Riddles Part 2: Imagination
In the thing I posted on her on Silver and Gold in HP I stated that my own theory concerning what "magic" means in Rowling in the imagination. In thinking about this on my commute to work I thought of another supporting thing for that theory from the thing about Riddles. Riddles are all about imagination. It is often a key turn of phrase, another way of using or meaning the words - and seeing this (making the leap beyond what seems "evident," standing the thing "on its head," so to speak) is done by imagination. Even in "completely objective" things, like mathematics, the imagination is often very helpful, and sometimes even necessary. When I first began taking some paper practice tests in studying for the GRE I came upon one that stumped me ... but when I saw the answer my response was not "hmmm - long equation but I think I'm getting it slowly," but rather it was like "ooooh! of course! how could I have not thought of that?!?!" The problem was not not knowing a formula but a failure to look at the problem imaginatively, to look at it and "get it." I should probably note here that the word used in ancient Greek philosophy for "mind" is not what we usually think of as "smart." The Greek "Nous" mostly means an almost instantaneous perception, a faculty of the person by which they have a singular moment of insight; the connotation connected with it is that of "seeing with the minds eye," as one sees an image with the physical eye. The Riddle of Tom Tom Riddle is really the product of the riddle of humanity. The Riddles (Tom Sr and Merope) are really the same marriage that the human person is: the magical and the muggle, the spiritual and the physical, the meaningful and the mundane. In the case of the spiritual and the physical, they meet where? ... in the soul (the Golden Soul). When Tom Riddle Jr changes his name to Lord Voldemort, he does not forget the riddle altogether. Rather he, as a wizard, is the perverse use of imagination that yields not no answer to the riddle, but rather a very evil one. Harry, as a wizard, is the proper use of the imagination, the true antithesis and antidote of Voldemort. Imagination here being used in a fuller sense than usual, the quasi-religious sense used in the chart of symbol types given by Granger in The Hidden Key ..., p 109. the "Symbol" level symbol appeals to the faculties of Imagination and heart, whereas the allegory appeals to imagination combined with reason. Thus, in symbolist literature the imagination is a bridge to the heart, which is a bridge to the person because these two (heart and person) are the only two whose combination is unique to the religious symbol types of Icon and Signal and the Theological symbol types of Eruption and Incarnation. |
Comments on "Riddles Part 2: Imagination"
Interestingly enough, "nous" en francais means "we" or "us"
Blondie,
which does it mean - "we" or "us"
bear with me, im not trying to be argumentative ... just curious about French because I remember very little from 2 years in high school but I will probably have to be able to pass reading proficiency in Franch (as well as German) for PHD studies.
I know in other languages that are inflected according to gender and case, the nominative (what in English is the "subjective case" - wich would be the "we") and accusative cases (in English the "objective" case, the "us") differ from each other for masculine and feminine words (often the nominative and accusative are the same for neuter words).
Do they use the same "nous" for both "we" and "us"? I'm curious becuase I can't remember how inflected it is.
I mean, English still shows signs of different case, like "he, his, him" but for the most part English relies on word order now. And I can't remember if French was more like English or more Like Latin in that respect.
I mean, I know there are different things like, obviously in "Je m'appelle" translating into "I call myself" the French "Je" is "subjective" and the "me" is objective, just like the English "I" is subjective and the "myself" is objective ... but I was just curious if the word "nous" got used for both things for 1st person plural
(honestly asking ... so many languages do so many different things ... kinda fascinates me)
One of the few things I do remember from highschool french is the teacher starting every class saying "Fermez la bouche et ouvrez le livre" ("shut the mouth and open the book" ... I'm sure I totally butchered the spellings and genders)
Well, considering the butchering that COULD have been done (see: fairmay la boosh ay ooovray lay leev), I think you did awesome!
Nous means BOTH "we" and "us." Par example: "Est-ce que tu viens avec nous" en anglais est "Are you coming with US" mais, dans une autre example, "Nous allons a la bibliotheque ce soir" Nous est en reference a "We." There are over 2 million words in the English language (which I'm sure you know, as you both seem to be geni...er...geniuses...I guess it doesn't work the same as octupi...), but there are only 500,000 (approx) in French. It can be deceiving when I think I'm carrying on with the conversation, only to realized that I've totally misunderstood an important word.
When you used the word "icon" it reminded me that John Granger is Eastern Orthodox. Maybe this is the reason he is such a great apologist for Harry Potter as compatible with Christianity because the books use the proper symbols, or maybe more accurately put, they use symbolism properly. The Orthodox have a better and more natural understanding, for example, of how the temple (or church) is an icon of the cosmos. The very idea of creation as "cosmos" is a little more difficult for Western Christians, hence the attacks from what I would refer to as "literalists". The main reason I use that little-used word is to avoid using what I believe is an overused label, i.e., "fundamentalists". But I suppose that literalism is a type or subset of fundamentalism because it pits symbolic truth against revealed truth.
Blondie,
wow I am finding there is actually a little back there in my brain from highschool ... it's a weird feeling (I actually understood some of the grammar, like that the wooden translation of the "going with" question would be "is it that you go with us?".)
(i just remembered my fave french prhase I ever learned ... je suis an imbicile lol)
Interesting, from what you said it seems the word nous fills in several cases, like with Greek Dative and Latin ablative (the case used for relations like "with")
I'm looking forward to studying it
Pauli,
Yeah,
Hahn (professor) is fond of having classes read John Paul II's Apostolic Letter from 1995, Orientale Lumen ("Light of the East") on Eastern Christendom and he is also fond of saying things like "it's not that fundamentalists take Scripture too literally, it's that they take it too literalistically rather than literarily"
Blondie,
Sorry, just read my response and realized I was a little babbled at the end.
what I meant to say is that in addition to the "subjective" and objective" case "nous" also fills in the functions that the Greek dative and Latin ablative do in those languages ... come to think of it English does that too, we say "with me" and "with us" (using the same word as we use for the objective case)
Interesting ... not sure what it means but it does interest me lol
and at this point I am just rambling (which I have a tendency to do)
but in any event, it is the language Rowling taught so I think you might have an advantage over the "geni" here lol
Blondie,
Over 2 million words .... tell me about it, I think I am trying to cram the whole lot in my head for the verbal section of the Graduate Record Exam ... feels a bit like trying to cram a hard-bound Miriam Webster dictionary into my ear.
On French, is "nous" formal or in formal? I'm guesing formal but that is just because Vous is formal and tu is informal ... I can't remember from highschool French (and what is the other version ... ie if it is formal what is the informal and vice-versa)
Merci Mil Fois
Blondie,
Have you ever seen the movie "the Visitors" with Jean Reno? They did an American/English version called "Just Visiting" which was pretty decent too (had Christina Applegate in it in a considerably better role than her "Married with Childre" role and she did pretty well)
The French original is funnier though. It is kind of a little like a French Monty Python but not quite so absurdist and had a standard straight story plot (so just a very little like Python ... does "un tres peu" translate into "a VERY little" - or not really?)
One of the funniest parts is when Reno is explaining to his crass squire (Reno plays a 14th century French Knight) that they have been thrown forward in time to the 20th century and that the young woman who looks exactly like Reno's fiance (same actress) is actually his great, great, great, great .... grandaughter. The way he says "peite" when he says "petite, petite, petite, petite ..." is hilarious.
Well, "nous" is not formal or informal. Formal conversation is only for addressing strangers, superiors etc, (= always 'vous').
Yes, un tres peu would directly translate into a very little, but that's not even an English expression, right? Wouldn't it be a "very little bit" or "a little?" In these cases you would use "un petit peu" and "un peu," respectively.
I've never seen the Visitors, but I think I have heard of it for sure. I mentioned "Babette's Feast" to my boyfriend and he knew ALL ABOUT IT, so I guess we'll be renting it one of these days, I'll let you know how it goes.