http://earmarks.org/archives/2005/10/01/6 A weblog on early modern culture, teaching English literature, and what else comes to mind Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:29:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 http://earmarks.org/archives/2005/10/01/6#comment-154 Kristine Sat, 04 Feb 2006 14:44:46 +0000 http://earmarks.org/?p=6#comment-154 Ah, that question reveals that you are locked in post-Cartesian thinking. Now you definitely need to go read 'the leaky one'. Part of Paster's argument is that the separation between body and mind that we tend to make in our culture did not exist as such in early modern thinking about subjectivity. Think of the humours: we now see them as referring to a state of mind (as in: a woman of sullen humour); but in Shakespeare's lexicon, they would refer literally to the four fluids of the body. References to choler that we now read metaphorically, had a literal - or visceral - meaning as well. In humoral theory, mind and body were one. Ah, that question reveals that you are locked in post-Cartesian thinking. Now you definitely need to go read ‘the leaky one’. Part of Paster’s argument is that the separation between body and mind that we tend to make in our culture did not exist as such in early modern thinking about subjectivity. Think of the humours: we now see them as referring to a state of mind (as in: a woman of sullen humour); but in Shakespeare’s lexicon, they would refer literally to the four fluids of the body. References to choler that we now read metaphorically, had a literal - or visceral - meaning as well. In humoral theory, mind and body were one.

]]> http://earmarks.org/archives/2005/10/01/6#comment-152 william S, Sat, 04 Feb 2006 13:52:13 +0000 http://earmarks.org/?p=6#comment-152 I'd go for the two sides of the same coin. Sounds like I might want to own the leaky one. Is it visceral or cerebral? I’d go for the two sides of the same coin. Sounds like I might want to own the leaky one. Is it visceral or cerebral?

]]>