I read an interesting quote today, which I would like to run by all of you in this manner. The quote is as follows:

Kierkegaard uses this quote as an introduction or a dedication to his work ‘On Repetition’ (A Venture in Experimenting Psychology). I would like to know how all of you grasp this quote. I am hoping for many different angles, which is why I will not yet place my own take on it yet. I will save that for later, when a few thoughts on the matter have been collected (not to say my thought would be decisive in this, because I am nowhere near an expert in this matter).

So, please amaze me with any exotic thoughts on the matter.

I’ll take the simple and easiest explanation. Wild trees = immediate emotions = immediatiate gratification. Flowers may give immediate fragrance, but fragrance without pollination (cultivation) produces no seed nor fruits. Cultivated trees = measured development = long term success. Cultivated trees have purpose and a deliberate path to follow and successfully produce fruits (reproduction/repitition) Humans delight in imaginative emotional flights giving instant pleasure, but may fail to produce positive results. Those who are thoughtful and grounded in tradition may not find a great deal of pleasure instantly, but in the long run, be the better balanced person who procreates and produces persistance.

I sort of like the image of the cultivated tree with a wild branch here and there… :smiley:

My one exotic thought is more of a question: why can’t we have both, gorgeous fragrant and wildly growing flowers as well as ripe delicious cultivated fruit? Psychically, these are the flowers of innocence, instinct and instant passion without civilizing influence and the fruits of the experience of growing up and becoming a member of society that provides sustenance for all.

Out of context, it’s hard to say. One reading that may appeal is that the appeal of wild fantasy and irrational thought lies purely in the attractive blooms it produces, whereas cultivated thought leads to less flashy gratification, but more solid sustenance.

It is difficult to say what any one of the parties involved meant with the above remark I think. Flavius Philostratus the Elder no doubt meant something else than Kierkegaard and what I think Kierkegaard meant no doubt differs from what Kierkegaard really meant. I guess all above thoughts on the matter are true in their own respect, pointing to the universal thought of focusing on a certain end to boost the changes of that end coming-to-be (teleology). However, the question remains if that end is ‘the good’ in the first place. A strong flowering produces the possibility of a diversity in fruits, all with a change of becoming new trees. So, the question becomes if we actually know ‘know’ what the best fruit could be so that we can focus on that being produced.

Kierkegaard is of the mind that a recollection is something else than a repetition. He states that somebody who only recollects is a poet, but somebody willing to repeat (and thereby let that re quantify) loves. By means of the belief in eternal repetition one can transgress from being a poet to loving.

Perhaps the most beautiful example I can find is this little poem:

Of this Kierkegaard exclaims:

This is a clear reference to what Nietzsche later would use as a means to break the false images of the dogma’s and what Freud calls ‘Death Drive’ (Death as a symbol of ending (in a causal manner)), thus representing a new beginning, something that is real: the will to live, an expression of the real.

the quote means both have something to offer that is special.