcendental oversoul is. I understand T.O. to mean that everyone is connected, and that every action we do affects everyone else. Sort of like the classic idea of whether or not a butterfly flapping his wings in California can cause a rainstorm in Central Park. So you're probably thinking about religion and how through "god" we're all connected, but I don't think that's what T.O. means, T.O. is not related to religion, it has to do with whether or not my actions affect your actions. Quite simply put, T.O. is an invisible string that connects everybody, and if one person yanks on that string we all feel it.
Let's get down to things, honestly I haven't yet completed "The Grapes of Wrath", but as with everything in life, before we analyze the transcendental oversoul of the book, we must decide what a transcendental oversoul is. I understand T.O. to mean that everyone is connected, and that every action we do affects everyone else. Sort of like the classic idea of whether or not a butterfly flapping his wings in California can cause a rainstorm in Central Park. So you're probably thinking about religion and how through "god" we're all connected, but I don't think that's what T.O. means, T.O. is not related to religion, it has to do with whether or not my actions affect your actions. Quite simply put, T.O. is an invisible string that connects everybody, and if one person yanks on that string we all feel it.
This is my interpretation of T.O., what do you think? What is T.O. to you?
PS: Sorry about taking so long to get on the blog
PSS: For a little "group bonding", what are your favorite movvies? Mine is "The Departed".
Monday, February 19, 2007
Hey, sorry for wait.
Hey, sorry for the delay.
The topic of our group's blog is the Transcendental Oversoul. Reading so for is porgressing well, hope to have it completed, or very nearly so, for tomorrow. I went to lethrbidge to visit my brothers over the weekend, so I'm a bit behind with reading, as I was with creating this blog, but I should catch up tonight.
The topic of our group's blog is the Transcendental Oversoul. Reading so for is porgressing well, hope to have it completed, or very nearly so, for tomorrow. I went to lethrbidge to visit my brothers over the weekend, so I'm a bit behind with reading, as I was with creating this blog, but I should catch up tonight.
Hello, Andrew! I've been waiting for you!!
Could you please specify what the topic of your blog is. I was getting worried about you boys. There will be a pretty hefty mark on your first report card based on your blog so I hope you can get things rolling soon. See you in class tomorrow, Andrew. How is the reading of Grapes going?
Ms. J.
Ms. J.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)