"Oversoul" Questions

A. What is the mind according to Emerson?
The mind is something that doesn't concord with with what the soul does. Our actions are different if they are based on mind than if they are based on soul. It is like comparing reason with passion. As Emerson says it, it is the "scale of the senses and the understanding."

B. Define "beatitude" as it is used on page two.
Happiness and/or blessing.

C. On the first paragraph of page four, why does Emerson employ a parallel structure? Explain.
He accentuates his ideas and shows that together they form a main idea.

D. For Emerson, how are revelation and creation related?
Emerson says they are both related to questioning life and arguments it by saying that "revelation is the disclosure of the soul" and creation, well, it's self-explainatory.

F. What's God's role in all of this? Do you think Emerson's theory is feasible?
God's role is to provide a "shoulder to cry on." That is, to be accessible to all who need him. Even if they don't believe they need him. He is in each of our souls. Emerson doesn't talk about the Catholic god himself, but about a miscellaneous God that is inside all of us; a God we are unaware of. He says that the only way to notice him is by living our lives, and we will eventually see his effects on such.

I don't think Emerson theory is feasible, at least not fully. Maybe it is true that we have some sort of energy or soul within the soul that is named "God," and it is its duty to be accessible when needed. But that doesn't mean that to unleash it we must live our lives. Our purpose to live is solely to live, not to discover the God within us.

Not-"The Communist Manifesto"

Whenever I heard the word "manifesto," it takes me back to dark-APUSH stage of my life full of Republicans and Democrats, and primary resources that never really made it to my hippocampus. The only thing I can come up with when I hear this word is famous "Communist Manifesto." Solely with my use of logic, I understand manifesto as a form of -as the name states it- written manifestation by someone involved in a current issue and wants to make a declaration. Since everyone posted its meaning in their blogs, I don't feel the need to do so.

Basically there is a book named Reality Hunger by David Shields that talks about the appreciation for art, and how no matter what area of art it is, it always ends up involving reality. And then there is a manifesto (omg) named "The Futurist Manifesto" by F.T. Marinetti that talks about the involvement of technology in the future and how we shouldn't ignore it. This is why it is named "The Futurist Manifesto," it is futurists who want to change the world. As I read this manifesto, I thought about the chemistry lab that I had to finish. Don't worry, I kept fighting for my right to understand. So I did. That was my intent of comprehension I came up with. 

Anyway, both authors somehow want the readers to understand these topics in a different way and maybe even embrace it. David Shields shows us art as a form of reality, and talks solely about art (this is, in the first chapter). But since he is beginning to get into the "reality topic," it is obvious that he will lead us to a deeper meaning involving society; all that controversial stuff. This, of course, will be transmitted to us through art. Maybe. This will lead us to a reflection of how we live and how this will make up our future. Something we should be concerned with.