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

*************************************