"In caring for someone,…in marrying someone, our hope is to like the world. However, most people have a disposition to care for a person as a means of consolation for the fact that one hasn’t like the world so far."
That honest like of the world is the essential basis for the success of a marriage--this has never been seen before! That is what is in the above statement by Eli Siegel, founder of Aesthetic Realism: the deepest and best purpose of marriage, and the thing that makes marriage go wrong.
On Saturday, June 7, from 11 AM - 12:30 PM, women will be in the midst of studying this explanation, in the Understanding Marriage! class, titled "Is the Purpose of Marriage Shelter from, or Love for, the World?" It will be taught by Aesthetic Realism consultants Barbara Allen, Anne Fielding, and Pauline Meglino, authorities in this field for over 30 years.
Cultural and exciting, the class will include discussions about the immediacy of those ideas for women’s lives. And the following sentences will also be explored:
"Love, in other words, can be a means of shelter from an unkind world, a world not too interested in us, as we see it; or it can be a means of intensifying, affirming, extending, subtilizing a care for the world."
The class takes place in the third floor library of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation, 141 Greene Street, off West Houston Street, in SoHo, 212.777.4490. The class is $10. Please visit AestheticRealism.org for more information.
1 comment:
Professor Tarrow;
Thank you for your brief comment on my blog "RandomlyRational," regarding posting the essay "The Ordinary Doom." I will say that I had no previous knowledge of Aesthetic Realism when I posted it - other than I thought the essay was striking (and seemingly written about me as well!). Since your comment, though, I've done some reading about A.R. - I do have a question - if you get a chance to respond. In any natural system, wouldn't it be correct to say that categorization of 'opposites' is anthropomorphic - and ultimately arbitrary? Meaning, in any given natural system (without human categorization) these opposites really are just complementary elements that sustain the system - in effect then, a reconciliation of these opposites into a 'oneness' is just as arbitrary and only overcomes a self-inflicted human separation from reality?? At bottom - we have held ourselves separate from the natural system (and view it as opposite to us) and A.R. suggests that position is incorrect??? I would appreciate your thoughts! Sincerely,
Scott Scofield
(feel free to use my e-mail address from my blog).
Post a Comment