Goethe, in the Conversations, regrets having allowed himself to be seduced by the design of the “great work”. He says he knows how much it has harmed him, and regrets that he has allowed himself to block his mind for its valiant spontaneous manifestations which, although they demanded attention, had to be discarded for the sake of the greater goal. Understandable… it is not hard to admit that something is lost due to this need for concentration of effort that is imperative for the creation of a “major work”, as Goethe says. But perhaps it is a fair price, as perhaps it is risky to bet all one’s chips on a fragmentary, occasionally inspired work. Much of Goethe derives from Faust, and if he lost something by creating it, well, he gained it after all! It is very difficult to fully adhere to the recommendation to avoid the “great works” when we see that the best of the great authors have come from them. If, on the one hand, it is very justly observed that they are dangerous, and that perhaps they are not indicated for the majority of artists, on the other hand, in some cases it seems extremely beneficial to channel efforts toward a single purpose.
The Political Agitators of Past Eras
It is a remarkable fact that, in order to know who the political agitators of past eras were, we have to resort to works other than those of history. Exceptions to this rule are very rare, and most often apply to the worst examples of the class. Sad fate! And to see that history does not grant a single line, not a single mention to the majority of those who, during their lives, inspired such exalted admiration, directly influencing the so-called public opinion and giving a false impression of importance—which history tries to disprove. From this, only one conclusion can be drawn…
Once the Custom of the Concise…
Once the custom of the concise, direct, and objective sentence has become entrenched, so fashionable these days that it is almost a requirement of style, it is a pleasure to sporadically plunge into the pace of other times, slow, cadenced, seeming to show that art is not made in a hurry, that attention asks for details, adds nuances, and singularizes while it is extended. Immersing in this slow pace is like escaping from modern banality, and as the periods progress we are left with the sensation of a depth that escapes this time, which has been lost in futile priorities and has become an enemy of that tranquil state that accentuates the human tendency for contemplation.
Jung’s “Intuition”
Of all the fundamental Jungian psychological functions, “intuition” is the most interesting and challenging for those who seek to understand them in depth. The very individual in whom this perceptual mechanism is accentuated, should he seek to interpret it, will find himself in great difficulty, since to interpret it would be, in short, to rationalize it, and one does not rationalize the irrational. Furthermore, if we compare it with the other irrational function according to Jung’s classification, the “sensation”, this one seems without a doubt more understandable and less abstruse to those who do not have it salient, since it is activated through stimuli that are more easily visible and palpable. Like “sensation”, the “intuition” is spontaneous, but although, as Jung says, it is an exclusively perceptive faculty, working in conjunction with the functions of judgment it induces an appraisal of what it perceives. This appraisal is, therefore, automatic and based on the inexplicable. What impresses most is that it often comes out loaded with certainty, and a certainty that defies logic, since it is based on an irrational perception. And to see that this mechanism proves to be effective over and over again, proves to be reliable to the point of not only rivaling, but invalidating conclusions reached by other faculties—apparently more logical faculties—in those who possess it pronouncedly… Remarkable.