Sunday, 21 June 2015

MORE ON ANGELS

Something for the weekend

What a complicated area this is, the place of angels in Conductive Education! This present posting follows on from yesterday's:


András Pető

On complication is that András Pető himself seemed to have a bit of a thing about angels:

  
Károly Ákos disapproved of András Pető’s philosophy. which was, he said dismissively, 'all angels'. He did not, however elaborate on this and, as in so much else, I have no idea what András Pető thought in this respect.

A couple of years back I edited an English translations of a few of András Pető's verses for publication by CEP. These verses are all pretty gnomic, including this one –
I want to see the angel

Yonder on the slope,
Under the almond tree.
I want to see the angel,
I want to approach him
And kiss his garment
I want to perish on the spot.
András Pető, p, 19,
 http://www.blurb.co.uk/b/3695419-andr-s-pet 
I am still none the wiser!

These verses' originals were of course written (scrawled in some cases) in German. They are undated but were probably written in his later years.

Popular usage

Of course refer to somebody colloquially as 'an angel' in various senses as circumstances apply. Use the word in given combinations too: for example, 'angels in the snow' is an OK usage, so are the cakes. There is nothing in the word to be dogmatic about.

People do not seem to mind applying the word to others. But many do not welcome having it applied unthinkingly to themselves. Rony Schenker has reminded me of Ifat Ohad's eloquent rebuttal, writing as the mother of a disabled child:


And Susie Mallett reminds of a further reason for conductors (and others) not to refer to disabled children collectively as angels –
I have had this same opinion for a long time that conductors should not describe their clients as angels, and more so since I have read on some American parents' blogs that they talk about their deceased children as angels, and that is different.
http://www.conductive-world.info/2015/06/enough-angels.html?showComment=1434801842260#c2565599827916354303
Theologically speaking...

There is always a theological angle, if you want one, to anything – angels not the lest. From Mexico, Elena Carramiñana reminds me of this –
And 'angels' do not have a body
https://www.facebook.com/conductive.world/posts/10206733531327154?pnref=story
I suppose that angels therefore have no central nervous system either, and therefore no possibility of developing or acquiring motor disorders, but what do I know?

We need a Jesuit on this case, but there's never one around when you need one...

No comments:

Post a Comment