I am delighted to find out that Barbara Sher is not the only one defending "ADD" people. Margaret Lobenstine is another one. I have not read her book yet, but judging by reviews it is probably as important as "Refuse to Choose" by Barbara Sher. There are some nice free articles. (Which is something I've told Barbara is missing from her site. No easy way of picking up what she is talking about.)
I have to admit that "Renaissance Soul" is a much prettier term than "scanner"... the latter either evokes a Canon product or a person who makes people head explode. (OK, I was thinking of the seventies horror flick "Scanners"... but I guess a Renaissance Soul can make people's heads explode in a less literate way just by confusing them.)
By the way, there are Leonardo da Vinci and Benjamin Franklin... who else have been (or are) successful in many fields?
I'm not sure, but I think this Indigo Children book is one along similar lines.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1561706086/sr=1-1/qid=1156156150/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-1592666-3375263?ie=UTF8&s=books
TLS
I've checked with a neurology specialist : not only is the film's subject obviously made up (heads exploding and all), but the medical "Scanner syndrome" itself, described in the text at the beginning of the movie, is a pure Hollywood fabrication. Just for culture's sake.
ReplyDeleteWell, duh. :)
ReplyDeleteI heard about a guy who was frightened of Scientologists, because they "could do what those scanners in the movie do".
The expression "Renaissance Soul" is a misnomer. It implies that all lifetimes of the soul would share the personality trait of diversity in expression, which is incorrect.
ReplyDeleteThe term for such an individual, i.e. a person with 'bilateral balance' -- an artist and an engineer -- is Renaissance man.
Mind you, Eolake's original list of personality traits was only partially aligned with this concept.
Yes, my list was a different thing.
ReplyDeleteI am sure that by using "soul" she is not implying anything about many lifetimes. Just a prettier word for "person".
I am sure that by using "soul" she is not implying anything about many lifetimes. Just a prettier word for "person".
ReplyDeletePerhaps, but it is sloppy use of language. If we deprecate 'soul' in it's original meaning how do we then refer to that concept?
By the way, the word "person" originates from Per's son. Only Scandinavians can fully get this.
Not sloppy, I think. A soul can mean just a human or a person.
ReplyDeletesoul (sōl)
n.
The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.
The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.
The disembodied spirit of a dead human.
A human: “the homes of some nine hundred souls” (Garrison Keillor).
The central or integral part; the vital core: “It saddens me that this network … may lose its soul, which is after all the quest for news” (Marvin Kalb).
A person considered as the perfect embodiment of an intangible quality; a personification: I am the very soul of discretion.
"The expression "Renaissance Soul" is a misnomer. It implies that all lifetimes of the soul would share the personality trait of diversity in expression, which is incorrect."
ReplyDeleteIs there actually any proof of that? My own conception of "lifetimes of the soul" tends to be the opposite : that we evolve from life to life...
I believe "person" actually originates from the latin "persona", the masks that actors used in theater to represent the characters they portrayed (because they often played several ones in the same play, like the Monty Python). In French, "character" translates "personnage", and somebody's character is their personnality, i.e. what's visible from the outside.
Did the Roman empire reach as far as Scandinavia?
Eolake,
I don't need a dictionary to agree with you on the extended (and very beautiful) meaning of the word "soul". Of course, that's just me. :-)
Now, if only somebody could tell me what a "misnomer" is...
In a way, the soul is basically considered as someone's true self, independently of the body. The rest is mere details over the form of this self : electromagnetic, spiritual, intellectual, philosophical...
"Did the Roman empire reach as far as Scandinavia?"
ReplyDeleteHm, I don't think so, I've never heard of their influence here. (Or "there", since I am not physically in Scandinavia right now.)
My own conception of "lifetimes of the soul" tends to be the opposite : that we evolve from life to life...
ReplyDeleteI understand, and this belief is of course shared by many. But it doesn't change the fact that it is ludicruous to associate a character trait such as this with the soul. It would only make sense if you assume no spiritual aspect of self exists, and if you deprecate 'soul' to a synonym for person or individual. But in that case why not use the less ambiguous word 'person' then?
Did the Roman empire reach as far as Scandinavia?
Scandinavian culture is several thousand years older than the Roman empire.
"Scandinavian culture is several thousand years older than the Roman empire. "
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure the Vikings would like to hear that you consider them "uncultivated"... ;-)
"Who else have been (or are) successful in many fields?"
ReplyDeleteI am reminded of French former Tennis champion Yannick Noah. What he had hoped finally came true.
When he retired from sports, he said : I am looking forward to the day when a child will ask me, "what did you do before you became a singer?" That day, I'll know I have succeeded again.
I just watched interviews of John Cleese and his colleagues from A Fish Called Wanda, and he is very much a Rennaisance Soul.
ReplyDeleteThis is slightly off-topic, but it has been said that Michelangelo is the only artist ever to have achieved the absolute top in more than one discipline of art, two in his case, painting and sculpture.
ReplyDeleteAnd this doesn't even make him a renaissance man, as per the current definition, because for that you need to have been productive and excelled in left-brain activities too.
Did you know that Leonardo da Vinci invented scissors?
And Micelangelo even strongly resented being strong-armed by the pope into painting, he wanted to sculpt.
ReplyDeleteHe mainly resented being ordered to cover the innocent nudity on the ceiling of Chapel Sixtine. And to think the genitals were all miniaturized anyway!
ReplyDeleteThe "embarrassing" task was eventually carried on by one of his apprentices, later on.
The Church DID have issues with the image of the human body in a non-sexual context...
But I know very little about the other three Ninja Turtles. Did they invent Pizza?...
ttl, Leonardo did not invent scissors and everything else you say is wrong or just plain silly. Go back to bed.
ReplyDeleteAm reading a biography now of William Blake. He was in another universe (*soul* comes to mind)\
ReplyDeletebut / and he was quite a creative genius. Sketchings, poetry, I would also call him a visionary.
Does "Renaissance Man" imply a man's relationship with society as well? Blake had a very loving relationship with his wife of many years. Apparently she was one of the few who understood his genius, and was patient with his strange otherworldliness. Behind every great man is a . . . . . .
A *WHAT*?
ReplyDeleteCan't you complete your posts so one will understand them? ;-)