blake-d Digest				Volume 1996 : Issue 95



Today's Topics:

	 Re: Darlene Keys to Jerusalem

	 RE: 2 more points on *J*38[43]

	 RE: 2 more points on *J*38[43]

	 RE: 2 more points on *J*38[43]

	 More Keys to Jerusalem

	  _MHH_ and Taste

	 RE: _MHH_ and Taste

	 influence?

	 Re: _MHH_ and Taste

	 Unidentified subject!

	 RE: 2 more points on *J*38[43]

	 Re: More Keys to Jerusalem

	 Re: Unidentified subject!

	 Re: 2 more points on *J*38[43]

	 Blake to Whitman connection?

	 Re: 2 more points on *J*38[43]

	 Re:Re: Unidentified subject!

	 Re: Blake to Whitman connection?

	 Re: More Keys to Jerusalem



------------------------------



Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 17:53:40 -0400

From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright)

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: Re: Darlene Keys to Jerusalem

Message-Id: 

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



I'll check them out Darlene.

Thanks....

And I like your quote of at the bottom.

-R



>Randall:

>        Two other passages related to that one and equally enjoyable and

>understandable on their own are the "grain of sand" paragraph on plate 37(41)

>beginning with line 15 and plate 91, especially the first 30 lines where

>Los reorders Imagination.  The latter section actually reflects most of

>the themes of the poem, including the references to Minute Particulars.

>It's beginning is reminiscent of the "Poison Tree" which I believe

>you have discussed on here previously, and a few lines later the

>5th memorable fancy of MHH is invoked.

>        And there might be an interest in plate 96--the first 43 lines

>reveal Blake's essential Christianity, a topic that has been some concern

>to you  and the list in the past--a plate that includes one of Blake's

>most profound lines (in my opinion)   "This is Friendship & Brotherhood

>without it Man is Not."  I find it has an extra dash of meaning now that

>my students use NOT as an adjective and sometimes a noun.

>

>Darlene Sybert

>http://www.missouri.edu/~c557506/index.htl

>University of Missouri at Columbia   (English)

>******************************************************************************

>This return to the world...can take place only if woman is released from

>the archaic projections man lays upon her and if an autonomous and positive

>representation of female sexuality exists in the culture.   -Irigaray 17

>******************************************************************************



------------------------------



Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 19:10:56 -0500 (CDT)

From: RPYODER@ualr.edu

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: RE: 2 more points on *J*38[43]

Message-Id: <960725191056.20207dcc@ualr.edu>

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT



Come on, Randall.  Let's get some exercise.  Why do I think Los failed?  Well,

why I think he failed is not nearly as important as why the poem suggests

he failed.  My "in the heat of the moment" was intended to summarize a whole

raft of complex questions.  It seems to me that the first tip off -- and here

I should note Hugh's earlier suggestion about the rhetorical style as a tip-off

-- anyway,the first obvious clue is the "kindest violence" by which the Friends

try to force Albion "against his will" back through the Gate of Los.  The irony

of "kindest violence" should suggest that this kindness is misdirected -- kinda

like tough love, I guess -- and the fact that they try to force Albion "against

his will" indicates that the Friends have overstepped the bounds.  Freedom of

choice is what energizes the system.  If Albion wants to fall, you can talk to

him, you can set a good example, you can rage, but you finally cannot stop him

if that's what he wants to do.  That's the thing we fear most about freedom --

that people will actually use it.



But a few lines further down the narrator offers something of an explanation:

"But as the Will must not be bended but in the day of Divine / Power: silent

calm & motionless, in the mid-air sublime, / The Family Divine hover around

the darkend Albion" (39[44]:18-20).  The Divine Family (at this point still 

including the Friends of Albion, but see 39[44]:32) can only watch as Albion

makes the wrong decision.  Clearly it is not in their power to bend Albion's

will, but I frankly am not sure what it means or implies that the Will 

apparently *can* be bent in the "day of Divine Power."  The idea reminds me of

Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus, and indeed, when the Gate of Los episode

begins (35[39]:12) Los asks Albion "Whither fleest thou."  It's not what God

says to Saul/Paul, but it does have a "quo vadis" quality to it.  "Whither

fleest thou" might also recall Job, also.  In any event, apparently when it

wants to Divine Power can -- well, it's not "can not" but "must not," 

it's a decision or an imperative rather than a statement of disability -- when

it want to Divine Power will bend the will.  This conclusion does not seem to

is not proven one way or the other at the end of the poem in which Jesus

chooses persuasion to convince Albion rather choosing to "bend" Albion's will.

Is it possible that the "day of Divine Power" is simply the day of Albion's

reawakening, and that Albion's awakening of itself signifies that his will

has been bent?



Paul Yoder



------------------------------



Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 01:47:47 -0500 (CDT)

From: Darlene Sybert 

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: RE: 2 more points on *J*38[43]

Message-Id: 

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII



On Thu, 25 Jul 1996 RPYODER@ualr.edu wrote:

[text deleted]



> of "kindest violence" should suggest that this kindness is misdirected -- 

kinda

> like tough love, I guess -- and the fact that they try to force Albion 

"against

> his will" indicates that the Friends have overstepped the bounds.  Freedom of



	This is not too pertinent to your topic, but in the interest

of accuracy, what his Friends did would be "intervention,"  wouldn't it?

Isn't tough love more like turning your back on some one for his own good?

That is, refusing to put up with self-destructive behavior (for example)?



[text deleted]



> Whither

> fleest thou" might also recall Job, 



	Hmmm...I don't recall Job going any place except to set in the

ashes.  And what God said to him was more like, who the hell do you think 

you are to question my behavior?   Perhaps you were thinking of Jonah here

who fled on the ship, so he wouldn't have to go to Ninevah to prophesy 

becuase he knew prophets usually ended up dead (killed by unrepentent

listeners who grew tired of his bad news) or embarrassed (because the 

listeners repented and then all the bad predictions didn't come true.)



[text deleted]

> it want to Divine Power will bend the will.  This conclusion does not seem to

> is not proven one way or the other at the end of the poem in which Jesus

> chooses persuasion to convince Albion rather choosing to "bend" Albion's will.

> Is it possible that the "day of Divine Power" is simply the day of Albion's

> reawakening, and that Albion's awakening of itself signifies that his will

> has been bent?



	If we are still talkiing divine power in the Judeo-Christian

	tradition, wouldn't "bending the will" be an overstepping of the

	bounds that God set for himself.  He allowed himself to chastise

	the unrepentant; to comfort and encourage those who needed it;

	to die in the place of man...depending on which manifestation he

	was indulging (or which one man was responding to, depending on	

	your attitude), but wasn't part of the deal that

	man had the right (responsibiity) to manipulate his own will and

	also to suffer the consequences of it (sort of like real life).

	or, at least, let God suffer the consequences?





Darlene Sybert

http://www.missouri.edu/~c557506/index.htl 

University of Missouri at Columbia   (English)

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

This return to the world...can take place only if woman is released from

the archaic projections man lays upon her and if an autonomous and positive

representation of female sexuality exists in the culture.   -Irigaray 17

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



------------------------------



Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 06:18:39 -0500 (CDT)

From: RPYODER@ualr.edu

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: RE: 2 more points on *J*38[43]

Message-Id: <960726061839.202088c3@ualr.edu>

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT



Thanks for the corrections, Darlene.  You're right that I was thinking of

Jonah when I wrote Job -- that's what I get for typing and watching the Olympics at the same time.  The other possible reference/context that escaped me

was Judas going out to betray Jesus after the last supper.



You are also obviously correct about the Divine Power (who or whatever it may

be) overstepping bounds it has set for itself by "bending the will."  In 

*Paradise Lost* God's defense of free will is based on an opposition to

necessity -- that if the agents are not free, then their god is necessity, not

God.  Nevertheless, the lines from *Jerusalem* do seem to indicate that Blake's

Divine Power does reserve to itself the right to bend the will.  Blake's Jesus

goes "beyond the limits of possibility" (quoted from memory for *J*).  I had

always read "possibility" as a human construct -- that Jesus redefines the

possible beyond the typical fallen human conception of it -- but perhaps it is

that Jesus implies for Blake the "o'erleaping" (Milton's word) of God's own

bounds.  That God has bounds is itself a pretty radical view of God -- that's

why Milton has such a hard time with it.  But certainly Blake's Jesus overturns

the standards of the God of Judgment, of what was "possible" before Jesus (if

there is a before Jesus).



It may just be that whatever we may think about the system, Blake's experience

was that the Divine Power sometimes *did* bend the will.



Paul Yoder



------------------------------



Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 12:53:32 -0500

From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright)

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: More Keys to Jerusalem

Message-Id: 

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



Darlene:



The grain of sand on plate 37. It's true poetry, it's true life, a key into

eternity that reflects the past, present and future. That's why Satan will

never find it. Satan is merely DEAD.





Plate 91:

The first line is an inverse of "A Poison Tree", but equally true. I've

been Blake-bashing, haven't I? Blake was Swedenborg bashing in MHH. But

read what I say about him on my Web page, and you'd think only that I find

him endlessly fascinating.



Corporeal versus spiritual gifts? Yeah.... that's a bit of an exaggeration,

but it reminds me of one of my favorite songs:



"If I gave you everything that I owned, and asked for nothing in return,

would you do the same for me, as I would for you?

Or take me for a ride, and strip me of everything, including my pride.

But spirit is something that no one destroys."

        -Steve Winwood, Traffic, "The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys"



And distinguishing hypocrisy from real love... yes. Saw a public

information billboard yesterday: "Know a man by his acts, not by his

words." --Benjamin Franklin





Plate 96:

My current construct (hey, I'm just a new visitor to "Jerusalem", and have

gotten seriously ill here in the past, so... it's tentative) is that this

answers what turned out to be a dustbowl for Los in Plate 38. You have to

realize there's something _outside_ you as well as within. And that that

outside-ness is kind and forgiving. For Blake, it's his vision of Christ,

and it is able to get Urizen, Luvah, Tharmas, and Urthona to rise (line

41), and for the crescendo of the poem to begin.



-Randall Albright

http://world.std.com/~albright/



------------------------------



Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 12:53:52 -0500

From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright)

To: blake@albion.com

Subject:  _MHH_ and Taste

Message-Id: 

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



Jennifer Michael asked a question, in relation to the "Prolific and the

Devourer"section  in _MHH_, something like (sorry, Jennifer, I'm on another

computer now): "Is it because the audience doesn't have TASTE?"



Seeing how I've connected Blake in my mind with Rimbaud's "Ville" poem, the

Arts and Crafts and beyond... my construct is to push this into an

affirmative: "Yes, that's part of it." And where do I read it other than

the crooked versus strait roads passage (which itself can be read in many

more ways than my contruct)?



from "Proverbs of Hell":



"The cistern contains: the fountain overflows

One thought. fills immensity.

Always be ready to speak your mind, and a base man will avoid you."



As far as LITERAL good taste:



"The best wine is the oldest. the best water the newest."



Plate 11 talks about art creation-- for Blake it's religion creation-- but

it again has the problem of:



"Till a system was formed, which some took advantage of & enslav'd the

vulgar by attempting to realize or abstract the mentail deities from their

objects: thus began Priesthood.

Choosing forms of worship from poetic tales.

And at length they pronounced that the Gods had orderd such things.

Thus men forgot at All deities reside in the human breast."



I can come to peace with "loving the greatest men best" in terms of a

pantheon of artists. It has nothing to do with the creed of Jesus, in my

opinion. But it has everything to do with the creed of good taste and good

judgment.



Any viewer of _MHH_ that doesn't have the good taste to see the imaginative

brilliance of Blake's painted prints ... Plate 11, for instance, in black

and white can't begin to compare with what it is in color. I saw it last on

the Web (at Cal State Poly San Luis Obispo? as a demo of their CD-ROM

project... now perhaps elsewhere, poem complete in color with probably

frustratingly long download times...), in the Tate hardbound, or even my

own little Dover paperback is, well, *OK*.



And critics who complained, in Blake's day, that clothing seemed to merge

into something else... they merely missed a part of the visual message,

didn't they? Why DO children have a Disneyland-like fun ride on a serpent

in "Thel" and "America"? Are they just... being TAKEN for a ride? Or can

the serpent be our friend, unlike Adam and Eve found? Are the children

riding the serpent REALLY children, or just the child within each of us as

adults? The visual images themselves compound irony. (I intentionally

slipped to those other poems, Pam... rules are meant to be broken!)



In _MHH_ itself, plate 2, is the woman being pulled up the tree, or is the

guy (or is it a woman?) being led DOWN? Is that the villain, watching

passively how they do it on the side so he can merely mimic them? Where's

the path that the argument is talking about? Climbing up or down a tree

constitutes a path? Maybe a tree of knowledge gets debased into a tree of

ripped-off, faked, repetitive, liturgical, or mechanistic knowledge that

you have to abandon for "barren climes". Maybe, by doing this, Blake is

opening the doors of perception instead of shutting them down.



Randall Albright

http://world.std.com/~albright/



------------------------------



Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 16:34:27 -0500

From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright)

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: RE: _MHH_ and Taste

Message-Id: 

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



A nice thought, Watt. But of course you bring up more questions...



Like... how did we get in this predicament of being in a cavern? There's

safety in the familiar. It's cozy, a Freudian womb perhaps. From the moment

we're born, we get "Jesus loves me, this I know, because the Bible tells me

so..." or some other substitute like "Barney". This is a fascinating

question for me on Blake, because we get piled up with language and

expectations... how to dress for dinner... what's "nice" and what's not. So

Blake comes smashing through with _MHH_ Taboo breaking, upside-down

viewing.  It's obvious that



"In seed time learn, in harvest teach, in winter enjoy."



Actually, it ISN'T to alot of people, who think they have no time to kick

back and do the 3rd part. They're in a cave, bereaved of light, Work Ethic

Go Go Go... until they die of a heart attack!



"Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains." --Rousseau



But if the doors WERE cleansed, and we DID see everything as it is,

infinite, free of chains, free of the cave, wouldn't it be sensory

overload? Wouldn't it be like looking at Medusa's Head, capable of turning

us to stone?



"The eagle never lost so much time. as when he submitted to learn of the crow."

and

"One Law for the Lion & Ox is Oppression"

indicate the subjectivity of perception as well as other aspects of being.

So these doors can never be fully "cleansed" except to the highest degree

possible for each of us, as individuals. And like some people who are

"Jerusalem" trekkers may be finding, you have to keep stoking the flames,

reassessing, forgiving yourself as you try to invent new, hopefully

*positive* and not just *mechanistic*, wheels.



-Randall Albright

http://world.std.com/~albright/



------------------------------



Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 15:46:09 -0500

From: tomdill@womenscol.stephens.edu (TOM DILLINGHAM)

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: influence?

Message-Id: <96072615460920@womenscol.stephens.edu>



Blakeans, take a look at the cover of this week's _New Yorker_.

Surely this is a Blakean design, adapted to the subject "At the

Beach"?  Only a few weeks ago. the design from _Milton_ showing

Los appearing like the sun at Blake's back (the one some suspect

of portraying fellatio) appeared with the review of Ackroyd's

biography.  This composition is strikingly similar.

(There is also an affinity with the "ancient" frontispiece of

_Europe_.)  No claim of direct influence, but it seems not

impossible.



------------------------------



Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 16:31:21 -0500

From: jmichael@seraph1.sewanee.edu (J. Michael)

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: Re: _MHH_ and Taste

Message-Id: <9607262137.AA13835@uu6.psi.com>

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



>Jennifer Michael asked a question, in relation to the "Prolific and the

>Devourer"section  in _MHH_, something like (sorry, Jennifer, I'm on another

>computer now): "Is it because the audience doesn't have TASTE?"



What I really meant to ask was, does the Devourer imprison the Prolific

because of the Devourer's lack of taste?  And is that lack of taste a

given?  Because if they don't have taste, they're obviously *not* consuming

Blake's work; they're buying the trash of the day instead, which destroys

the symbiotic relationship between artist and audience.  Presumably, if the

audience had taste equal to the artist's (!), the division between them

would disappear.  But then, if those "weak and tame minds" all became

active and creating, who would consume their work?  I still think there's a

conundrum there.



JM



------------------------------



Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 16:42:24 -0700

From: rmcdonell@ucsd.edu

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: Unidentified subject!

Message-Id: MieVein:1



Conten-ye etpan cre="-siiTo: blake@albion.com

rm:mdoe@cs.u Ret cnll

bjc:laendWianQe



I seem o el rdn ttWhtns o, tWtmn ehs wstenfo  le ei. A  iremeig Me eell,wa rth ohr oncis,i n,btenWimnadBa? Hp hsi

o o eetin qeto owratarpy Tak.



------------------------------



Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 20:09:48 -0500 (CDT)

From: Darlene Sybert 

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: RE: 2 more points on *J*38[43]

Message-Id: 

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII



On Fri, 26 Jul 1996 RPYODER@ualr.edu wrote:

> Jonah when I wrote Job -- that's what I get for typing and watching the 

 Olympics at the same time.  The other possible reference/context that 

escaped me > was Judas going out to betray Jesus after the last supper.

	

	Certainly that would work, too, if you didn't push it too far.



Darlene Sybert

http://www.missouri.edu/~c557506/index.htl 

University of Missouri at Columbia   (English)

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

This return to the world...can take place only if woman is released from

the archaic projections man lays upon her and if an autonomous and positive

representation of female sexuality exists in the culture.   -Irigaray 17

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



------------------------------



Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 20:51:30 -0500 (CDT)

From: Darlene Sybert 

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: Re: More Keys to Jerusalem

Message-Id: 

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII



On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, R.H. Albright wrote:

> 

> The grain of sand on plate 37. It's true poetry, it's true life, a key into

> eternity that reflects the past, present and future. That's why Satan will

> never find it. Satan is merely DEAD.



	Your comment reminded me...I have been reading Zizek this

	week about the conditin of (im)possibility re:Hegel. When I read

this part about his partial moment, I thought of Blake's moment.  Is 

there any connection here or is my brain just on overload...



  "The picture of the Hegelian system as a closed whole which 

assigns its proper place to every partial moment is therefore deeply 

misleading.  Every partial moment is, so to speak, "truncated from

within," it cannot ever fully become   "itself,"  it cannot  ever reach 

"its own place,"  it is marked with an inherent  impediment, and it is 

this impediment which "sets in motion" the dialectical development..."

followed shortly by, "a paradoxical "One" of radical negativity which

forever blocks the fulfilment of any positive identity."

What do yu think?





Darlene Sybert

http://www.missouri.edu/~c557506/index.htl 

University of Missouri at Columbia   (English)

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

This return to the world...can take place only if woman is released from

the archaic projections man lays upon her and if an autonomous and positive

representation of female sexuality exists in the culture.   -Irigaray 17

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



------------------------------



Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 20:58:05 -0500 (CDT)

From: Darlene Sybert 

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: Re: Unidentified subject!

Message-Id: 

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII



On Fri, 26 Jul 1996 rmcdonell@ucsd.edu wrote:

> I seem o el rdn ttWhtns o, tWtmn ehs wstenfo  le ei. A  iremeig Me eell,wa rth ohr oncis,i n,btenWimnadBa? Hp hsi

> o o eetin qeto owratarpy Tak.



	Which may be the most coherent thing that has ever been said on this 

list.> 



Darlene Sybert

http://www.missouri.edu/~c557506/index.htl 

University of Missouri at Columbia   (English)

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

This return to the world...can take place only if woman is released from

the archaic projections man lays upon her and if an autonomous and positive

representation of female sexuality exists in the culture.   -Irigaray 17

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



------------------------------



Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 21:35:51 -0500

From: tomdill@womenscol.stephens.edu (TOM DILLINGHAM)

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: Re: 2 more points on *J*38[43]

Message-Id: <96072621355127@womenscol.stephens.edu>



"whither fleest thou?" -- Job? no; Jonah, more likely; Judas, perhaps;

how about Cain?



------------------------------



Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 20:34:56 -0600

From: rmcdonell@UCSD.EDU (Robert McDonell)

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: Blake to Whitman connection?

Message-Id: <199607270333.UAA25771@ mail.ucsd.edu>

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



I seem to recall reading that Whitman's tomb at Camden was based on a

design from Blake.  Am I misremembering?  Are there (other) connections

between Blake and Whitman?



robt mcdonell



------------------------------



Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 23:54:19 -0500 (CDT)

From: Darlene Sybert 

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: Re: 2 more points on *J*38[43]

Message-Id: 

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII



On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, TOM DILLINGHAM wrote:

> "whither fleest thou?" -- Job? no; Jonah, more likely; Judas, perhaps;

> how about Cain?

> 

	The first flee-er





Darlene Sybert

http://www.missouri.edu/~c557506/index.htl 

University of Missouri at Columbia   (English)

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

This return to the world...can take place only if woman is released from

the archaic projections man lays upon her and if an autonomous and positive

representation of female sexuality exists in the culture.   -Irigaray 17

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



------------------------------



Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 15:37:22 -0400

From: WaHu@aol.com

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: Re:Re: Unidentified subject!

Message-Id: <960727153721_247026979@emout14.mail.aol.com>



What is coherence, Darlene, and who has it?  He that died a'Thursday.  -to

paraphrase Sir John.- In the work-a-day world, coherence usually starts at

about $13.85 an hour, with a four hour minimum.  But as almost no one is

coherent for more than an hour, the actual cost is closer to $50.00 an hour.





Hugh Walthall     wahu@aol.com



------------------------------



Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 16:20:16 -0500

From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright)

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: Re: Blake to Whitman connection?

Message-Id: 

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



Well... here's my two cents' worth. Blake is often calling for the lifting

of sexual as well as other moralistic taboos. So did Whitman. There are,

however, serious differences between these poets, even if only roughly 80

years separate them.



Blake's denial of "natural religion". Wouldn't Whitman say that we all have it?



Blake's painting of "nature" in human terms. Landscapes become people, etc.

God has a human face.

Whitman... as Emerson called him, "a Hindoo-like poet", knew we're merely

part of it all.



Blake's constant (mechanistic? nah!) attack on science, epitomized in the

Evil Triad of Locke/Newton/Bacon. Whitman at one point says "Hoorah for

science!" while then going on to say that its actual "findings" may have

little to do with him.



Blake's mysticism and "prophecy" is hooked into the Bible. Whitman, in the

New World, is trying to find religion in something as simple as leaves of

grass... although at his best, Blake found it too in a grain of sand.



One point that goes back to re-uniting the men, however, is their

individualistic, "rebel" spirit. Whitman took alot of flak for _Leaves of

Grass_ and even Emerson and Thoreau thought he could tone down the sex

passages. He didn't.



Other views?



-Randall Albright

http://world.std.com/~albright/



------------------------------



Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 16:20:46 -0500

From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright)

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: Re: More Keys to Jerusalem

Message-Id: 

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



Darlene Sybert wrote:

>  "The picture of the Hegelian system as a closed whole which

>assigns its proper place to every partial moment is therefore deeply

>misleading.  Every partial moment is, so to speak, "truncated from

>within," it cannot ever fully become   "itself,"  it cannot  ever reach

>"its own place,"  it is marked with an inherent  impediment, and it is

>this impediment which "sets in motion" the dialectical development..."

>followed shortly by, "a paradoxical "One" of radical negativity which

>forever blocks the fulfilment of any positive identity."

>What do yu think?



Well, I'll tell ya, Darlene. I read _Phenomenology of Mind_ about 20 years

ago, upon the recommendation of someone who said he's the father of Marx,

Nietzsche, and Freud. At the time, I found it rivetting (does that mean I

was in a car assemby plant?), although this illusion of "progress" was to

me always suspect. By the time you reach... what does he call it... some

sort of Ideal Man, it seemed to me like it was time for either another fall

or Hitler to march the Ideal off the side of a Romantic Cliff. That's why I

like Nietzsche, who warns that while something is building up on one side,

something else is probably eroding on another. (I can find the exact GAY

SCIENCE quote when I'm home, if you care...) And that's also why I've

always liked "The Clod and the Pebble" so much; because it seems like a

dialectic we're stuck with. So while you and other

_Jerusalem_ trekkers see how Los and company can try to wake up Albion, how

we'll throw off the selfish part of ourselves-- how (men as well as) the

women that Blake describes in the debased Babylon run around like sadist

vampires-- I just think we have to be comforted by these grains of sand

that Satan will never find because they're true and good.



Sure, no matter where you are in Hegel's _Phenomenology_, you wouldn't have

gotten there unless you'd had, as Blake says, the contraries that cause

progression. They all make up a composite of "eternity."



This brings up another point, related. I've been reading _Fantasia and the

Unconscious_ by D.H. Lawrence lately, in which he warns against "Ideals" as

being mechanistic, dead... the kind of thing that makes you look at

yourself in a mirror and see a skull, not a person. To me, it sounded like

Blake's complaints. Lawrence recommends LIVING, and if it sounds a bit

flimsy with a "spontaneous" emphasis, it's worth noting that both he and

Blake have been called Men Without a Mask. Now what does THAT mean, you

might think, wandering through the multi-layered forests of "Jerusalem"?

Well, for me, more comfortable in the "Marriage of Heaven and Hell" era, it

means letting things all hang out, warts and all.



Other views? Thanks for the Hegel tidbit, Darlene.



-Randall Albright



--------------------------------

End of blake-d Digest V1996 Issue #95

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