Early depictions of gods were chosen so that their forms would represent emanations of the World Soul when contemplated. What I'm learning from reading Hadot's The Veil of Isis is that this concept evolved. Later, it was believed that the Soul could be present everywhere, providing one was contemplating it, and thus objects did not have to represent the World Soul in its entirety, but just part of it, so long as they were "in sympathy" with the Soul of the All.
I am fascinated by this idea, because when I think about those stories or things that captivate me, but which offer me no direct meaning, I wonder if they exhibit some kind of "sympathy" towards a greater good. Let us take the macaroon (I defer to the American spelling, as I think it is the US that popularised it). It represents good times, something special, delight - all of which I consider to be attributes of the ultimate state of things.
The thing is that when representing a part instead of the whole becomes common practice, we may forget to look for the whole. Contemporary science demonstrates this point: it is said that genetic engineers who retired ten years ago can no longer follow the advances made in such a short period of time. The sciences have become so specialised that it almost becomes absurd to suggest that they were once connected to a "world view", "religion" or "spirituality" - and one that was kept secret, at that.
Similarly, languages have also evolved to points beyond recognition; an example closest to home is the Cantonese/Chinese debate: while the characters used in Cantonese are the same as those used in Mandarin, the words are totally different, as are the tones, and even overall music of the language. Yet Cantonese is classified as a dialect, not a language. There are many other more profound examples of the movement of languages away from each other to the point of estrangement - but is it not also true that all languages are the same where good will is concerned? For instance, even if one knows not a single word in the language of one's interlocutor, if both parties share the wish to communicate, they will. In contrast, even if two people speak the same language, if they are overcome by ill will, doubt or anger, they are very unlikely to reach a shared understanding. Good will is the "whole" of international languages, which are a "part". Good will is the "sympathy".
But to keep things light around here, I will choose as the image for this post my results of webify me, a new firefox feature that most of you who updated recently may have noticed. I spent my time taking the little quiz, and wondered at how much amusement I got out of the whole thing ... but, can you see some bits and pieces of "sympathy" in it?
Image: webify me.
