Looking back on the film that we presented to the class I am hard pressed to find anyone definite meaning. The conglomeration of our own ideas of the Frye as manifested in our short piece are really representative of the complexity and multilateral meaning that Frye can exude in people. For instance some of the skits in the film had no planning. Meaning that someone would bring up a concept from Frye and we would just run with it. I think the biggest hurtle for the group was overcoming Frye's complex ideas, because of the complexity it lent to an almost nonsensical feeling within the group. We were all over the place. Certain people held one interpretation while others in the group held exactly the opposite. This was difficult considering we had to come up with a sort of group consensus of meaning. The film I think did do a great job of being a representation of our confusion and alternative views. The medium of film allowed us to place somewhat individual perspectives in one a continuous act.
In terms of take aways I think it is hard to say. I would say that the overall idea of the mountain applies to this idea of ascension, both literally and spiritually. Like in the instance where we hiked up the 'M' that would have been representative of literal ascension. The change in altitude bringing us that much closer to God in the most literal sense with a physical change in location on the vertices's of the 'Axis Mundi' On the flip side the mountain as a metaphor alludes to a kind of spiritual ascension that brings about a change in spiritual perspective. Part of that ascension is to rise above the distractions and the literal. That is more or less why we included the interludes of absurd images in reference to distractions. By ascending spiritually we remove the distractions essentially clearing the way for a more in depth and non literal perspective of the Bible.
What I feel is key is that in both instances the person (reader, religious follower, literary theorist) must be an active participant in the act of ascending. In the case of hiking the mountain that is the literal an physical participation in ascension. While the spiritual ascension takes place within the mind, essentially putting the metaphorical mountain with in the mind. You could sit in one spot reading and still take part in the ascension of the mountain. Some would call this faith or spirituality. I don't really feel that either is more correct but both certainly offer different things. You gain a certain connection through the physical ascent and certain things through a metaphorical ascent. For example the Buddhist monk transcends the physical mentally through meditation and prayer, right? He moves without moving. The end result being a spiritual connection and alteration of their perspective. On the other hand you have astronauts who have walked on the moon. I recently watched a documentary "In the Shadow of the Moon" which documents the accounts of the surviving astronauts that stood on the face of the moon. Watch it and you will see that these men through physical act of ascension had a epephatic experiences that changed them forever. They talk about being on the moon like as if they had stood on the mountain top with God himself. So, whether physical or spiritually the ascension is key in human perspective.
Whether that came off in our presentation is another question.
No comments:
Post a Comment