It only happens when I dance with you – Fred Astaire
by Andrea Elizabeth
If dancing is not personal, but about the essence of man and woman together, is that not defying the ordo theologea of person, then activities, then essence? The question becomes do people define the essence, or the other way around?
I’ll also say that presuppositions and loyalty define arguments, and I am loyal to the ordo above ordered, and will defend it because I believe in it, therefore I think it is higher than my own personal logic, but I will use my logic and innate loyalty to the truth and not deception or spinning to explore the subject. Perhaps the premise that dance is not personal, but about the essence of male and femaleness, is not correct. I’ll not say I’ll ditch the idea because Maks’ words ring true to me and my current development of the idea. Without further ado…
First, are we restricted by human nature? Given that the Calvinists are wrong and human nature is good, I’ll still say we are not restricted to human nature, or essence because we are given free will to go against it. If a person goes against it, are they changing human nature? No. their are living a lie that is not real. This is why no one likes to see two men or two women dancing in a face to face way. It is why we have chorus lines where same sex people are side to side and in unison doing the same thing. Then why do gay dancers do it? Their desires are warped and unnatural.
Therefore, person is first in that they must choose to engage in the natural. But nature does pre-exist person, in that Adam was created before anyone else, and Christ was crucified (it doesn’t say incarnated, but how can a bodiless person be crucified?) before the foundation of the world.
But dance evolves. That is because individuals haven’t explored all the boundaries of the essence of male and femaleness. Here we get into traditional vs. modern. Versus is an adversarial word, but I prefer “distinction”. I will not say traditional, or classical dance was fated to be the standard, but when we say classic, we mean timeless, and if something stands the test of time, I believe it rings true to the deepest essence of human nature. Could there have been an alternative? My husband told me a while back after reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance that there was a battle in the beginning of the philosophical tradition between the Sophists and someone else, and the former won. Was it because they were truer to human nature? Maybe not, but we go with it anyway.
Dancing With the Stars seems to be having a debate about how true to the traditional dances a person has to be. One week they criticized a couple for “breaking hold” but then other times they let people be pretty free with the styles. That reminds me that in Davis and Whites short program, where they are supposed to follow a predetermined dance style, everyone else did 20’s Charleston type stuff and they did My Fair Lady, with one commentor saying their dance was to the pace. I didn’t see how it was, and wondered at their straying.
When George and I took ballroom dancing they told us you have to learn the basic, traditional steps, then you put you own moves within that frame. So the essence of male and female is to follow structure, and make it their own. A person has to choose to do this, which follows the ordo. If one of the couple doesn’t, then their dance is disjointed, unless the other person follows suit. What if the woman comes up with something new, like the Cha cha? Then the man can choose to complement her in a masculine way. The male role is to support the female. But what if the female is the expert and has to teach the male, as happens in the show. She teaches him how to support her. It’s kind of funny when the woman lifts the man, which I have seen, usually over her back, not with her arms, so it is still feminine, but commical and playful, and an obvious shocker, and not a natural order. It demonastrates that there are acceptable exceptions and that people do have freedom, but they are most peacefully accepted as exceptions and not a new rule. If the people accept a new dance, and I hope homo couples are never accepted on DWTS, though there was a playful 3 second venture that both men walked away from, then I hope that it is because our basic mass intuition is still trustworthy.
But there are more and more homo couples and their activities on tv. Yes, and ew, but maybe they don’t show them dancing? My underlying statement is that dance, not copulation, shows us the essence of male and femaleness. Why? Because it’s art. Isn’t lovemaking artful? It’s too individual and self gratifying. Dance is for public display, and performance dance is for the audience. There.
I didn’t get to the evolution of dance and how it relates to leadership and conciliarity because my battery is about to run out for one reason.