|
|
|
|
|
| Chivalry
Posted: 7/31/2009 8:44:30 AM | cdbergerac said:
There is an idea that real chivalry may be "innate". Well, that subject may not be for a public forum.
I vaguely remember broaching the subject back in post 43.
But then who among us reads others posts, unless they allude to something we ourselves have stated?
Furthermore, why bother reading what others say, since we are each the final arbiter of each topic, anyway; especially since there is no "is"?
And, since is, isn't, why bother with any discussion?
I wish I had known a long time ago that there are no absolutes, to the extent that the world thinks that "nothing is."
All that time I spent learning Mathematics, Science, even English, was so wasted.
Chivalry as "innate" goes to my point that it is a male strategy of loving. It certainly removes the concept from the realm of "altruism", methinks.
Carry on!
. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| Chivalry
Posted: 7/31/2009 10:44:00 AM | Hey TopChuck
I vaguely remember broaching the subject back in post 43. But then who among us reads others posts, unless they allude to something we ourselves have stated?
Actually I have read the whole thread. It isn't that I don't remember your comment, just that you are talking about something very different than what I was talking about. You are talking about an evolutionary kind of "innate", which is a very real possibility for the natural desire that many people have in demonstrating some gender roles.
There was a segment of those who formulated courtly chivalry that were Platonists. As such they divided people into the three Platonist classifications that reminds one of the hylic, psychic, and pneumatic of the Gnostic system from an earlier time. The idea here being that nobility isn't something that comes from the class you are born into (a peasant could be noble while a lord or lady could be a villager at heart), but still a potential that some are born without. That is to say, the idea that some are naturally able to understand the deeper spiritual function of the "rite" of chivarly while other people will simply never get it. This is what I mean by "innate". | |
|
| Chivalry
Posted: 7/31/2009 11:43:13 AM | .
Cyrano, I find your last post fascinating as far as the Platonists, but have one question; of the Gnostic system you refer to, I believe I understand the hylic and psychic, but not pneumatic. As a practicing aircraft mechanic, that term means something very different to me. I'm going to search it, but would still like your take on it.
Namaste,
Ginny
 
. | |
|
| Chivalry
Posted: 7/31/2009 12:00:41 PM | Hey, cdbergerac
You are talking about an evolutionary kind of "innate", which is a very real possibility for the natural desire that many people have in demonstrating some gender roles. -- That is to say, the idea that some are naturally able to understand the deeper spiritual function of the "rite" of chivarly while other people will simply never get it. This is what I mean by "innate".
Which is to say, now you are talking about "understanding" the trait, not whether there IS an "innate" trait that could include characteristics that align with "Chivalry"; right?
On the other hand, "nobility" is something that isn't necessarily innate.
To me, it appears that Chivalric traits and the receptivity to them is innate in our species, by virtue of genetic, neurological and social evolutionary evidence adduced from modern study of those fields.
In other words, I'm talking apples, you're talking oranges and my conclusion about Chivalry and its relationship to loving is that men and women are different animals belonging to the same species, who take advantage of Chivalry, symbiotically.
And, finally, my understanding is that "innate" carries the implication that individual "understanding" that it exists isn't germane to whether it functions as it evolved to function.
I mean, I'm just saying . .
. | |
|
| Chivalry
Posted: 7/31/2009 8:43:55 PM | Hey Ms Ginny
I believe I understand the hylic and psychic, but not pneumatic. As a practicing aircraft mechanic, that term means something very different to me. I'm going to search it, but would still like your take on it.
Ah yes, I see what you mean. However, the meaning you use as a mechanic is actually related (etymologically) to this older meaning of the term. In many (maybe even most) languages the word for the notion of "spirit" is related to words like "air" or "breath". In Greek (and as a trade lingo borrowed by Coptic sources) the word "pneuma" literally can be translated as "air", but is generally translated in this context as "spirit". By the way, in this system of thinking the "spirit" and the "soul" are not the same thing the way they are for most English speakers. So, a "hylic" is a person who's perspective is through the sensate body... nothing more. A psychic (in this older usage) is not a person with ESP or anything like the modern meaning of the term, it is a person who's perspective is in the level of "soul" or cosmic mind. A "pneumatic" is a person who is living from a perspective of "spirit" or connection with something apophatic.
Many people may not realize that this kind of philosophical speculation was part of one of the three forms of "chivalry".
TopChuck
Which is to say, now you are talking about "understanding" the trait, not whether there IS an "innate" trait that could include characteristics that align with "Chivalry"; right?
Yes and no. Whether we agree with it today or not, in this old way of thinking (and we do have to understand that it is a different way of thinking than we are raised with today) there was thought to be an innate quality to some kinds of "understanding".
I think you and I are on the same page in the sense that we both know what the other's is talking about. We both know the apples and oranges. I simply mean to add that the notion of "understanding" itself was maybe a little different in the context I am talking about, so I want to kind of interject that concept into the conversation as it relates to the philosophical and literary notion of "chivalry". | |
|
| Chivalry
Posted: 7/31/2009 10:32:14 PM |
in this old way of thinking (and we do have to understand that it is a different way of thinking than we are raised with today) there was thought to be an innate quality to some kinds of "understanding".
Dear Cyr and friends,
Of this I am not quite convinced. It is true that the epochal change from the medieval time, when the obsession with salvation created the first thought, or perspective, "will I go to heaven" or "how does this act affect me going to heaven" to the modern world, "do I love this one, and does this one love me back" created some sort of difference, whether the chicken or the egg, I am unsure. Epochal in reach, yes, of that I am fairly certain. However the implication that we have hit another such change is harder to grasp, as in your description of TC's apples and oranges as being, for want of a better word, the physical unconscious.
All of us educated before the seventies matured in a world where histology grew out of philosophy. Freud read what we call the classics, as did I, nigh on one hundred years later. We all have, at some level, a basic sense of tripartite division, body, mind spirit so driven into us, that, although I am more likely to say that our perception of this so colours our psyche that we, although knowing this is mere chemistry, accept this classification innately. Not biologically innately, but innately in the older sense of a postulate so neuroplastic that we cannot escape its effect.
My students, even my daughter, can recite concepts, but they are learned after math, physics, biology. Thus, we can say that our current view can be only hylic, as we create all models, even of the thought itself, from histology, in which case all belief is merely itself observation. Were this so, this would be the first time in human history that observation itself formed such a basis. Few twenty year olds I know were brought up with a belief in anything supernatural. At the point where they learn religion as a means of examining historical thought, rather as a plastic reality of nuture, formed with the very elements of language in their personalities, the concept of innate becomes interesting. I do not have to force a mathematical concept of body, mind, spirit into a system of thought based upon material observation, it is part of me, as physical as this computer upon which I type. I argue the politics of rational humanism, but am hard wired to believe.
The question is then not only of biomarkers of belief, but of an acculturation of belief early enough in hippocampus development to allow for this perspective variance at a genuinely innate, read cellular level. If a change to a culture of androgeny were to develop over a few generations, surely as it is, women will still bear young, not men. However, when no one hears of pneuma or psyche until gymnasium, will the entire concept of spirit, and the philosophical musings of chivalry, the codes and mores, become historical fiction, facts without a bio-reference?
I speak to my students about religion, as all music, all psychology of our western world asks but this one question: is there a god? Yet from those who never felt in any perspective a sense of self, this question, already answered in the negative from first glint of consciousness, is of mere etymological interest. Those who learn neuro chemistry before they muse upon god may in fact have an entirely different neural development. I no longer describe such basic things as cathectic processes, or even catharsis, in terms of affect, or less even, perspective, rather as change in neural pathways, or some change in the chemistry of reception. All that we feel and think is simply neurochemisty in motion, at which point, the hylic perspective becomes synonymous with histology, which is simply observation remembered.
If so, apples and oranges are demonstrably the same thing, and this is the first generation in my experience where all philosophy is natural philosophy, and, most importantly, this is so for the child from earliest experience. Freud may or may not have understood that the system he described was merely a stopgap fanciful image of a physical reality which the technology of his time could not in fact examine. But he and I, age 54,m share the same basis from early childhood until genuine sentience and education. My daughter, as literate a woman who lives, grew up seeing everything, even thought, as mere physics, the soul, or the feeling of having a soul, one set of intersynaptic messages. What does she feel "innately"? Is my innate understanding simply developed by concepts so prevalent and understood by all, that language itself either creates, or, conversely, depends upon this understanding?
Or simply put, is "innate" the equivalent of "species specific biomolecular"?
There is no way, of course, to study this, and any empirical observation is years away, since we cannot create an artificual control group. But pleasant speculation. Of course, if indeed, we have perspective observation, the method needs to be changed, and all we think we know is simply one sided.
Peace,
CdC | |
|
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you?
Posted: 7/31/2009 11:02:40 PM | I wish there was more chivalry in the dating world.
I look up to my dad and he has always been a kind, considerate and gentle man to all 5 of his girls and his wife.
Like they say, girls always look for someone who is like their dad. | |
|
| |
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you?
Posted: 8/2/2009 12:49:57 PM | I don't like receiving gifts. It does make me feel bad. As I mentioned earlier, I have everything that I want or need.~verityone~
The fact that one can appreciate gifts is demonstrative of thoughtfulness to the one giving a gift. If you have interacted with young children you will no doubt have seen them pick a flower, or sometimes a weed, because they deem it beautiful and want to “Give it to mommy“. It makes the child feel good to give you this “gift“; they will paint pictures for you and proudly gift them to you.
To think that another cannot gift you because you can get it for yourself is missing the premise of this generous act. When I shopped often in NYC, I would get for my husband, a perfectly matching shirt and tie, for one of his suits. My gifting him these shirts and matching ties demonstrated that although shopping for myself I was also thinking of him. Plus I had more time to find the perfect tie which can be works of art. Receiving a gift graciously is as important as giving the perfect, thoughtful gift.
There is an idea that real chivalry may be "innate".
That is to say, the idea that some are naturally able to understand the deeper spiritual function of the "rite" of chivarly while other people will simply never get it. This is what I mean by "innate".cdbergerac~
I believe it is innate.
As I stated earlier I believe gentility is as well; why the old saying, “You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear”. You can learn good manners but as someone else pointed out they will appear phony. It is true that the peasant can be more noble than the nobleman.
in this old way of thinking (and we do have to understand that it is a different way of thinking than we are raised with today) there was thought to be an innate quality to some kinds of "understanding".~cdbergerac~ Of this I am not quite convinced.~ceff~
What an incredibly long winded manner of the teacher stating you do not think human qualities innate or measurable. Why I hated the classroom. Of course innate qualities can be measured, as is routinely done with intellect. With other qualities such as sensuality or chivalry one has to usually posses these qualities themselves in order to have the capacity to see them in another.
but the most important thing that I could get from a woman, would be more of her. Her entirety is my obsession.~verityone~
A man suggested to me that to him the ultimate demonstration of chivalry, by a woman, would be her desire to fulfill his carnal desires and let him see the joy she derives from merely fulfilling his wishes. He thinks it akin to “dropping the hanky”.
So the person that stated that the scene I depicted is in her repertoire of what she does for “her” man missed the entire premise for she also stated, “Ladies first”.
Something that is given as a direct physical gift for remembrance, such as a ring, bit of clothing, strand of hair (depending on how personal one wishes to be)... something that can be taken and held was called a "Favor". The point is to have something of the person with you. The more personal the gift, the more personal the "favor".~cdbergerac~
Although it was recently done to me when someone gave me his military service ring, which he is never without, when leaving for a business trip; I treasured his gesture. Thank you, once more, for enlightening me as I did not realize the origin of this act only that to me it seemed a loving and trusting gesture.
Splendere, it's clear that I'm preaching to the choir......
There are some things a guy never forgets. Clearly, it's something that you've mastered. I haven't even a clue what you'd call that.
Devotion?
I’m afraid I’ve not mastered much of anything, verityone.
Devotion is an admirable quality and certainly if I am with a love, my devotion is without question. I feel guilty if when out of the presence of my love a man compliments me.
But, without question, I have know very devoted women whom would never even think of wonton seduction of their men; so it is more than just devotion. It is the capacity to see it from his mentality in some respects.
This ability to be able to sense important feelings and qualities in both genders is something that you yourself have often demonstrated within these forums. I find that, in this, you seem quite unique. When one has this capacity it is both a treasure to some and a threat to others for it gives one the ability to know what another is all about pretty quickly. | |
|
| |
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you?
Posted: 8/2/2009 3:17:25 PM | I'm old school. And, when chivalry does come my way, I bathe in it! I too believe in the Golden Rule, and feel respect and human consideration and kindness should always come first. And, I am a girly-girl and though I don't think I'm the weaker sex, I am the softer sex ... All women -- I don't care what they say -- love that princess factor every now and then. And, I think a lot men love giving it, no matter how simple or grand the gesture is.
This is not written in stone, but I believe women like to be wanted, and men like to be needed. | |
|
| Chivalry
Posted: 8/2/2009 3:27:10 PM | Ceffodicane
In response to my point that both the early Gnostics and some practitioners of Courtly Chivarly viewed the tripartite division of mankind as innate you answer...
Of this I am not quite convinced. We all have, at some level, a basic sense of tripartite division, body, mind spirit so driven into us, that, although I am more likely to say that our perception of this so colours our psyche that we, although knowing this is mere chemistry, accept this classification innately.
I'm not completely sure I am catching what you intend to say, but if I understand you I think you mean that people today generally talk about us all as having a tripartite division of the self. This is generally true, but isn't quite what I was talking about. You see, us modern folk are a bit more egalitarian in the way we read this philosophical point (not to mention the fact that we partly misunderstand the intended picture) so that most of us assume EVERYONE has a body, a soul/mind, and a spirit (well, maybe not this last one *lol*).
Let me make my point a little more clear here. These earlier Platonists did NOT assume that everyone had all of these. The hyle (which included our normal instinctual intellect that most people today would call "mind") was the only part we we all have. In other words, most people were seen as innately hylic without any psychic or pneumatic potential. The psychic, in turn, had both the hylic and psychic parts of their existance, but didn't have a pneuma. The "mind" of the pshycic is not what we today call "mind". The pneumatic had all three. I don't think you will find many people today who agree with this notion.... in fact I think you would find that many people today would see this as rather elitist. That is likely why it has been drilled into our culture that everyone has a hyle, psyche, and pneuma.
Here is how the transfers into the notion of Fin'amor. The idea is that a more refined person (refined in a sort of alchemical sense) was able to practice a higher form of romantic love. While the refinement itself wasn't innate (it took work) the ability to be refined... the qualities that could be refined... were innate and didn't exist in everyone. Therefore the one who practiced true chivalry not only was able to go through the motions, but they felt and understood the symbolic language that the motions were founded on... AND.... they had the natural draw to experience the end result of what those motions were intended to create with another person who was of equal potential. (and since in Chivarly it is the woman who chooses her mate, one of her Chivalrous acts is to not allow her choice to be driven by lower inclination).
I'm just imagining the looks on the faces of some people who are reading this right now and giggling to myself.  It is important, though, not to see this through the eisegesis of modern understanding if one really wants to understand it.
Just think of it this way, the idea was that some people were naturally peasants (even if they were born as nobles), some were naturally nobles (even if born as peasants) and then there were the few, the Cognoscenti, the Fedeli. And they would have surely agreed with Ms Splendere when she says..
With other qualities such as sensuality or chivalry one has to usually posses these qualities themselves in order to have the capacity to see them in another.
"What a remarkable thing is love, for it infests a man with such
shining virtues, and there is no one whom it does not instruct to
have these great and good habits in plenty"
(Andreas Capellanus; De Amore) | |
|
| |
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you?
Posted: 8/2/2009 4:43:42 PM | I think that chivalry is romantic, and I am a sucker for romance.
I used to make jokes about how I would never get married again unless a man would ride up on a horse to me, dressed as a knight, and propose.  Like that'll ever happen! So for now I will date on POF in hopes of finding a man that is what I am looking for. | |
|
| |
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you?
Posted: 8/2/2009 5:58:44 PM | heres a blonde mo
ment whst does that
mean
I feel the same way you do blondie but what it means is, some people just know how to be romantic (i.e., chivalrous) and some people just don't... I think. Not just by acting, but by being... because it's something that's either "there" or it isn't? | |
|
| |
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you?
Posted: 8/2/2009 8:44:55 PM | As I said earlier, I think it is superficial, and I think that some guys polish the outside and neglect the inside. That doesn't mean I consider guys who do it to be fools or something, it just means that is not my style.
Because I think it is superficial, that does not mean that I don't open doors for people or anything like that, but that is all I look at it as, not as a chivalrious act, I guess the key is I do it if I feel inclinded to do it. If someone starts expecting it all the time or tries to push me to do it, then I will never do it! And I might add, how many of you ladies think that after you marry this "chivalirous" guy, three years down the road, will he still be opening your car door for you? If you REALLY want to see how "chivalrous" this guy REALLY is, have one of your male friends, about twice his size, come over and pretend to give you a hard time, and then you see what your "chivalrous knight" is really made of. Then you'll know for sure. | |
|
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you?
Posted: 8/2/2009 8:52:13 PM | wizard, I have a feeling there's many of us women who have had long-term relationships and marriages with men who have maintained these types of behaviors after the initial courtship and "wooing" stage was over - at least I know I have, and I never stopped appreciating it, or them, nor did I ever demand it or expect it. It was never a thought, maybe because it was just there, hmmm?
how many of you ladies think that after you marry this "chivalirous" guy, three years down the road, will he still be opening your car door for you? If you REALLY want to see how "chivalrous" this guy REALLY is, have one of your male friends, about twice his size, come over and pretend to give you a hard time, and then you see what your "chivalrous knight" is really made of. Then you'll know for sure.
And what kind of test is this? I didn't have male friends twice the size of my husband when I was married.... let alone why would I have him (if there was one) come over to "give me a hard time" if I was married? What kind of game-playing is that? | |
|
| Chivalry
Posted: 8/2/2009 9:07:25 PM | Dear Cy and friends,
The underlying problem, though, for rational humanists and atheists lies here: since all perception is merely neural activity, the concept of something that is outside of the material is at best incomprehensible with tools we have. No less than Jung stated at the end of Errinerungen that(pardon my impromptu translation) as sad as it made him, even his most ecstatic mystical experience would eventually be explained by biology(neurophysiology).
Naturally, we can measure chivalry - any observable phenomenon can be measured if we describe units and parameters, which answers an argument made above. We measure certain types of functioning daily in GAFs. Certainly, if we then observe chivalry as we would any other form of reality testing, we can look at the parts, whether, as Huuserl would define them, in relationship to the perspective itself, sort of an historical way of looking at moi-subjective or moi-mème, or as biological functions in terms of mere neurochemistry or relationships among various organisms.
This, however, begs the real social question of chivalry and feudalism, or chivalry and christianity, that of love as a contract. In essense, a knight fought for a lady, and a lady respected victory. I am in the midst of working on Il Trovatore with a young singer. I have just done the show a short while back, and the resonances are as clear from Cyr's postings as can be clear without actually living the life of a millennium ago. The duality of the chivalric love(another quick translation from the French) fascinates me. On the one hand, it is highly individualised, on the other, part of the many "deals" one made within a system of interlocking protections. Why, for instance, would a "lady" of a "deeper" nature or at least higher discipline feel that a love based upon "higher" things somehow served her or her lover more than what, for want of a better word, was "baser" love? Indeed, it seems that the very concept of fin'amor, with the emphasis upon the individual conscience, responsibility, trial, and so on, replaces the earlier shame and honour, which are far more abstracted qualities. This entirely ignores another issue, that of primogeniture, and the difficulty in finding a mate - not that we here on PoF are sympathetic to that.....
Most of all, we do see, ironically, in courtly love both the apogee and decline of religion as a dominant factor in civilisation. It seems to me that the dichotomy, a highly marian view of womanhood, but the elevation of gender based thinking(who loves me?) begins the move of human thought away from superstition into material. At some point, in this most "Catholic/feuedal" of ideations, we see the seeds of the reformation, not yet germinated, but lying waiting for the change of chemistry which inexorably occurred.
What would then happen if, without a god, we reverted to mating by power, by force, by dint of attraction alone? What if, on the other hand, there were biological gentility, as well as biological aggression, some sort of gene for compassion as well as we now surmise and can almost demonstrate a gene for belief? Like intelligence, a quality subject to metrics, yet still, somehow intangible. Even then, as we see in the intelligence thread, few really wish to suffer a discipline of definition required for serious communication, or at least pleasurable rumination. This very fact, though as far from proof as water from whisky, supports, to some extent the feeling of innateness, and at this point, with no empirical data, to argue innateness to be biochemical or experiential is vapid, and from my point of view, experience being merely chemistry, a moot point.
That all having been said, I still teach actors, singers, and musicians to study "like a knight keeping his vigil". How idiosyncratic, to deplore belief in a deity, while acting upon it at the same time. One must note as well that many posters in this very thread still see good manners and chivalry as essentially the same thing. We no longer live in a simple world. I am, to the best of my poor ablity, mannerly, yet deplore the inequality that genuine chivalry implies, while at the same time use the "f-word" more in a three hour rehearsal than many middle-americans would do in a lifetime. So we are stuck with words which few really wish to define, creating a kind of mishmash of ill fitting verbal haberdashery which cannot please the imagined ear-eye of the internet communicant. Certainly, to argue a hierarchical system such as the gnostics, or coptics appear to hold is hardly plausible today, although Mozart, in his way the most modern of composers, made it clear in Zauberfloete that he, possibly the most clear headed thinker on human personalities who ever lived, felt that there are indeed levels of being, such as Tamino's achieving priesthood via ordeal, or Papageno being simply Papageno. Each and all serve some sort of purpose, whether aleatoric or divinely planned.
How interesting to note, as a weird aside about Trovatore, that the Count di Luna, believing that Leonora has lost the beloved troubadour she met at the tournament, who, naturally won, pulls her by force away from the church wither she flew to abandon a life she held meaningless. One thing is fairly clear, even without Verdi's ninetheenth century parallax on chivalry: the very idea of love being both courtly and poetic began the liberation which ends, I suppose, in the very death of chivalry, first, men are relieved of the fealty to primitive superstition, then, the gender ideation becomes, ultimately, a movement into equality, via protestantism, nationalism, and lastly materialism.
To coin a cheap paraprhase of Unamuno:
Without a soul, wherefore god, without god, wherefore a soul.
To attach the idea of fin'amor, without a soul, wherefore amour chevaleresque, but without human love, wherefore a soul? Remember well, in the end, both Elisabeth and Tannhaeuser die, without ever having loved each other. To die for one another only to serve some absurd scheme of redemption seems to me to be sadder than all other fates - to know almost love.
Nonetheless, the existence of those who still radiate love of the old symbols comforts me, at least, and I beg you all to accept my gratitude.
Love to all,
Martin | |
|
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you?
Posted: 8/2/2009 9:22:13 PM | Ms Leona
I feel the same way you do blondie but what it means is, some people just know how to be romantic (i.e., chivalrous) and some people just don't... I think. Not just by acting, but by being... because it's something that's either "there" or it isn't?
Dang! I put so much work into my rabbit trail (typos notwithstanding) and here you go and say the same thing in a much better way. :)
Wizardoflight
As I said earlier, I think it is superficial, and I think that some guys polish the outside and neglect the inside.
I saw where you posted this previously and actually meant to respond. When just talking about the behavior, as such, I would agree with you. There are many "lauseniers" out there. I would only respectfully disagree when it comes to the deeper literary and philosophical form of chivarly. I don't think you can call Dante or Wolfram von Eschnebach "superficial". By the way, I also would like to extend this to Verityone and his use of the word "banal". Any peasant (hylic) can open a door or pull out a chair (and even in some cases mean it... but simply mean it as a gesture of respect). The much more rare noble (psychic) will mean it, and also have the idea of what such a thing means symbolically and how it has an actual function beyond mating but also for a larger social paradigm, and so forth (as an ethical code with social and even intellectual potential).
What I am trying to say is that there is something deeper than the simple gesture that you call "superficial".... for some anyway. | |
|
| Chivalry
Posted: 8/2/2009 10:18:16 PM | Ceffodicane
While I understand your point as it pertains to what you are saying about atheism and secularism vs the "spiritual" undertones I have been talking about, I want to respectfully point out that I think it still misunderstands part of the philosophical nuance of this form of chivalry.
Let me start by saying that you have made a few assumptions that don't actually reflect the intent of the "lingo" of this literary genre. For one, you seem to assume that the feudal lingo here is literal when in fact these people were quite direct in using feudal lingo against itself to some extent. The notion in courly "chivalry" that being a peasant or a noble was not about which literal class you were born into was genuinely revolutionary.
The next assumption you SEEM to be making... about the "Christian" aspects of this form of "chivalry" are even more specifically false. You can't define this movement in that way... it would be a gross ignorance based on chivalry from the movies or popular imagination, or defining all chivalry via the "church militant" and disregarding the other forms of chivalry.
Even if you wish to talk about this in "hylic" terms, think about this. Would you want a person with Asperger's or maybe a so called "idiot savant" to be a leader of one of our countries? Even in the physical realm it is understood that not all people have a full range of understanding abilities. They may be great at something, like math, but may not have the social skills it takes to deal with a larger population.
To me it is less important whether you agree or disagree with "chivarly" but instead whether you do so without misunderstanding the intent. I think maybe you understand what I mean by that. You would expect the same in your field. | |
|
|
| Page 16 of 21
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 |
|
Home
login 
