blake-d Digest Volume 1996 : Issue 93
Today's Topics:
MARX, BAUER, STIRNER, FEUERBACH, KIERKEGAARD, BLAKE--& OUR WORLD
Bacon Fried
Blake on Newton
Re: Blake on Newton
McGann, German philosophy, etc. -- recent events
Re: Bacon Fried
Re: McGann, German philosophy, etc. -- recent events
blake on stage
Blake sighting
Re: Bacon Fried
Re: McGann, German philosophy, etc. -- recent events
Divisions of Blake
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 00:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ralph Dumain
To: marxism2@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Cc: blake@albion.com, rdumain@igc.org, tomdill@womenscol.stephens.edu
Subject: MARX, BAUER, STIRNER, FEUERBACH, KIERKEGAARD, BLAKE--& OUR WORLD
Message-Id: <199607220718.AAA26144@igc4.igc.apc.org>
Alex Trotter, I dealt with this load of crap about Marx and
Stirner a couple of years ago. How could you have missed it? Or
perhaps the debate was held on the Hegel list and not
marxism-undead. I'm going to make this brief. If I cross-post
this to other lists, please don't get too confused, whoever it may
concern. The background information here will be of use in
certain ongoing discussions.
A couple of years back I read a number of treatments of this
Marx-Stirner business stating the party line you espouse. The
refreshing exception was Paul Thomas' KARL MARX AND THE
ANARCHISTS, which blows this silliness out of the water. Thomas
claims that Marx was in fact interested in the concrete individual
and the conditions that foster or hinder his individuality, and
not in any defense of collectivism against individualism or the
un-psychological scientism you are spouting on about. Nowhere in
his oeuvre that I have seen, does Marx espouse a collectivist
ideology, and sometimes he inveighs directly against it.
Collectivism was the invention of Joseph Stalin, or at least was
patented by him.
Stirner was the last in a progression of the Young Hegelians.
Bruno Bauer, apostle of self-consciousness, tossed theology
overboard and called Hegel on his equivocations, claiming that the
contemporary demands of self-consciousness require throwing the
alienated ideology of self-consciousness, i.e. Christianity,
overboard, thus smashing the religious element of Hegel's
philosophy. Feuerbach upped the ante by claiming that all of
philosophy, not just religion, was theological and represented
alienated consciousness. But all Feuerbach had to offer was
abstract philosophical anthropology and an abstract conception of
man, love, etc. etc. Stirner attacked this as yet more theology
in disguise, more idealistic fol-de-rol. Further, he claimed that
it was one more illusory idealistic abstraction set over and
against the concrete individual to which to enslave the latter.
This is what made Marx stand up and take notice.
Stirner just about finished off Hegelianism. (The funeral was
presided over by Karl Schmidt, but that need not concern us here.)
Marx in turn finished off Stirner. Marx demonstrated that
Stirner's own individualism was yet another abstraction, in that
long line stretching from Bauer to Feuerbach. Stirner's man was
insubstantial abstract man, the petty bourgeois who thinks he can
free himself from all social relations by his consciousness alone
(Have you heard this somewhere else? Of course you have!), and it
is just the continuation of the same abstract approach to human
existence that characterized the whole tradition after Hegel's
death. Hence to finish Stirner off was to commence a radically
different point of departure, i.e., to look at the development of
the concrete individual as a product of historical social
relationships, dealing with real, material history, and not just
Hegel's dream-history.
The capitalist mode of production, in the form of its organization
of industry and labor, was destroying concrete human
individuality; so dealing with that reality, not the pompous
declarations of petty bourgeois philosophers, was the only way to
deal with the question of individuality in the only way it could
possibly matter to millions of people. This, and not Stirner's
illusions (nor Bakunin's foolishness -- "no God! no state!") could
properly address the real social basis of the development of human
beings.
This load in your diapers about the change from romantic Marx to
scientific Marx needs to be disposed of. It not only serves
shallow-minded anarchists such as yourself, but served Stalinism
quite handily, in recent decades in the hands of the Parisian
Strangler (Althusser).
As for ignoring psychology, this void came into existence after
the deaths of Marx and Engels. The continuing violence of
abstraction served the needs of state capitalism and its
subordinate labor bureaucracy (the Comintern) in the west. The
rest of your post on scientific objectivity is a load of shit like
the rest. Your concept of psychological man is itself a detached
abstraction floating on nothing at all.
As for the relation of the sense of self to physico-chemical
processes, I don't think this is yet well understood. Nor do I
think this was something either Marx or Engels gave themselves
time to think much about after 1845. Well, Marx did deal with the
effects of the capitalist mode of production on subjectivity at
least. Therefore I don't think Marx or Engels can be blamed for
suppressing this issue. The reclamation of "subjectivity", which
did die out during the time of the 2nd International, of course
was revived by the Hegelian Marxist tradition in the 20th century.
Even Lenin, privately in his philosophical notebooks, recognized
this matter by 1914-5, though he didn't take it very far. I do
think that various strands of Hegelian Marxism have best
understood this. Let me correct myself: they are the ONLY ones
who have understood it.
You will perhaps wonder why I've spent so much of my time
uploading posts on William Blake to _this_ forum. I stated that
one of my intentions was to place Blake as a mode of knowing in
the universe of (secular) knowledge. This is compatible if not
exactly in tune with, strange as it may seem, Lenin's 1915
realization about the profundity of human cognition. (One Blake
scholar backs me up on this.)
Also, it is necessary to revise that old saw that historically the
materialists are always the good guys and the idealists the bad
guys. In the modern period, the issue is much more complex. The
reason for this is that bourgeois naturalism and its state
capitalist variants could never deal with the depth of human
subjectivity, and so those with a stake in defending the "reality"
of their own consciousness or their own inwardness against the
darwinian trivialities of the mechanized social world of Blake's
Ulro, where man is a "grovelling little root outside of himself",
have often felt a threat from the ideological world of naturalism.
Of course, reactionary petty bourgeois ideologues have felt this
threat too, very intensively from the mid-19th century on, and
also the Catholic Church, that set about all its resources to
combat naturalism. My argument is that Blake's project has little
in common with this whole strand of the idealism of these
philosophers, nor with Neo-Platonism, nor with Berkeley, nor with
traditional religion or mysticism. To understand why Blake
believed in the reality of his own consciousness in the oppressive
conditions under which he was living (as well as understanding the
actual content of that consciousness) is to understand something
very deep about consciousness and the transformation of the social
order. And this too is a political task, but not in the sense of
commandeering the arts in the service of the Revolution (no more
of that!).
You talk about psychological man, and here is another opening for
a theme I am developing. Just as some have claimed erroneously
that Stirner is the complement of Marx
(individualism/psychological vs. social/collectivist), others have
claimed that Kierkegaard is the complement to Marx in the
divergence of Hegelianism in the psychological and social
directions. I intend to smash these pernicious lies into pieces.
Both oppositions rest on a faulty characterization of Marx as well
as Kierkegaard (as well as Stirner). Adorno has written about
Kierkegaard, so perhaps the task has been accomplished with him.
I can't be sure until I check up on it. But Kierkegaard partakes
of the same petty bourgeois narcissism and abstractionism as his
forbears. He is no more a complement to Marx than is Stirner.
Feuerbach still stands out as the best of them, though a child in
comparison to the cunning of a Nietzsche. But I've mastered the
method and I'm loaded for bear. I intend to prove that the true
complement to Karl Marx is .... William Blake!
One more thing. I've spent a lot of time here discussing the
niceties of dialectics and how it relates to mathematics, logic,
natural sciences, etc. While this is a vital subject, it is
ironic that I should spend so much time on something I'm not
actively studying right now, because my real object is to wrest
the study of _culture_ (rather than natural science) away from the
Cultural Studies degenerates.
Studying subjectivity in 1996 is the flip side of studying the
objectivity that produces it. In a period of social decline and
utter bankruptcy and cynicism such as we live in, such study
becomes ever more urgent, not to mention active intervention. It
also requires a method that goes much deeper and that is much more
ruthlessly honest than ever before. This society and the people
in it have hit my last nerve. Anyone who runs around preaching
the subversive value of gangsta rap or tells you how wonderful
poor people are should be shot on sight. To lie to and about
oneself and others is far more cynical an act than the real,
honest cynicism that is required to survive in the midst of people
as they really are. Even the best of left-wing academics are
drowning in disillusionment, cynicism, and despair. People in
general don't know in what direction to turn, where to go, or what
to do. They have not a clue. Not here in the US. Don't let them
send you to your doom. While they are falling to pieces, somebody
has to maintain a militant vigil and a sense of direction and
understanding of how people attempt to fulfil their desires,
however ineptly, in the world in which they live. In a world of
dehumanization, shallowness and self-deception, and intense,
explosive contradiction, this arduous task requires greater depth
and mental self-discipline than ever before in human history.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 13:21:22 -0500
From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Bacon Fried
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>From Plate 93, Jerusalem:
"....if Bacon, Newton, Locke,
Deny a Conscience in Man & the Communion of Saints & Angels
Contemning the Divine Vision & Fruition, Worshiping the Deus
of the Heathen, The God of This World, & the Goddess Nature
Mystery Babylon the Great. The Druid Dragon & hidden Harlot
Is is not that Signal of the Morning which was told us in the Beginning
Thus they converse upon Mam-Tor. the Graves thunder under their feet."
*******************
Happy Apocalypse, Mr. Blake! And blame it on people who are trying to
figure out "This World" or honor "the Goddess Nature". Wake me when we can
talk about "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"-- or is that still expunged
from your canon? And can I wonder WHY you would expunge it? The celebration
OF this world? Exuberance was beauty once, for you. Every living thing, you
said, was holy. But no, now we have the merged Evil Triad worshipping Deus
of the Heathen... Zeus of the Greeks... a time before York Minster got
built. A time before they tore down the marble pillars of Rome to build...
St. Peter's. No time is perfect. Your time wasn't. Mine isn't. But I see
what you're demonizing. And you're wrong. Unlike the critique of Bacon that
I found in Damon... those two lines on Bacon were such beautiful poetic
criticism! Are they anywhere, refabulated, in the official canon?
So now I'm looking at "Annotations to Bacon's _Essays Moral, Economical and
Political_".
"This is Certain If what Bacon says Is True what Christ says Is False"
That's a good starter. They can't coexist, Mr. Blake? Different spectrums
of thought, perhaps? Religion is one thing, science another?
More tirades before page 1.... then...
"....Rational Truth is not the Truth of Christ but of Pilate...."
Bacon himself says a kind of Nietzschean thing for Pilate:
"What is truth? said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer...."
At least Rational Truth challenges assumptions of superstition, Mr. Blake.
But hey, you're inspired. This guy's a royallist, imperialist, scientific
method jerk. I don't blame you for saying...
"But more Nerve if by Ancients he means Heathen Authors"
So it's more than just Priam, isn't it? It's those creepy "heathen
authors"... or am I reading this wrong? Bacon mentions "one of the school
of the Grecians" examining matter. One step further and we'll be
experimenting. Kind of like deconstructionism. Take apart the frog and he
dies in the process...
Blake has no time of day for Bacon's recognition that after creation "is
the illumination of his Spirit." Blake replies: "Pretence to Religion to
destroy Religion"
Or this: "Bacon supposes all Men alike"
What would Blake have thought of Shylock's "Do I not bleed" speech? I
always thought it was an example of how we ARE all alike, in a way.
Well, more later. At least I see a depth to his critique here...
categorized... thank God it was preserved. Bummer about Locke and Newton
getting lost... but Reynolds, I'm sure, holds some keys.
Thanks, Jennifer and Darlene, for suggesting I move on from the mere
official canon to COMPLETE poetry and prose.
Fascinating times that Blake lived in. And truly fascinating man, the way
he reacted to them.
"Creative reading." Emerson talked about it. Blake did it. And so do you,
and so do I.......
-Randall Albright
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 13:23:06 -0500
From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Blake on Newton
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Blake's comments on "seeing" and "doors of perceptions" were mainly reactions
>to Newtonian physics, particularly his optics, which Blake knew very well;
>"seeing" is vital to an artist.
> Avery Gaskins.
Avery:
Thanks for bringing up those points. How do you know that? Through the
letters or prose... or poems which I've missed? Woud his audience have
known it? It's funny, because if you refer to the two quotes I use below,
it goes back not to my complaint that he's vague about The Evil Triad (I
still see it as a critique on mechanistic, industrializing, reductionist
thought that was currently then, and still is, conquering the world), but
as a kind of universal truth, which you can understand without the
Newtonian context. Are these the ones to which you're referring?
"I question not my corporeal eye any more than I would question a window
concerning sight. I look through it, and not with it."
"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man
as it is: infinite."
I believe it was Constable who tried to use Newtonian color theory in his
art, and came to the conclusion that it just didn't work. The paintings
came out unsubtle, and he resorted to his intuition about how to mix and
what looked right.
But we in the computer world have to rely on a color wheel to "mix" our
colors, that get digitally changed into a six letter/number combination for
"background" on Web pages. It's an utter drag, to tell you the truth. You
end up with... what you end up with sometimes.
Without contraries, there's just no progression!
Thanks for answering-
Randall Albright
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:55:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Avery F. Gaskins"
To:
Subject: Re: Blake on Newton
Message-Id:
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Content-Type: Text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Randall, can't answer you right now. Will dig up my references and get back.
Avery Gaskins
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 00:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ralph Dumain
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: McGann, German philosophy, etc. -- recent events
Message-Id: <199607230719.AAA18177@igc4.igc.apc.org>
I am at a loss as to how to proceed.
On Saturday I spent two-the hours writing up a long and sometimes
scathing analysis of the essay "The Third World of Criticism" in
Jerome J. McGann's SOCIAL VALUES AND POETIC ACTS: THE HISTORICAL
JUDGMENT OF LITERARY WORK (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1988). Then I experienced a sudden computer failure and my
whole day's work was wiped out. I was so disheartened at wasting
my time I could not continue.
Coincidentally, just after recovering from this disaster, I
received a gracious response from McGann to my first post. Is
this a sign? McGann didn't say a lot, but he gave me references
to more recent works outlining his current views. I did follow up
on a couple of them but they concern somewhat different matters
than those I am concerned about.
So I have been paralyzed on writing more about McGann. I had some
other posts planned, and then last night I got carried away on a
whim. I had planned to write a couple of posts about the
development of a certain line of thinking through the Young
Hegelians and then later through the likes of Nietzsche. I had
intended to write another post about Marx, Kierkegaard, and Blake.
But last night I got mad at somebody on another list so I spilled
my guts on all those matters unexpectedly and cross-posted the
result here.
So now I find that my spontaneous actions and my plans are out of
whack. And I do have other work to do. So what do I do next?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 09:33:55 -0500
From: jmichael@seraph1.sewanee.edu (J. Michael)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Bacon Fried
Message-Id: <9607231440.AA05654@uu6.psi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Or this: "Bacon supposes all Men alike"
>What would Blake have thought of Shylock's "Do I not bleed" speech? I
>always thought it was an example of how we ARE all alike, in a way.
Yes, and then Shylock goes on to make sure Antonio *will* bleed. But Blake
rejects the idea that all men are alike even in your favorite text, _MHH_:
he divides them into Prolific and Devourer, and says "One law for the lion
and the ox is oppression." The idea that we're all alike can be liberating
and unifying, but it can also be reductive and oppressive: e.g., everybody
has to learn the same stuff in the first grade, and if they can't get it
they're labeled with some disorder, and if they learn faster they get bored
and become "disruptive." Blake was acutely conscious of being different
from others, and although he wasn't always happy to be different, he saw
the futility of pretending he wasn't.
Jennifer Michael
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 96 13:01:18 CDT
From: Mark Trevor Smith
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: McGann, German philosophy, etc. -- recent events
Message-Id: <9607231814.AA07913@uu6.psi.com>
Ralph Dumain, you are most generous and kind to ask for our advice on
your dilemma. The computer failure succeeded by graciousness from
McGann providesyou with an unmistakable answer. When I spent a summer
with Michael Cooke in 1985, I also believed that only anger or
disagreement could spur me to full response (and I still suffer from
that weakness today). Every time I tried to butt heads with Michael,
in person or on paper, he gently deflected my energies into more
constructive paths. This former champion soccer player felt no
need to tackle me and try to best me; instead, he reverberated with
my emotions and helped me develop them. Anyway, like many others,
I am glad that you have remained on this list to contribute your
opinions and analysis, even though as a professor I must wince at
your scorn toward my profession.
I would hope that you and McGann would post a dialogue through
Blake Online, exploring your disagreements (and maybe even some
agreements). One of the brightest promises of the Internet is the
possibility that genuine, high-level, but informal discussions
will benefit us all, participants and observers. Perhaps, with
McGann's permission, you might post some of his "gracious response"
to you, to keep this particular ball rolling.
On Tue, 23 Jul 1996 00:19:13 -0700 (PDT) Ralph Dumain said:
>I am at a loss as to how to proceed.
>
>On Saturday I spent two-the hours writing up a long and sometimes
>scathing analysis of the essay "The Third World of Criticism" in
>Jerome J. McGann's SOCIAL VALUES AND POETIC ACTS: THE HISTORICAL
>JUDGMENT OF LITERARY WORK (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
>Press, 1988). Then I experienced a sudden computer failure and my
>whole day's work was wiped out. I was so disheartened at wasting
>my time I could not continue.
>
>Coincidentally, just after recovering from this disaster, I
>received a gracious response from McGann to my first post. Is
>this a sign? McGann didn't say a lot, but he gave me references
>to more recent works outlining his current views. I did follow up
>on a couple of them but they concern somewhat different matters
>than those I am concerned about.
>
>So I have been paralyzed on writing more about McGann. I had some
>other posts planned, and then last night I got carried away on a
>whim. I had planned to write a couple of posts about the
>development of a certain line of thinking through the Young
>Hegelians and then later through the likes of Nietzsche. I had
>intended to write another post about Marx, Kierkegaard, and Blake.
>But last night I got mad at somebody on another list so I spilled
>my guts on all those matters unexpectedly and cross-posted the
>result here.
>
>So now I find that my spontaneous actions and my plans are out of
>whack. And I do have other work to do. So what do I do next?
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 13:27:14 +0000
From: tmkeiser@piper.hamline.edu
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: blake on stage
Message-Id: <9607231823.AA04939@piper.hamline.edu>
Can anyone refer me to modern plays using Blake as a character.
Steve Martin's recent play with Einstein meeting Picasso triggers my
frail memory. Isn't there a work with Blake's garden as the setting
for a philosophical chat? Thanks, Tom Keiser
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 13:50:17 -0500
From: jmichael@seraph1.sewanee.edu (J. Michael)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Blake sighting
Message-Id: <9607231856.AA15281@uu6.psi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
. . . and I can't call it a "citing." Last Sunday's New York Times
Magazine has an article on Amy Fisher's life in prison, which I read just
far enough to see that she is incarcerated in a place called Albion
Correctional Facility in upstate New York. "All things begin and end . . .
"
Jennifer Michael
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 13:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ralph Dumain
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Bacon Fried
Message-Id: <199607232017.NAA17862@igc2.igc.apc.org>
O why was I born with a differnt face? Why was I not born like
this envious race?
... or something to that effect. BLake was of course acutely
conscious of his differnce, and acutely conscious of the
unconcsciouness of the people around him. No remedy but to labor
upward into futurity.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:11:06 -0800
From: David Rollison
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: McGann, German philosophy, etc. -- recent events
Message-Id: <31F56A19.1758@marin.cc.ca.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This isn't about Ralph Dumain's post, but about Mark's. I, too, spent
that summer with Michael Cooke and Mark has articulated beautifully a
profound lesson from a man who understood Blake (I believe) even better
than he understood Byron (who was his real subject). This mode of what
Mark calls "reverberation" ought to guide our discussions on these
internet lists.
Mark Trevor Smith wrote:
>
> Ralph Dumain, you are most generous and kind to ask for our advice on
> your dilemma. The computer failure succeeded by graciousness from
> McGann providesyou with an unmistakable answer. When I spent a summer
> with Michael Cooke in 1985, I also believed that only anger or
> disagreement could spur me to full response (and I still suffer from
> that weakness today). Every time I tried to butt heads with Michael,
> in person or on paper, he gently deflected my energies into more
> constructive paths. This former champion soccer player felt no
> need to tackle me and try to best me; instead, he reverberated with
> my emotions and helped me develop them. Anyway, like many others,
> I am glad that you have remained on this list to contribute your
> opinions and analysis, even though as a professor I must wince at
> your scorn toward my profession.
> I would hope that you and McGann would post a dialogue through
> Blake Online, exploring your disagreements (and maybe even some
> agreements). One of the brightest promises of the Internet is the
> possibility that genuine, high-level, but informal discussions
> will benefit us all, participants and observers. Perhaps, with
> McGann's permission, you might post some of his "gracious response"
> to you, to keep this particular ball rolling.
>
> On Tue, 23 Jul 1996 00:19:13 -0700 (PDT) Ralph Dumain said:
> >I am at a loss as to how to proceed.
> >
> >On Saturday I spent two-the hours writing up a long and sometimes
> >scathing analysis of the essay "The Third World of Criticism" in
> >Jerome J. McGann's SOCIAL VALUES AND POETIC ACTS: THE HISTORICAL
> >JUDGMENT OF LITERARY WORK (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
> >Press, 1988). Then I experienced a sudden computer failure and my
> >whole day's work was wiped out. I was so disheartened at wasting
> >my time I could not continue.
> >
> >Coincidentally, just after recovering from this disaster, I
> >received a gracious response from McGann to my first post. Is
> >this a sign? McGann didn't say a lot, but he gave me references
> >to more recent works outlining his current views. I did follow up
> >on a couple of them but they concern somewhat different matters
> >than those I am concerned about.
> >
> >So I have been paralyzed on writing more about McGann. I had some
> >other posts planned, and then last night I got carried away on a
> >whim. I had planned to write a couple of posts about the
> >development of a certain line of thinking through the Young
> >Hegelians and then later through the likes of Nietzsche. I had
> >intended to write another post about Marx, Kierkegaard, and Blake.
> >But last night I got mad at somebody on another list so I spilled
> >my guts on all those matters unexpectedly and cross-posted the
> >result here.
> >
> >So now I find that my spontaneous actions and my plans are out of
> >whack. And I do have other work to do. So what do I do next?
> >
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 21:31:54 -0400
From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Divisions of Blake
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Jennifer Michael writes:
>....Blake
>rejects the idea that all men are alike even in your favorite text, _MHH_:
>he divides them into Prolific and Devourer, and says "One law for the lion
>and the ox is oppression." The idea that we're all alike can be liberating
>and unifying, but it can also be reductive and oppressive: e.g., everybody
>has to learn the same stuff in the first grade, and if they can't get it
>they're labeled with some disorder, and if they learn faster they get bored
>and become "disruptive." Blake was acutely conscious of being different
>from others, and although he wasn't always happy to be different, he saw
>the futility of pretending he wasn't.>>>>>>>>
To me this gets back to natural religion or lack thereof... connecting
tissue between people, or just individuals or certain "types"? And what do
you make of the Prolific and Devourer plate, anyway? I read it on a number
of levels. One is the frustration of an artist and an unappreciative,
un-understanding audience. Another is the irony of being an artist, because
you still need to devour something before you can be prolific, which
undermines the whole message of the plate. Then there's the punchline of
Jesus as divider, instead of the lion lying down with the lamb kind of
person... more the apocalyptic, St. John the Divine Jesus, than the real
one, in my opinion, so that lessens the credibility of this particular
rendition of Jesus, in my opinion. So is this Jesus dividing believers and
non-believers? I don't believe the divisions are as stark as Blake paints
them. I sense irony sublime.
What's your take on plates 16-17 of MHH?
None of us are going to read those plates the same way. We're all
different, right? But if someone punches someone else-- maybe for a they
call a "stupid" reaction (which is why I believe more people don't talk in
this group), there's a good possibility that criticism will hurt. (Duh....
this is a generalization, but at least I'm qualifying it by saying "good
possibility") And if someone puts you in a mental hospital because you've
been deemed *crazy* and you're just *different*, that's going to hurt, too.
I know it's one thing Blake feared.
"Every living thing is holy."
Locke was trying to figure out a way to protect"every living person, at
least, in a way that had never been articulated before. So NO common ground
for Blake? Or maybe Locke was too optimistic, thinking that the *state of
nature* was a happy and tolerant one. His idea of a social contract was
trying to preserve *preexistent natural rights* by doing nuts and bolts
things that maybe a prophet shouldn't care about? Like limited government?
Mohammed had, from what little I know, a sense of societal covenant, and HE
was a prophet. So Blake's a prophet. But he's Blake, not Mohammed. And he
supported the American and French Revolutions... why? Just as Orc, a fiery
anarchist? Maybe we all could talk about "America" and "Europe" sometime,
too.
Blake gets touchy about Bacon drawing common ground for people... while
Locke's notion of limited government was also trying to create a common
ground as a basis for protection... it's interesting, that's all.
-Randall Albright
--------------------------------
End of blake-d Digest V1996 Issue #93
*************************************