I felt my life style slovenly and slipshod with a need to converse but admit the partial reality to use parables. The sky is seeping today and clouds emblazoned like dark curtains with flowers purple, red and in ways I cant even begin to describe. I have read the psychology, philosophy and the economics sections. I did not come across anything substantive in dictums of writer but needless to say informative again. The psychological world is explained in schools of Actualism and Substantialism. He has mentioned some of Dr. No’s such as Freud, Alfred Miller, Carl Gustav, Charles Richet and H. Price. He advocated the need to adapt the middle line while dealing with Psychology but with a more hinge towards Actualism i.e reality and devoid in matters of spiritual strain. His view on economics is a little rationalist rectangular rodomontade in precept of his capitalistic adversaries. He, by all means a Marxist. However, the book must have been written before the Second World War perhaps, since he was being exemplary of India under influence of England. He permeated names like Gray, Bray, Thompson, Hodgskin and Veblen for study outlines in Economics. He was also being boastful to students to not get carried away by conundrums of poverty by over exuded sense of sympathy and to remain within the circumference of an acceptable course. I think his mandate of philosophy section is very meek. The theological potions in the theoretical works are regarded somewhat promiscuous again. He has also tried to explain segregation of philosophy from metaphysics by regarding science as the optimum means to study. But, the science and the philosopher must exist in propinquity with each other because without either one it is incomplete. He also refutes the absurd notions of mind and matter as two different elements but rather the same by giving an interesting quote “What is mind? Never mind – What is matter? It does not matter” but still his whole philosophy is to allure the audience to study what is outward instead of drawing the existentialism of spiritual world. He quotes a Swedish poet Gustav in good vibes probably. His world must have lately witnessed logic and psychology becoming a separate science which must have been the earlier period of the preceded century. If my recollection is correct. At present, I am still jolting in the jejune of language.
The poetry and Wisdom of Kahlil Gibran is a paragon. There has been a great deal of research work done on him. He was from cedars of Lebanon in the history of which I will not delve into at the moment. He spent his earlier years of schooling in Lebanon during which his family relocated to Boston where there were Syrian expatriates amid China town. His mother played a huge role to nurture his personality and brushing fingers on portraits. He was in love with a girl name Hala later known as Selma who was forced to marry the son of a local Bishop of the Maronite Church. He is remembered as the philosopher, painter and a poet. Generally, the poetry as per the author is of two kinds one that is academic the other people’s. The world thinks of him as a people’s poet. He was very lucid and simple in his parables, aphorisms, and poems yet with meanings extremely profound in thought. ‘Prophet’ was his best seller upon success of which his works rightly marveled. Friedrich Nietzche, William Blake, Jesus, Al Farid, Abu N’Was, Al Muttanabi, Ibn al Muqaffa, Al Ghazali, Avicenna, Ibn Khaldun e.t.c were legendaries from whom he withdrew his reflections. His poem ‘Prophet’ was immensely imitated in style and lore of “ZARATHUSTRA” by Nietzche. Gibran died at the age of 48 and the his later and final era of life spent in New York. Love Moody Friday, July 29, 2005