It seems now, in Chapter 3, that Piper is getting to the heart of the matter. Leisure isn't an activity. "It's not the inevitable result of spare time," which I must grant to Pieper, is my original conception of leisure. This conception was formed by our turns of speech such as, leisure time, a gentleman of leisure, and leisure suit. He says it is rather "an attitude of mind, a condition of the soul." It isn't an action per se but rather a framework by which we act. It is open to silence and rest. Maybe I'm wrong in understanding him, though, because he says its an "attitude of non-activity." He clarifies himself, "it is a receptive attitude of mind." I can begin to connect the dots. A worker mentality forwarded by Kant is aggressive and moving outward. A leisure mentality is receptive and inward. This calls to mind the Theology of the Body and the complementarity of the sexes. More sense is being made in my mind. Classic writers always refer to the soul in the feminine form. St. John of the Cross does in his Spiritual Canticle. Femininity is naturally related to receptivity. The female body had the framework of receptivity. The soul reflects this receptive reality and hence is attributed and spoken of with feminine pronouns, this is even mirrored in Scripture. Kant and the worker mentality attempt to fit a masculine, outward moving mentality onto a feminine, receptive reality. Interesting. Thoughts?
A reflection on Chapter III of Leisure: The Basis of Culture
No comments:
Post a Comment