blake-d Digest				Volume 1996 : Issue 89

Today's Topics:

	 Re: Blake and Zen - Reply

	 Re: Nature vs Eternity


	 Taking Tiger Mountain By Strategy, 2

	 Re: Blake and Zen -Reply

	 Re: Blake and the Country versus City -Reply

	 RE: Blake and the Country versus City -Reply

	 Re: Blake and the Country versus City -Reply

	 Re: Blake and the Country versus City -Reply

	  Re: Blake and the Country versus City -Reply -Reply

	  Re: Blake and Zen - Reply -Reply

	  Re: Nature vs Eternity -Reply


Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 11:07:22 -0400

From: (R.H. Albright)


Subject: Re: Blake and Zen - Reply


Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Pam Van Schaik:

First, I agree that the following two Blake quotes are also very Zen:

"No Bird soars too high if it soars with its own wings"


"Everything that lives is holy".

 Another one would be the contrary to:

"One law for the Lion & Ox is Oppression."

Buddhist tenets are careful to ideally not even hurt a fly (even if they

nonjudgmentally mess up sometimes!). Zen also emphasizes that a "rule" that

works for one does not necessarily have anything to do with another... or

even for that same "one" at another time. So we can see Zen thought being

in sympathy with Blake's frustration about the rigidity of the 10

Commandments, for instance.

>In such an

>interactive universe, every action and choice would be significant and

>one would indeed `become what one beholds'  or what one endorses

>spiritually.  To resist that which can draw the spirit downwards is one of

>Blake's central themes in my opinion - as dramatised in Los, consistently,

>in the longer poems.>>>>>

This is a very good point, too. Buddhism, Zen, Emerson... they all believe

that every action and choice which we individuals make has a significance.

And why? Because this isn't a "shadow" of eternity: this is the real thing.

So Zen's "mindfulness" is affecting not a shadow at all.

Buddhism says "we're all the Buddha", but that merely means that we have

the potential to unfold or achieve Enlightenment. Emerson, who had limited

access to Hindu-Buddhist texts but was enthralled by what he could find,

took up this point, too, in his appeal to our "higher selves" time and time

again. He made people feel like Cicero did with his famous "Seize the Day!"

quote. Your actions matter. Everything adds up.

Yes, Los is trying to fight entropy for Urizen in "The First Book of

Urizen", to give order... to make sense... to reconcile... stuff... I'll

leave it vaguely at that... to try to get himself, at least, back on a

spirit-upwards cycle. I think the following quote from Blake tilts more to

Emerson than Zen, but it's a good launching point for divergence:

from Plate 29, "Milton":

"As to that false appearance which appears to the reasoner,

As of a Globe rolling thro' Voidness, it is a delusion of Ulro.

The Microscope knows not of this, nor the Telescope; they alter

The ration of the Spectator's Organs, but leave Objects untouch'd.

For every Space larger than a red globule of Man's blood

Is visionary, and is created by by the Hammer of Los;

And every Space smaller than a Globule of Man's blood opens

Into Eternity, of which this vegetable Earth is but a shadow."

Here you'll find much of what Emerson was first talking about in his

"Nature" essay... and in that essay on Poetry and the Imagination that I

quoted excerpts from the other day. But Zen diverges from Blake, in my


For one thing, Zen doesn't make judgments on whether spaces "larger than...

man's blood" are "visionary" created by an Eternal Prophet of Imagination

(Los). Zen would simply say that these spaces ARE. For another thing, the

spaces SMALLER than man's blood... Zen wouldn't say these are any more an

opening into Eternity than the larger.

For another thing, this vegetable Earth being a shadow of Eternity...

Emerson works with this idea somewhat, talking about Nature as metaphor...

but Zen (and Emerson, too) would say that July 17, 1996, and all "time"

coming before and after are parts of Eternity. It's not a shadow. This is

IT, for better or worse. And that's why I disagree with your interpretation

of Blake-- and, at times, Blake himself-- about the Fallen World. Zen

teaches us, as does Judeo-Christianity, that it's ALL fallen. The mere fact

that we have time and space is an aspect of Eternity. Heaven and Hell are

constructs. (Zen would tend to say that "Eternity" is weighted far more

towards HELL. Its goal is to get out of the vicious cycle of being born

over and over again.) The only way you'll get out of a tick-tock of

Jesus/Satan, Time/Space, etc. is to die (or in Zen, to reach Nirvana). So

maybe when the Big Bang will implode someday, we'll be no longer "shadows"?

That's what I disagree with on your theory of the fallen world. We can

re-build "innocence" HERE, as Blake implies with "Jerusalem" or even in the

_Songs_, but it's one like Pablo Picasso said: "It takes one a long time to

become young."

>I think your quoting Morning is apt, but in this poem, I also see that Blake ,

>having abjured the spiritual path of Urizen which leads through `the

>Gates of Wrath', and led on by `Sweet Mercy' (of whom he sees Jesus

>as representative)  foresees the end of the `Night' of Experience.  This,

>surely, is why the dark, fallen Sun of this world is seen as becoming


First, I would agree with you the Blake has abjured *something like*

Urizen's path... (or Rintrah's, who uses Gates of wrath, too) and, if you

use the Christian methodology,is being led by sweet mercy as personified by

Jesus (or, to Zen, Buddha). BUT I see the Sun as more than "rehumanized" by

being freed from these tears. I see it, as Carlos Santana would sear in his

guitar playing at its best, as A LOVE SUPREME (John Coltrane), that melts

away even more than swords and spears with love.

-Randall Albright


Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 11:09:51 -0400

From: (R.H. Albright)


Subject: Re: Nature vs Eternity


Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>In a recent posting to me personally,  Randall  described Blake as seeing

>Nature as something which had to be endured rather than enjoyed.>>>>>

What? I merely said nature isn't a "shadow" of Eternity; it IS a part of

Eternity. And if I said something about merely "enduring" it, it was

probably in relation to Zen belief, which is not wholly my belief, and I

definitely don't see it in Blake, who celebrated the present all the time,

as painful as it was during certain moments.

Note to all:

I'd prefer if, when I send private posts to any of you, that you either

generalize/vague it out for public consumption, or IF YOU MUST, quote me

directly. Private posts, a misnomer on the constantly flying-about

Internet, are meant to be private with me.

>I don't think this necessarily follows from his view of this world as a fallen

>one.  Although he sees the realms of Innocence in Eternity as the fullest

>expression of the divine humanity of all things, and this world as a

>distorted shadow of that world, he nevertheless champions Energy,

>Delight, Joy, and Mutual Love  in which even sexual love is an

>expression of recognition of the divinity in another and is freed from the

>`mental chains' of social  and religious mores.   Pam van Schaik>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This is all very beautiful, Pam, but again I disagree with your conception

that "Innocence" is in eternity, where humanity is "divine", and

"Fallen"... isn't? We ALL live in a fallen world. I don't care if you use

Judeo-Christian, Buddhist, or an Anaximander "nature of life" dialectical

tick-tocks to describe it, but it's true. You can either be naive,

experienced, a "fool", or an "idiot". I personally prefer the way

Shakespeare talks about fools than Blake: they're WISER than the stars like

Macbeth at times. Check out:

But point a specific Blake passage to me, Pam, where Innocence is Eternity

as compared to our Fallen Shadow of Experience, so I can either disagree

directly with William Blake or how you're reading him.

There are recurring patterns in life-- like the Good and Evil Angels

Struggling for Possession of a Child-- which Blake portrayed in at least 3

different "states"-- that transcend the time and place we currently

inhabit. One might call it Recurrence. Rigidity of Urizen... selfless love

like the Clod, cruel selfishness like the Pebble... Blake sets up

universals that transcend the time and place in which they were written.

But they were written and visualized in a very specific time and place by a

very specific individual. They touch us AS individuals, and they touch us

each differently based on where we're coming from.

So I continue to disagree with you (and possibly later Blake) that this

world is distorted, a shadow... hey, is it a mere spectre because it's too

reason-oriented, not realizing its emanation in imagination? And maybe I

disagree with Blake as he describes the dilemma in what Edward Friedlander

succinctly calls the ARCANE poems of "Milton" and "Jerusalem", which have a

mass of contradicting literary criticism on them, and which will hopefully

be improved by your and Jennifer Michael's and others's contributions....

because the jump-shifts, erasures, vague pronouncements-- has anyone found

me a critique of Bacon within the official canon yet beyond merely

mentioning his name or talking about the cruel mechanistic wheels?-- has

problems which I find easier to deal with in his earlier work. And I don't

agree with the "harder=better" theory for art OR literature, although I'm

willing to give it a shot.


heaven is a place.

A place where nothing,

nothing ever happens."

        -David Byrne, Talking Heads, "Heaven"

Is that eternity for you, Pam? For Blake? Or why can't we work to get Los

married with his sword of science in the here and now or near future,


"When this party's over,

it will start again

It will not be any different

It will be exactly the same."

        -David Byrne, Talking Heads, "Heaven"

Nietzsche might have called this last stanza a reference to ETERNAL

RECURRENCE. So in my mind, what's the big rush for this Big Bang to

implode? There will only be death and silence. And then another Big Bang

(rubber band theory) will start again.

-Randall Albright

Reality isn't that bad...

as long as it protects your dreams.


Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 11:11:22 -0400

From: (R.H. Albright)




Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Thanks, Mr. Dumain, on the Jerome McGann article excerpts.

McGann says:

>"The Kantian idea of a

>disinterested art standing apart from social practice, within its

>own sphere of autonomy, is the antithesis of everything Blake

>believed and made."  (p. 44)

Well... Kant was an enlightenment philosopher, not a Romantic poet. I

wouldn't expect Blake to have given Kant more time of day than he did to

Voltaire, Rousseau, Locke, Blake, and Newton. As far as Coleridge... let's

see below.

>"Blake's position on poetics -- it has much in common with

>Shelley's and Byron's -- was not to prevail over that of Kant and


If Blake is trying to go head-to-head with philosophy, I think in some ways

he succeeded and in some ways he failed. For example, the lack of

explanation in the official canon on what bothered him about Bacon. A

philosopher would do that. He wouldn't just leave it vague or hope that you

find his marked-up copy of Bacon's thoughts.

You know, in this Shakespeare user group, someone is now trying to claim

that Francis Bacon wrote the plays. I mean, that PLUS the scientific method

and building the British navy up for Empire... I highly doubt it. And for

Blake to try to be one of the greatest philosophers AND poets AND

artists... it's a bit much, but if you, Mr. Dumain, are trying to do it...

God love ya. Blake deserves disciples. I'm not one of them. Just an


>"In a framework where everything is as it is perceived -- and all

>modern theories of artistic work rest on such a premise -- the

>problem of art becomes that of the relation between artistic

>perception and social engagement.>>>>>>>

How about INDIVIDUAL engagement, as Emerson would say?

>"Criticism formulates that

>problem in the question: how does 'interpretation' acquire its

>social meaning or significance?>>>>>>>

"Social meaning or signifance"? Oh God. Give me a break. You perceive art,

philosophy, science, EVERYTHING from YOUR point of view. You can continue

to add "experience" to your point of view. But art, in particular, is

subjective. Either you like Blake or you don't. If not, move on to the next

room and you can check out a whole bunch of Whitmans.............. And

maybe later, you'll find that Bartok's music is too cacophonous and return

to Debussy, by the way.

>"Marx expressed the same problem,

>for philosophy, in his famous eleventh thesis on Feuerbach: 'the

>philosophers have only _interpreted_ the world in various ways;

>the point, however, is to _change_ it.'>>>>>>>

Good point.

>"What Blake showed,

>however, was that there could be an ideological production, even

>in the modern world of capitalized productive fragmentation, where

>gaps would not be fostered within an artistic interpretation and

>its social reproduction.>>>>>>>>>

He failed bigtime on that one, and I'm not sure that Blake was trying to

"show" this, anyway.  Look at all the conflicting printed criticism on

Blake. Where's the quote from the Blake canon to back this up? And where

does it get erased by another Blake quote later or earlier?

>"In a capitalized world, all work may be

>abstracted and objectified.  But some works resist the process

>more vigorously than others, and may offer positive alternative

>forms of communicative action, may suggest these forms even to

>criticism."  (p. 49)>>>>>>>>>>>

This sounds more like Blake to me, and it was also the point of DaDaism,

too, in the early 20th century. Marcel Duchamp vigorously


>You might think I would be ecstatic to see Blake tied in with

>Feuerbach and Marx in the same paragraph.  Instead I am perturbed,

>for I feel I have been left hanging.  McGann knows that Blake's

>engagement with society was not Marx's, and though Blake sought to

>change it, he did so by interpreting it.  Marx's thesis 11 says

>that the point is to change the world, but he doesn't say that the

>point _of philosophy_ is to change the world or that _it_ can do

>so.  If we wanted to pursue this call to activism seriously we

>could wring our hands like Jack Lindsay over Blake's failure to

>engage in any political action or organizing of any sort.>>>>>>>>

Alot of "commie" sympathizers, like Jefferson Airplane in the late '60s,

were criticized for the very same thing. However, Sting and "Save the

Rainforest" concerts give a contrary view. As Emerson and Blake would both

say, you do what you can do in life. Blake did alot with his writing and

visual art. Isn't that enough? People bemoan that Emerson wasn't more in

the vanguard of abolitionism or early ecology... but he clearly stated his

views, and was more absorbed with his own creations... in his case,


>The question is, what does the unity of theory and

>practice mean for intellectual and cultural work in itself?>>>>>>>>

Ask Los.


>relationship between the categories of the intrinsic

>characteristics of an activity and its utilitarian, instrumental

>deployment has been flubbed many a time, not least by invocation

>of this Marxian quip.  I have no fear that McGann has a Stalinist

>view of art; I just don't understand the implications for artistic

>practice of his specifically 'Marxian' conclusion.>>>>>>>

Well, to take the sunnyside up to the Marxian conclusion, I'd say that we

all should develop ourselves to the fullest extent, help one another,

strive to get this dialectic on to a less sexist, less right-handed (and

left-brained), less rich versus poor scale. How to do that? It's

complicated! You can help out at the Runaway Teenager Shelter to see if 1

in 10 don't become prostitute/drug addicts. You can give money to the

shelter if you're too busy making your own money to devote the time. You

can plant trees to try to put oxygen back into this planet as well as cool

off the brick sidewalks of a city, or a piece of land that got a hundred

trees levelled by a hurricane. Join the Peace Corps and be ACTIVE in it. We

don't just have to RIDE the escalator of life. We can try to change it. The

dilemma which Blake may warn against is that in changing it, you may just

turn a stream down another bad angle. But then again, Bob Marley said,

"Positive Vibrations, Mahn... POSITIVE!" You can't always be worrying about

"Well, a turn this way may be..." Hey: turn. Move. Go. Get on with it. Take

a dive. "Exuberance is Beauty."

Oblique enough?

Hope so.

Good post, Mr. Dumain.

-Randall Albright


Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 12:28:49 -0400

From: (R.H. Albright)


Subject: Taking Tiger Mountain By Strategy, 2


Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Looking at my original "Taking Tiger Mountain By Strategy" post... I feel

like I ended too much on a pessimistic last plate of "Europe" note.

The French Revolution changed the face of Europe, some for the better, some

for the worse. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and other documents

remain as the sunnyside up to Bastille Day.

The Russian Revolution under Lenin had at least a brief shining moment

where artists and many other citizens felt they were participating in

something noble, exciting.

The Chinese Revolution got starving people enough food to eat, among other


The Cuban Revolution has produced the highest literacy rate in the

Caribbean, as well as the longest lifespan.

Complex, contradictory... but the world is better off, I believe, than

living with the Ancien Regimes. On the whole, I prefer evolution,


Long live the TRUE revolution, within each and every one of us.

-Randall Albright


Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 11:18:20 -0500

From: (J. Michael)


Subject: Re: Blake and Zen -Reply

Message-Id: <>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>In relation to letting each moment slide by into the new in Zen, how do

>you like Blake's:

>   He who beds (or binds)   to himself a joy

>   Doth the winged life destroy;

>   But he who kisses it as it flies

>   Lives in Eternity's Sunrise         ?    Pam van Schaik

"Beds"??  That's a new one to me.  Erdman gives "bends" as a variant

reading, but "beds" gives it a whole new twist, doesn't it?

I'm afraid I'd like the passage better if it didn't remind me of that

cliche "if you love something, set it free . . . if it comes back to you,

it's yours . . . if it doesn't, it never was."

Jennifer Michael


Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 12:05:48 -0500

From: (J. Michael)


Subject: Re: Blake and the Country versus City -Reply

Message-Id: <>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Pam wrote:

>I think one has to remember that Blake saw Jerusalem as the Emanation

>of all things when they were fully expanded into God's light in

>Innocence.Thus, the lines describing Jerusalem's pillars in London refer

>not to this world but to their appearance within Albion's spiritual body

>before he fell from Innocence, in Eternity.  He once (in common with all

>the other Eternals)  freely  embraced Jerusalem - until Urizen saw this 

>`consanguinity'  as sinful and falsely interpreted Jerusalem as  a whore,

>so bringing about the fall of Albion  and all his Children. Pam van Schaik

Yes, and the emanation of all things, the space in which human beings

"converse" with one another (as in the closing lines of _Jerusalem_), has

an urban form.  As for the next sentence, why do so many Blakeans insist on

choosing either this world or the spiritual world as the referent for

Blake's images?  Why can't the pillars be in London *and* in Albion's body?

 Albion's body is certainly located in England in the passage where he

starts to awaken in _Milton_:

        London & Bath & Legions & Edinburgh

Are the four pillars of his Throne; his left foot near London

Covers the shades of Tyburn:  his instep from Windsor

To Primrose Hill stretching to Highgate & Holloway

London is between his knees:  its basements fourfold

And so on.  Some might argue that all the specific place-names Blake uses

in _Milton_ and _Jerusalem_ are just sounds to fill out the lines, but I

don't think that gives him much credit as a poet.

Randall asked specifically about these lines:

>In all the Cities of the Nations: Paris, Madrid, Amsterdam

>The Corner of Broad Street weeps: Poland Street languishes

>To Great Queen Street & Lincoln's Inn all is distress & woe."


>Of course I'm waiting to find out what Broad and Poland and Great Queen

>Streets REALLY mean......

Well, Broad and Poland and Great Queen Streets were all places Blake lived

(the last was the shop of his engraving master, James Basire.)  Blake was

clearly situating his apocalpytic vision in the real urban world where he

lived, just as in _Milton_ he situates the descent of Ololon in his own

garden at Felpham.  

One reason Blake has nothing comparable to Wordsworth's "Westminster

Bridge" sonnet is that Blake lived his whole life in London (except for the

three years at Felpham).  When Wordsworth wrote the sonnet, he was passing

through on his way back from France.  To get that kind of "prospect view"

of the city, you have to withdraw from it (Joanna Baillie has a similar

poem viewing London from Hampstead), and Blake doesn't do that.  Also

notice that Wordsworth finds the city beautiful only when he can make it

part of nature--"open to fields and sky"--and when it's "lying still." 

Where are all the people?

Jennifer Michael


Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 13:47:11 -0500 (CDT)



Subject: RE: Blake and the Country versus City -Reply

Message-Id: <>


Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

Very nice stuff, Jennifer.  But let's go further.  Albion's body is not just

in England, it *is* England -- Albion's rocky shore.

About the place names in *Jerusalem* -- and this has to do with the question

Randal keeps asking about Priam:  in my view this business goes back to the

myths of British origin, the myth that Britain was founded by Trojan Brutus,

the descendent of Priam of Troy/Iliad fame.  Blake calls this myth the 

"Covenant of Priam" and *Jerusalem* is his attempt to replace this covenant /

myth with the "Covenant of Jehovah."  Geography is tied in to all this because

Jerusalem was originally part of England/Albion (look, I just report the news),

and Albion's fall involved a literal, geographic separation of Jerusalem to

the other side of the Mediterranean.  Blake's catalogs of cities and counties

assigning them to the various tribes of Israel are neither arcane nor 

pointless filler -- they are Blake's attempt to overlay the map of Canaan onto

the map of England, his attempt to repair fallen geography.  Regarding the

-- nevermind.   I develop this argument more, including the ideological

implications of the canon revision implied in replacing *The Iliad* with The

Bible, in an article scheduled to appear in *Blake IQ* sometime soon.

Paul Yoder


Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 15:45:26 -0400

From: (R.H. Albright)


Subject: Re: Blake and the Country versus City -Reply


Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Jennifer Michael wrote:

> Albion's body is certainly located in England in the passage where he

>starts to awaken in _Milton_:


>        London & Bath & Legions & Edinburgh

>Are the four pillars of his Throne; his left foot near London

>Covers the shades of Tyburn:  his instep from Windsor

>To Primrose Hill stretching to Highgate & Holloway

>London is between his knees:  its basements fourfold


>And so on.  Some might argue that all the specific place-names Blake uses

>in _Milton_ and _Jerusalem_ are just sounds to fill out the lines, but I

>don't think that gives him much credit as a poet.

And in response to the meaning of the streets I enquired about:

>Well, Broad and Poland and Great Queen Streets were all places Blake lived

>(the last was the shop of his engraving master, James Basire.)  Blake was

>clearly situating his apocalpytic vision in the real urban world where he

>lived, just as in _Milton_ he situates the descent of Ololon in his own

>garden at Felpham.

So it's a Be Here Now situation for Blake. Wherever he was, there Jerusalem

could be created, or Milton could fly in his foot.

This does not deny the following, though:

Virtually everything I see visually, that Blake has created, and this is

often reinforced verbally, is a rejection of what he would have known as

modern urbanism, modern "techniques" like typesetting, strait versus

crooked roads... alot of things. It's either a Classical in the Country, or

Bible in Siena, or his own fantasies...

For "London", we get an old man being led by a child while a street person

is getting warmed by the fire down below... in "The Chimney Sweeper" of

"Experience" it looks like he's getting snowed on on by soot... the

Marching Children of "Holy Thursday" (Innocence version) is a good one! Do

you think Blake is the kind to encourage marching? This poet does not

embrace what was his modern world in the _Songs_... and for good reason!

It's a Romantic statement.

As for "Jerusalem", hey-- all I can say at this point is that Blake Was

There Then. He chose a hot potato of a theme... and maybe he was trying to

say, "We need Christianity as the cover to get into the palace." Maybe the

point is: people NEED religion. I don't know. And I'm not ready to comment

anymore on the Urban Blake of that poem other than he's noting that he and

Great Britain are the center of his universe.

But to paraphrase Bob Marley, "He that does not take on 'Jerusalem' today,

lives to take on 'Jersualem'... or something else... another day."

"Be Here Now." - Ram Dass

-Randall Albright


Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 01:22:42 -0400



Subject: Re: Blake and the Country versus City -Reply

Message-Id: <>

There is Church of England legend that Joseph of Arimethea was first to

preach on Albion's shore.  But I don't know if this twaddle is a very late

emendation formed as a reaction by Victorian Divines against the Oxford

Anglo-Catholics.  In other words, if it was an old legend, why doesn't Blake

use/abuse it.  Why is he so antsy and Brutus haunted?  Does this play to the

weird-ass names he gives all his personae?  Clearly Blake wants a Bible based

and not Iliad-ic based Prosody.  Blake is pretty damn knowledable about

Homeric Arcana, for all that.  Is the question not moot in some sense for

English, since Shakespeare in many, many ways is superior to both the Bible

and Homer?  Blake is closest to Homer and Shakespeare and furthest from the

bible in that curious "War Song for Englishmen"  (always a closet favorite of

mine) in Poetical Sketches.

This much about Blake I do know: he is a City boy to the core.  The country

was closer in in them thar days.  He uses nature the way Cole Porter might

use nature--Central Park in the Dark imagery.  Even London, or especially the

poem London, shows how much he loves the city.  If he ever stopped

complaining, you could suspect he didn't love it any more.

Cole Porter: "When I die I don't want to go to Heaven, I don't want to go to

Hell....I happen to like New York...."  Blake felt the same about London.

Hugh Walthall


Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 09:01:09 +0200

From: P Van Schaik 


Subject:  Re: Blake and the Country versus City -Reply -Reply


Jennifer, I completely endorse the `both -and' rather than an `either-or'

since, as Seer, Blake continually sees Past, Present and Future  - all are

relevant to each moment since every particle and moment is `holy' 

...except that  the dark core of Selfhood in Eternity was very small

whereas in the fallen world, it is large so that  light is hardly discernible

at the core of things.  So the fallen world - like the upside down Tree of

Kabbalah  which represents this world - is a complete inversion of all

that once was in Eden and Beulah.   However, I do not see that , as a

result, Blake scorned any of the gratifications which the senses could

bring since he so succinctly speas of the `Lineaments of Gratified

Desire'.  He did, however, see that nothing could be as glorious as the

free loves of Eternity and the `Intellectual Wars' there, resulting in `Sweet


He who `beds' to himself a joy would certainly make the most succint

Feminist statement, and be a Negation of all that Blake says about

`Lineaments of Gratified Desire' ,  but was unintentional.  Pam


Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 09:18:15 +0200

From: P Van Schaik 


Subject:  Re: Blake and Zen - Reply -Reply


Randall, I very much enjoyed your posting on this subject and I think that

your vision of the Sun Rehumanised is not at all different from Blake's. 

Again, if we take into account the whole spectrum of unfallen and fallen

light - from the expansion of all things to their utmost into the Divine

bosom - then here the Sun (and all other expanded beings) would be

entirely one with the Godhead and totally filled with Divine Humanity. 

When it is first released from bondage in the fallen world, then, of

course, it is less radiant.  A corollary of all you say is that God is

implicated in the Fall - the divine light is never totally quenched  since Los

labours to keep it burning and prevent Albion and Children f rom falling

into   Eternal Death.  This is one reason why `Everything that lives is

holy', despite being fallen.  So, perhaps, you can find a way, after all of

reconciling Zen with BLake's view of Eternity-time?   Pam


Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 09:23:08 +0200

From: P Van Schaik 


Subject:  Re: Nature vs Eternity -Reply


Randall, Please don't get offended - I haven't yet learned to `Cut' and

`Paste' or whatever you use to quote on-line..  I just fell in from the sky

onto this line and enjoyed it so much, that I began running before I could

barely walk.  OK?  And haven't stopped to yet learn.  Pam


End of blake-d Digest V1996 Issue #89