greetings all a little task for you.
As you have probably guessed by now, the tasks that I have been setting have an analytical tone to them.
There has been an appalling response to my previous tasks I must say but now I am back from holidays I will try to set about one per week depending on complexity.
At the bottom of this message is a poem, I want you to read it and then see what you can find from it. This is a very simple peon by William Blake which depicts to perspectives, try to identify these perspectives and then theorize back onto what could have given rise to each perspective which each show a radically different side to the same object.
Which of the perspectives do you think is the most correct? Which is the most productive/beneficial?
Give reasons or all your answers but try to give more than I have asked for. Look at my questions because i have specifically left gaps which you must locate and fill yourself.
Colin Waring
"The Clod and the Pebble" is a deep and interesting poem. The first thing that came to mind when reading this poem is that of selfish and selfless love. The clod represents the selfless love, wanting nothing for itself but giving everything. While the pebble is the selfish love, wanting all but giving nothing. As one looks deeper into the poem it can be seen that there could also be other things that Blake is trying to get across. It could be said of the clod that it is without self. For if you look at what a clod is, a mobile and pliable piece of clay, you see that it is taking on the identity of whatever is impressed upon it. The clod has no identity, no desire of it's own, and merely submits to the wishes of others. Where as the pebble a complete individual, rigid and strong, giving to no one, strict in what it believes and unbending to the wills of others. So, while the clod can only submit the Pebble can give nothing.
Looking at this I think that neither perspective is a good or solid one. Both are to extreme and can do nothing for love or for life. There must be a sense of self but there must also be an ability to accept new things, the ability to grow and change. Without both parts of the puzzle a person is not whole and therefore must seek what they are missing outside of themselves. Maybe this is why it is said that opposites attract.
Seeing as this is the Force Academy I feel inclined to bring up the obvious.
"The clod and the pebble" can also be seen and the light and dark side. For the lightside is also selfless and giving always to others, thinking not of themselves and being pliable to others needs. While the darkside it forever looking at ways to make life better for themselves and doing everything toward that end. There is no give from the darksider and they will only help others when it suits their purpose. The shadows however, are neither the pebble nor the clod. The shadow sees that there is a balance that needs to be found between the two. The shadow can be thought of more as…..hmmm…..perhaps the stream. Able to change with it's environment, moving and adapting to what is given, but also having the power to forge a new path that was once not there.
--Raven
Here are my thoughts to the poem. There are really two ways of looking at this poem. The first one I got very quickly. One veiw is the eternal optimist and the other the eternal pessimist. You asked which one is a better perspective on life...I'm not really sure, I am young and don't have much experience in the world. But I do see optimism as being more productive and it makes me feel a whole lot better but thats just me. People are different so different things will make different people feel good. The shadow teaching is it not? The second way of looking at this poem a friend pointed out to me. He said "There is a deep meaning to this poem." Previously I had asked him "Why would the clod, who gets trampled everyday and leads a miserable life be the one who is the optimist?" He explained to me that sometimes that when you don't see beauty very often it becomes more important to you. You see it clearer and appreciate it more. The pebble lives in a beautiful stream. Since he lives in it its nothing special. I quickly applied that thought to the force. Most people don't recognize the force. Why? because we live in it. I'm sure if someone who had no access to the force every came to our world they would say something like "What is this wonderful feeling all around me?" Its hard for us to see what we live in. Such is the pebble he lives in beauty so it is hard for him to see it. What of love? Well I say that love is beautiful. So if love is beautiful and the pebble can't see beauty then it can't possibly be able to know what love is. Well that's all I have to say for now. Thanks for listening/reading : ).
Jes Ree
It is interesting, and there're many different opinions on it, I'm sure. Personally I like Raven's reply on it, but there is another point to make there. Can anything truly find a perfect balance in it? There is no set point to be at. The way I see best to make this work is to do both. Find yourself, keep who you are, but don't overdo it and concentrate only on yourself. Is it not possible to give to help others without changing who you are? Sometimes you have to give by not changing. Can you not have the ability to be gentle and compassionate as well as harsh and hard within the same personality? The tough part there is knowing when you need to be each one.
Rogue Ace
Okay thank you all for your replies they are very good and I shall do my best to respond appropriately to you all.
First off, I see three main approaches to this...hardly surprising since three of you replied ;0)
The immediate subject that stands out right in front of a person when reading this poem is that of love. Raven has taken this most obvious subject and discussed the relevance of the different parts of the poem to the subject of love.
Jes, you took a slightly different approach and looked at the reasons that the clod and the pebble would be saying what they were saying. Both of these approaches yield good answers.
Rogue, your answer was probably from the most different approach in that you looked at the existing replies and then asked questions about them instead of concentrating on the poem itself.
All three of these approaches has its advantages and disadvantages. Raven's and Jes' provide new different opinions, but require a little more research into the actual document itself.
Rogue, yours provides refinery to the opinions of others by asking important questions.
Ideally when a person replies to a task like this, they should look for all the different ways of answering it and cover as many of them as is realistically possible. Now I myself would probably have given an answer somewhat with similarities to both you Raven and you Jes, now if I wanted to incorporate the style that you, Rogue answered with...which I probably should, I would write my answer but not post it. I would then come back to it a day or so later, and read my reply to see if I would still write the same things again and to see if I have any fresh ideas that can be used to expand on the topic.
To further for one comment, that of Raven's comparison with the Light and Dark, commented upon by Rogue, I make the following comments. Whilst the answer is greatly stereotypical it can yield certain fruits, however must be noted that it is very hard to find any one universal description that will work in every single case.
If you are to say that the clod and pebble are Light and Dark, I would make one further point. Both the clod and the pebble have taken quite a considerable beating, the clod from the cattle, the pebble from the river. The pebble was once part of a grand mountain but has been consistantly beaten down and broken apart.
I have found that the Light would be able to defend themselves with reasons for being the clod, the Dark would be able to defend themselves with reasons for being the pebble. Each one thinks that the others have made their decision based one reasons which they feel are not the correct ones, mainly due to the fact that each will be assessing the reasons using different criteria.
Those who take the Shadow to mean the central balance of Light and Dark may draw reference to us being like sand. Each particle of sand is solid, like the pebble. Yet when put together the sand is pliable and can be imprinted upon.
By my interpretation of the Shadow, we are neither the clod, nor the pebble, nor the sand. Yet the clod, the pebble and the sand can be found within us if you look for them, so whilst not being either of the above, we are all of them. I understand the clod and its reasons for choosing to be what it is, I understand the pebble for choosing to be what it is and I understand the sand for choosing to be what it is. People have the choice to choose whether they are the pebble, the clod or the sand, but they also have the choice to accept that they are much more and that the pebble, the clod and the sand are simply three points of view within them.
Colin Waring
First off, let me state that I am aware of being forever and a day late at posting my thoughts. For this, I offer up no excuse, and will greatly accept my dues. So, without much more there, I will continue on, now, as I should've before...
I see the poems as many things. Some are seen as metaphors, and others as descriptions of a world and usefulness... Let's see which one I begin with...
Actually, I think I'm going to begin with a description of the opposites i the poem, taken as they are written, with my own personal touch...
"Love seeketh not itself to please, nor for itself hath any care, but for another gives its ease, And builds a Heaven in Hell's despair" --
Well, to me, this implies that "Love is mighty, Love is grand", and that Love is a blessing in the world. or as it is said, "Love is the power to overcome all adversity". It is also saying that for even the darkest of the dark, the worst of the worst, there exists the good, the light. The pure and welcomed... Saying that Love is selfless, and brings with it peace from within and without. 'Not for itself hath any care,/ but for another gives its ease,' says that Love is selfless, that the other come before thyself. That love is pleasing and the maker of dreams...
"Love seeketh only self to please, To bind another to its delight, Joys in another's loss of ease, And builds a Hell in Heanen's despite." --
So, this is saying, to me, that Love is a burden, that it's gifts do not equal its tribulations. That there is more work in Love than the Love itself is worth. For all the good that exists, for the pure, and the hopeful, there is the wrong, the corrupt, the hopelessness... Then there is the matter of 'To bind another to its delight,/ Joys in another's loss of ease,' seems to imply that Love is nothing more than an act of creating servitude. To the other, to the love. That Love is a discomfort in it's own true self. That love is selfish in its wants and whims.
In this scenario, let's have look at the middle verse. Here, the Clod of Clay is only occasionally touched my the cattle's feet, and therein brings in "To dream of love, and want its touch," that each instance is an eternity in its own to be treasured. For the Pebble, another story arises. The Pebble, always with the brook is taking the role of being suffocated. No time apart, alone. Saying "Love is a burden, leaving me ill at ease." The Pebble knows of no Life without the Brook, and is, therefor restless and without freedom. On others, the poem resembles a metaphor, as that "Love" could be replaced with "Life" and talk about how the the Clod has happiness, yet has time alone, whereas, the Pebble, is always surrounded, and has no time to its self. In thins, the Clod represents "Solitude without loneliness," and the Pebble represents "Loneliness without solitude. There are always other cattle for the Clod to met, but of the Pebble, it is the same Brook, no change.
In terms of usefulness, the Clod could see itself as a "place for the cattle to stand," and the Pebble as "Just another one of the crowd." Here, the Pebble seemingly sees no individuality within itself, whereas the Clod does. The Clod see itself as being useful to the cattle bu giving them a place to stand, to walk, but the Pebble sees only the uselessness, as being one out of many, a being without individuality....
While these are not all the ways I see this poem, there are an infinite amount of was one could see this poem, as that if it is a metaphor, then it could be a metaphor for anything. Mostly, though, I feel something about it representing the duality of everything. We are loved, and we are hated. We are individuals, yet we are indistinguishable fro the crowd. We have a place of our own, and our place is of no use. We have a purpose, and a purpose has us in its grasp.
Xaverri Darkcleod