thomas moore quote
Pam Sorooshian
I'd like to hear what others of you make of this quote - what do you
think it means? Anybody know enough about Thomas Moore to put this into
any kind of context?
"We live in a hierarchical world in which we defend ourselves ....from
our eternal infancy and childhood by insisting on a graded, necessary
elevation through learning and technological sophistication out of the
child into the adult. This is not a true initiation that values both
the previous form of existence and the newly attained one; it is a
defence against the humiliating reality of the child."
~Thomas Moore
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
think it means? Anybody know enough about Thomas Moore to put this into
any kind of context?
"We live in a hierarchical world in which we defend ourselves ....from
our eternal infancy and childhood by insisting on a graded, necessary
elevation through learning and technological sophistication out of the
child into the adult. This is not a true initiation that values both
the previous form of existence and the newly attained one; it is a
defence against the humiliating reality of the child."
~Thomas Moore
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
arcarpenter2003
--- In [email protected], Pam Sorooshian
<pamsoroosh@e...> wrote:
response to our hierarchic culture. I don't *think* he is defending
the hierarchy, but is stating the reality of the culture. He is
saying that in this culture, being a child sucks, and even as we grow
into adulthood there are lots of people higher up on the totem pole
that are willing to take our power (the threat of "eternal infancy and
childhood").
And so we invent school -- not just the real schools, but in a
metaphorical sense, too -- we buy into it. (Not on this list, of
course.) We use school to acquire "technological sophistication" and
prove ourselves as worthy of having power, of taking others' power.
(Shades of Alice Miller, perhaps.) We use it to overcome childhood,
because in this culture, childhood is humiliating.
I get that meaning because of this line: "This is not a true
initiation that values both the previous form of existence and the
newly attained one." The Thomas Moore that I've read really
emphasizes valuing the complexity of any situation, of honoring all
the faces of the soul. That's the line that clued me into what kind
of cultural criticism this is. Otherwise, I agree that it's hard to
interpret out of context.
In one of his books (Care of the Everyday Soul, perhaps?), Moore
considers homeschooling his young daughter, only to laugh at himself
and reject the idea because he feels that he would be trying to
protect her from the world, which is not what the soul needs. I
wonder if he's changed his mind by now? I wonder if he's realized
that her soul would have much better access to the real world outside
of school?
Peace,
Amy
<pamsoroosh@e...> wrote:
> I'd like to hear what others of you make of this quote - what do youFrom what I know about Moore, he is saying that this is the soul's
> think it means? Anybody know enough about Thomas Moore to put this into
> any kind of context?
>
> "We live in a hierarchical world in which we defend ourselves ....from
> our eternal infancy and childhood by insisting on a graded, necessary
> elevation through learning and technological sophistication out of the
> child into the adult. This is not a true initiation that values both
> the previous form of existence and the newly attained one; it is a
> defence against the humiliating reality of the child."
> ~Thomas Moore
response to our hierarchic culture. I don't *think* he is defending
the hierarchy, but is stating the reality of the culture. He is
saying that in this culture, being a child sucks, and even as we grow
into adulthood there are lots of people higher up on the totem pole
that are willing to take our power (the threat of "eternal infancy and
childhood").
And so we invent school -- not just the real schools, but in a
metaphorical sense, too -- we buy into it. (Not on this list, of
course.) We use school to acquire "technological sophistication" and
prove ourselves as worthy of having power, of taking others' power.
(Shades of Alice Miller, perhaps.) We use it to overcome childhood,
because in this culture, childhood is humiliating.
I get that meaning because of this line: "This is not a true
initiation that values both the previous form of existence and the
newly attained one." The Thomas Moore that I've read really
emphasizes valuing the complexity of any situation, of honoring all
the faces of the soul. That's the line that clued me into what kind
of cultural criticism this is. Otherwise, I agree that it's hard to
interpret out of context.
In one of his books (Care of the Everyday Soul, perhaps?), Moore
considers homeschooling his young daughter, only to laugh at himself
and reject the idea because he feels that he would be trying to
protect her from the world, which is not what the soul needs. I
wonder if he's changed his mind by now? I wonder if he's realized
that her soul would have much better access to the real world outside
of school?
Peace,
Amy
[email protected]
I have a hard time remembering on which list or forum I read things, but
someone asked the other day why babies are valued and adults but not kids.
I have an idea. Production. Adults "produce." They produce offspring,
food, shelter/clothing/transportation. Infants produce marriages,
stability/fidelity/responsibility in formerly-irresponsible first-time parents (ideally,
anyway).
Children past infancy and pre-productive-adulthood don't produce.
And our culture has extended their non-productive period incrementally until
nowadays I think there are states (besides my own even) that require them to
be in school until they graduate or are 18 years old. And there are many
places that won't hire anyone younger than 16 (and laws various places that
make it difficult various ways anyway.
And I think Joyce's writing on children AS a product (of school) is right on
the mark too. So maybe not only are children not productive, they are the
products (and property) of various adult producers of children or students or
performers or athletes.
Sorry I don't know about the Thomas Moore idea, but it reminded me of having
thought of this.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
someone asked the other day why babies are valued and adults but not kids.
I have an idea. Production. Adults "produce." They produce offspring,
food, shelter/clothing/transportation. Infants produce marriages,
stability/fidelity/responsibility in formerly-irresponsible first-time parents (ideally,
anyway).
Children past infancy and pre-productive-adulthood don't produce.
And our culture has extended their non-productive period incrementally until
nowadays I think there are states (besides my own even) that require them to
be in school until they graduate or are 18 years old. And there are many
places that won't hire anyone younger than 16 (and laws various places that
make it difficult various ways anyway.
And I think Joyce's writing on children AS a product (of school) is right on
the mark too. So maybe not only are children not productive, they are the
products (and property) of various adult producers of children or students or
performers or athletes.
Sorry I don't know about the Thomas Moore idea, but it reminded me of having
thought of this.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mom of All Seasons
<<<Children past infancy and pre-productive-adulthood don't produce. >>>
Another take:
Children do produce. They produce for their schooled
parents/grandparents/teachers/neighbors/other children/etc., and from a
process of binging & purging, those coveted A's. But, like oil, those A's
are slippery and of limited supply, therefore only a very small fraction of
the children (like the slightly larger fraction of adults who hunt/gather
the big paying jobs) can be valued by the above schooled population at any
one point in time.
Have a great day,
Jamie
Another take:
Children do produce. They produce for their schooled
parents/grandparents/teachers/neighbors/other children/etc., and from a
process of binging & purging, those coveted A's. But, like oil, those A's
are slippery and of limited supply, therefore only a very small fraction of
the children (like the slightly larger fraction of adults who hunt/gather
the big paying jobs) can be valued by the above schooled population at any
one point in time.
Have a great day,
Jamie
Robyn Coburn
<<<<I'd like to hear what others of you make of this quote - what do you
think it means? Anybody know enough about Thomas Moore to put this into
any kind of context?>>>
This page includes a timeline style biography in which a couple of things
stand out, most particularly how his daughters kept dying very young after
illnesses or accidents, at the ages of 1, 5 and 11. Perhaps this would
explain partly his imagery about "eternal infancy and childhood".
http://www.lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~matsuoka/Moore.html
However I would think that this idea would also partly stem from
contemporary Christianity, in which all humans are childlike in comparison
to the paternalist Church and God the Father, as well as his position as a
financially challenged Irishman. The Irish were viewed with paternalistic
condescension by the ruling British ("humiliating reality"). I notice that
he wrote much satire in reference to the British. However it is quite
clearly a "hierarchical world". He was denied a college scholarship due to
being Catholic.
He was a friend of Byron and the Romantic poets. Part of that philosophy is
about Nature and simplicity - the return to the primitive (or is primeval?)
the idea of the Noble Savage, the idea of children as more pure and close to
the Creator. It seems like it would certainly be anti "technological
sophistication". (For another take on that idea Mary Shelley's
"Frankenstein" which she wrote after losing her child and having a
nightmare.)
<<<< "We live in a hierarchical world in which we defend ourselves ....from
our eternal infancy and childhood by insisting on a graded, necessary
elevation through learning and technological sophistication out of the
child into the adult. This is not a true initiation that values both
the previous form of existence and the newly attained one; it is a
defence against the humiliating reality of the child."
~Thomas Moore>>>>
These are remarkably modern critiques, that infancy and childhood are
devalued, that learning must be measured against an external standard to be
valued, that learning is an "upwards" progression towards sophistication
with the end point being adulthood, that adults must perforce renounce what
is childlike (that there is nothing to be learnt *from* children).
Need childhood be a humiliating state? I hope not for our kids.
Thanks for the brain workout! Most stimulating.
Robyn L. Coburn
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.13 - Release Date: 5/19/2005
think it means? Anybody know enough about Thomas Moore to put this into
any kind of context?>>>
This page includes a timeline style biography in which a couple of things
stand out, most particularly how his daughters kept dying very young after
illnesses or accidents, at the ages of 1, 5 and 11. Perhaps this would
explain partly his imagery about "eternal infancy and childhood".
http://www.lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~matsuoka/Moore.html
However I would think that this idea would also partly stem from
contemporary Christianity, in which all humans are childlike in comparison
to the paternalist Church and God the Father, as well as his position as a
financially challenged Irishman. The Irish were viewed with paternalistic
condescension by the ruling British ("humiliating reality"). I notice that
he wrote much satire in reference to the British. However it is quite
clearly a "hierarchical world". He was denied a college scholarship due to
being Catholic.
He was a friend of Byron and the Romantic poets. Part of that philosophy is
about Nature and simplicity - the return to the primitive (or is primeval?)
the idea of the Noble Savage, the idea of children as more pure and close to
the Creator. It seems like it would certainly be anti "technological
sophistication". (For another take on that idea Mary Shelley's
"Frankenstein" which she wrote after losing her child and having a
nightmare.)
<<<< "We live in a hierarchical world in which we defend ourselves ....from
our eternal infancy and childhood by insisting on a graded, necessary
elevation through learning and technological sophistication out of the
child into the adult. This is not a true initiation that values both
the previous form of existence and the newly attained one; it is a
defence against the humiliating reality of the child."
~Thomas Moore>>>>
These are remarkably modern critiques, that infancy and childhood are
devalued, that learning must be measured against an external standard to be
valued, that learning is an "upwards" progression towards sophistication
with the end point being adulthood, that adults must perforce renounce what
is childlike (that there is nothing to be learnt *from* children).
Need childhood be a humiliating state? I hope not for our kids.
Thanks for the brain workout! Most stimulating.
Robyn L. Coburn
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.13 - Release Date: 5/19/2005
[email protected]
In a message dated 5/19/2005 10:18:25 PM Central Standard Time,
arcarpenter@... writes:
From what I know about Moore, he is saying that this is the soul's
response to our hierarchic culture. I don't *think* he is defending
the hierarchy, but is stating the reality of the culture. He is
saying that in this culture, being a child sucks, and even as we grow
into adulthood there are lots of people higher up on the totem pole
that are willing to take our power (the threat of "eternal infancy and
childhood").
And so we invent school -- not just the real schools, but in a
metaphorical sense, too -- we buy into it. (Not on this list, of
course.) We use school to acquire "technological sophistication" and
prove ourselves as worthy of having power, of taking others' power.
(Shades of Alice Miller, perhaps.) We use it to overcome childhood,
because in this culture, childhood is humiliating.
~~~
I was going to give my interpretation, but Amy said it so much better than I
would have.
I don't know anything about Thomas Moore, though.
Karen
www.badchair.net
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
arcarpenter@... writes:
From what I know about Moore, he is saying that this is the soul's
response to our hierarchic culture. I don't *think* he is defending
the hierarchy, but is stating the reality of the culture. He is
saying that in this culture, being a child sucks, and even as we grow
into adulthood there are lots of people higher up on the totem pole
that are willing to take our power (the threat of "eternal infancy and
childhood").
And so we invent school -- not just the real schools, but in a
metaphorical sense, too -- we buy into it. (Not on this list, of
course.) We use school to acquire "technological sophistication" and
prove ourselves as worthy of having power, of taking others' power.
(Shades of Alice Miller, perhaps.) We use it to overcome childhood,
because in this culture, childhood is humiliating.
~~~
I was going to give my interpretation, but Amy said it so much better than I
would have.
I don't know anything about Thomas Moore, though.
Karen
www.badchair.net
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 5/20/2005 8:04:01 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
momofallseasons@... writes:
Another take:
Children do produce. They produce for their schooled
parents/grandparents/teachers/neighbors/other children/etc., and from a
process of binging & purging, those coveted A's.
No, I think that's just the literal "grading" of the products owned by those
parents.
"My product is GradeA quality, and yours is not."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
momofallseasons@... writes:
Another take:
Children do produce. They produce for their schooled
parents/grandparents/teachers/neighbors/other children/etc., and from a
process of binging & purging, those coveted A's.
No, I think that's just the literal "grading" of the products owned by those
parents.
"My product is GradeA quality, and yours is not."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
arcarpenter2003
--- In [email protected], "Robyn Coburn"
<dezigna@c...> wrote:
==> He was a friend of Byron and the Romantic poets. Part of that
philosophy is
you're referring to is Thomas More (one "O"). I *think* the one that
wrote the quote is the currently living author of _Care of the Soul_
and other soul-related books.
Interesting interpretation, though -- your brain did get a workout! <G>
Peace,
Amy
<dezigna@c...> wrote:
==> He was a friend of Byron and the Romantic poets. Part of that
philosophy is
> about Nature and simplicity - the return to the primitive (or isprimeval?)
> the idea of the Noble Savage, the idea of children as more pure andclose to
> the Creator.==I think we're talking about two different Thomas Moores. The one that
you're referring to is Thomas More (one "O"). I *think* the one that
wrote the quote is the currently living author of _Care of the Soul_
and other soul-related books.
Interesting interpretation, though -- your brain did get a workout! <G>
Peace,
Amy
lgbryk
I think we're talking about two different Thomas Moores. The one that
you're referring to is Thomas More (one "O"). I *think* the one that
wrote the quote is the currently living author of _Care of the Soul_
and other soul-related books.
The quote is from Thomas Moore, writer of Care of the Soul. I saw this this morning but, didn't have time to write. And yes, the name is spelled the same.
Linda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
you're referring to is Thomas More (one "O"). I *think* the one that
wrote the quote is the currently living author of _Care of the Soul_
and other soul-related books.
The quote is from Thomas Moore, writer of Care of the Soul. I saw this this morning but, didn't have time to write. And yes, the name is spelled the same.
Linda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Robyn Coburn
<<<<<<I think we're talking about two different Thomas Moores. The one that
you're referring to is Thomas More (one "O"). I *think* the one that
wrote the quote is the currently living author of _Care of the Soul_
and other soul-related books.>>>>
Oh this is hilarious, although the one "O" guy is yet another - an
Englishman from the 15th Century. I was referring to the Irish contemporary
of Austen, Byron and Shelley from the 17-1800's.
No wonder I thought his ideas sounded "modern"! ROFLMAO.
Robyn L. Coburn
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.14 - Release Date: 5/20/2005
you're referring to is Thomas More (one "O"). I *think* the one that
wrote the quote is the currently living author of _Care of the Soul_
and other soul-related books.>>>>
Oh this is hilarious, although the one "O" guy is yet another - an
Englishman from the 15th Century. I was referring to the Irish contemporary
of Austen, Byron and Shelley from the 17-1800's.
No wonder I thought his ideas sounded "modern"! ROFLMAO.
Robyn L. Coburn
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.14 - Release Date: 5/20/2005
arcarpenter2003
--- In [email protected], "Robyn Coburn"
<dezigna@c...> wrote:
==> <<<<<<I think we're talking about two different Thomas Moores.
The one that
dead More was different from the dead Moore -- I've always heard about
them in different contexts and had them muddled in my head. So thanks
for clarifying!
Peace,
Amy
<dezigna@c...> wrote:
==> <<<<<<I think we're talking about two different Thomas Moores.
The one that
> you're referring to is Thomas More (one "O"). I *think* the one thatOh, that's even funnier -- I don't think I've ever been clear that the
> wrote the quote is the currently living author of _Care of the Soul_
> and other soul-related books.>>>>
>
> Oh this is hilarious, although the one "O" guy is yet another - an
> Englishman from the 15th Century. ==
dead More was different from the dead Moore -- I've always heard about
them in different contexts and had them muddled in my head. So thanks
for clarifying!
Peace,
Amy