Participatory Theonomy

The following is an excerpt of an email sent from Art to Will on 22 January 2012.

As for the story, I like it.  It sounds like it fits with the music.  

One exception is that I'm not sure what beautiful, introspective music I have that doesn't involve a female other.    

We can allude to a simpler, purer period, but the tragedy/morality play finds us in the midst of an all-encompassing (though initially misguided) search for union.  

From a Nietzschean perspective, Will may represent an Apollonian impulse to impose order and clarity.  Arthur more or less represents the Dionysian: the dark, chthonic, mystic impulse.  

Like a classical garden, this predominating aspect of Arthur is the moss-covered fountain of Pan, through which water from the wilderness is brought in to irrigate the well trimmed rows and patterns of the garden.  

Without this influence (literally, flowing in) of untamed wilderness and creativity, the ordered, well-trimmed rows dry out and die--in fact, they fall out of existence entirely.  

Both impulses are necessary to art, but the Dionysian is the more constitutive of the two.

Long story short, the goodness of desire (wrong only in its object) is ultimately affirmed as the autonomous self-interest and heteronomous moral sense are resolved in the Thomistic synthesis of participatory theonomy, allowing him to ascend in a definitive way to a higher level of union.