blake-d Digest				Volume 1996 : Issue 97



Today's Topics:

	 Blake sighting

	 Re: Eternity and Blakean Evolution

	 Eternity and Blakean Evolution -Reply

	 Re: Unsubscribe

	 Re: Blake sighting

	 Road to Udan-Adan

	 Eternity and Pictures

	 Re: Eternity and Pictures

	 Re: Eternity and Blakean Evolution

	 Re: Blake sighting

	 Re: Re: Eternity and Pictures

	 Re: Eternity and Pictures

	 Re: Eternity and Blakean Evolution

	 Thel

	   Re: Eternity and Blakean Evolution

	 Re: Unsubscribe

	 Blake Definitions of Eternity 



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



Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 00:01:21 -0500

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

To: Blake@albion.com

Subject: Blake sighting

Message-Id: <96073100012188@womenscol.stephens.edu>



This may seem rather farfetched but I put it as a kind of question

to the list.  In _Correction_, a novel by the Austrian writer,

Thomas Bernhard, the main character visits the Tate Gallery

"I always had to visit this museum alone, it's my favorite

museum, the only museum in the world which I not only could endure

but could actually love, during this visit to the Tate, so

Roithamer, I was able to gain a little peace of mind by working o

on the thorn apple, the so-called _datura stramonium_, because

I was working most intently, while at the Tate Gallery, on 

this little paper which I believe turned out rather well, I was

working on William Blake for one thing, and for the other on

the thorn apple"  etc.  I won't try to explain the extremely

complicated situation the character is in, but I believe this

is the only reference to Blake in the novel, and clearly it

remains undeveloped.  Two questions come to mind--is there

any connection between Blake and the "thornapple" (datura

stramonium)?; and does anyone know of any discussion of

Bernhard's work that makes a connection between his

thinking/writing and Blake's?

(In the quotation above, the phrase "so Roithamer" refers to

the central character whose papers the narrator of the novel

is attempting to put in order and is reproducing in

narrative form, punctuated frequently with the phrase

"so Roithamer" to remind the reader that this is an account

of the dead Roithamer's writings, not the narrator's own

ideas or experiences--though the distinction becomes increasingly

vague as the novel progresses.)

Tom Dillingham



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



Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 01:32:17 -0500 (CDT)

From: Darlene Sybert 

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: Re: Eternity and Blakean Evolution

Message-Id: 

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



On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, R.H. Albright wrote:

> 

> Eternity is made up of Time and Space, isn't it? Los and the ever-awful



	Hmmmm...there's something wrong with that statement...

	Isn't eternity the annihilation of time in Blake's world?

	  This one moment... that never passes away.  Truth is eternal, 

	but error and  created forms will cease

	

	Or to quote Blake (there's a novel idea): 

	"The vegetative Universe opens like a flower from the Earth's

	center in which is Eternity.  It expands in Stars to the Mundane

	Shell and there it meets Eternity again, both within and without."

	Jerusalem plate 13.     "The Visions of 

	Eternity, by reason of narrowed perceptions, are become weak

	Visions of Time and Space"  (Jerusalem plate 49.)



	Our imaginations are those Worlds of Eternity in which we shall

	live for ever in Jesus our Lord.  (Milton) 



	Blake's objective was to open the eyes of man "inward into the

	World's of Thought, into Eternity ever expanding in

	the Bosom of God, the Human Imagination.  (Jerusalem again.)



	You must go to Jerusalem, Randall.

> 

> To me, if I were to follow your explanation on the last 3 points, it would

> reduce the elasticity of Blake... how he sometimes says one thing but draws

> another... as is obvious in Tyger, Tyger" and I tried to show in my Book of

> Urizen and Orc's Bum Rap posts (I admit these were sarcastic, but they were

> based on visual-verbal CONTRAST to show how Blake expands, not contracts,

> our doors of perception).

	

	I've read your theories about this, but I couldn't extract the

	reasoning from the sarcasm...when you say he draws one thing and 

	says another, are you implying contradiction or that this difference

	materially affects the meaning of the picture and/or the poem?

	And give me the short answer...I have a hard time following those

	long posts...  :-)





Darlene Sybert

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

University of Missouri at Columbia   (English)

TuTh 12:30-2:00  Tate Hall, Room 16 (Knock)

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

They say that Hope is happiness;/ But genuine Love must prize the past

And Memory wakes thoughts that bless/ They rose the first--they set the last. 

And all that Memory loves the most/  Was once our only Hope to be,

And all that Hope adored and lost/  Hath melted into Memory.

Alas! it is delusion all;/ The future cheats us from afar/

Nor can we be what we recall,/  Nor dare we think on what we are. -Byron

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



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



Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 11:37:00 +0200

From: P Van Schaik 

To: blake@albion.com, albright@world.std.com

Subject: Eternity and Blakean Evolution -Reply

Message-Id: 



Sorry, Randall,  Try reading entire poems, instead of Damon's dictionary 

- this is better than my trying to feed you scraps from Blake's feast, by

suggesting specific plates. I'll have to leave your questions to others to

answer as am being kept busy at work.  Pam



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



Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 06:18:16 -0400

From: kitch@sentex.net (Tim Kitchen)

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: Re: Unsubscribe

Message-Id: <199607311018.GAA19120@granite.sentex.net>

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



Unsubscribe



Tim Kitchen

kitch@sentex.net



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



Date: Wed, 31 Jul 96 14:09:28 -0500

From: Richard Haly 

To: 

Subject: Re: Blake sighting

Message-Id: <199607310903.OAA21802@gye>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"



Just to mix it up a bit more, isn't Roithamer modeled on Wittgenstein? 

The datura is aka, toloache, Jimson weed, "loco weed," a reportedly 

powerful and potentially lethal vision-producing drug, used by Native 

Americans from Chumash in Santa Barbara at least as far south as the 

Nahua in central Mexico. My guess is the reference is to the "visionary" 

quality. Now Blake and Wittgenstein, well, I dunno.



Richard Haly



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



Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 15:09:56 -0500 (EST)

From: WATT 

To: Albion Blake 

Subject: Road to Udan-Adan

Message-Id: <4356091529071996/A11577/OVID/11A7EBC93300*@MHS>

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

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT



Randall asked if I had been avoiding Butler's location.  No.  Just thought 

everybody knew.  It's in Indianapolis, Indiana in the heart of Babylon or as it 

is otherwise known jer(USA)lem.  Now everybody does.  Jim Watt



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



Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 17:49:16 -0400

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

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: Eternity and Pictures

Message-Id: 

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



So I have to go to "Jerusalem" to find out what "Eternity" is?

Or the OED?

Until then....

how about this American Heritage, 3rd edition, definition, which has, for #1:



        "time without beginning or end; infinite time"



Sounds like TIME

and where there's TIME... isn't there SPACE?

Where there's no TIME, things are DEAD.

Or maybe this is an R.H. Albright Manifesto to which you don't subscribe.



"Los is by mortals nam'd Time, Enitharmon is nam'd Space."

        --- Milton, plate 24, line 68



And in plate 22 of "Milton", isn't Los consoling Blake that things vanish

only in Satan's realm, but that he's got "every fabric" of earthly

existence, remaining, permanent, in "Eternity" or wherever he's come down

from? Is this the Eternity ONLY of an After-Life where things get

preserved? Or could Los always be out there, always IN the fabrics of time.





To me, that's empowerment and justifies... terribly sorry the intervention

was ill-timed, Darlene and Paul, but... feeling that you should tap the God

within you, as well as recognizing that there's a God greater than you. If

eternity is made up of the little seconds like when Blake lived and when we

live...



What if we LIVE in Heaven and Hell? What if they're both constructs, and

the way we act, and the way we think... what if you turn the Existentialist

question of "?" and say "Absolutely!" OF COURSE everthing matters.

Everything is a manifestation of God.



Eternity.

Christ rose again.

And he's coming back.

And some people

believe that

what that really means is

that Christ's thoughts are so powerful,

that they've been passed on from generation to generation...



with what Simone Weil says,

and I merely paraphrase here,

"We believe there is much truth here (in the Bible).

As to whether it's true, you'll have to look at the book yourself

and decide

for yourself."



Couldn't that be Blake speaking, as well as Weil?



What if I go to "Auguries of Innocence" instead of "Jerusalem" for a

Blakean definition of eternity? Is it merely naive to think that I can

"hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour." Or



"To see a World in a Grain of Sand

And A Heaven in a Wild Flower."



What's Blake saying? How am I filling in the question with my

interpretation? How far off am I from Blake's original meaning? Every hour

has meaning. What's the undercurrent, really, of "America" and "Europe"?

Why did Emerson bother to quote him in 1872 to say BE HERE NOW?



Another part of the Damon Blake Dictionary definition that I LIKE is

"Eternity is the real Now." It's not an afterlife thing. It's the

underlying HERE.



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



As for the expanded meaning of the words and pictures, Darlene, the

simplest example is "Tyger, Tyger" (or is it?), where his words scare you

and you see this cute cat at the bottom. Irony, or just "tyger between

kills"? Plate 3 of "Book of Urizen" SOUNDS scary, and you know Blake could

have illustrated it frightfully if he had wanted to, but instead we get a

leaping adolescent that looks like: hey, life's a lark, isn't it? Not

according to the words.



The pictures add complexity sometimes, contradict or don't relate to the

words at others (even going back or forward a plate or two) to see what

words a picture could be "illuminating"... and then there's also the rare

chance that a plate will simply visually represent the words.



-Randall Albright



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



Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 18:48:20 -0500 (CDT)

From: Darlene Sybert 

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: Re: Eternity and Pictures

Message-Id: 

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



On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, R.H. Albright wrote:

[text deleted]



> how about this American Heritage, 3rd edition, definition, which has, for #1:

> 

>         "time without beginning or end; infinite time"

[text deleted]

Or maybe this is an R.H. Albright Manifesto to which you don't 

subscribe.

	I couldn't have said it better myself, RH...you keep shying away

	from the idea of infinity.  Why is it so hard for you to accept

	that eternity and time are not part of each other?  

> 

> "Los is by mortals nam'd Time, Enitharmon is nam'd Space."

>         --- Milton, plate 24, line 68

> 

> And in plate 22 of "Milton", isn't Los consoling Blake that things vanish

> only in Satan's realm, but that he's got "every fabric" of earthly

> existence, remaining, permanent, in "Eternity" or wherever he's come down

> from? Is this the Eternity ONLY of an After-Life where things get

> preserved? Or could Los always be out there, always IN the fabrics of time.

> 

	Yes...see my earlier post...all there is is the eternal NOW.

	This moment is IT...and it will never go away althought we will..



> To me, that's empowerment and justifies... terribly sorry the intervention

> was ill-timed, Darlene and Paul, but... feeling that you should tap the God

> within you, as well as recognizing that there's a God greater than you. If

> eternity is made up of the little seconds like when Blake lived and when we

> live...> 



	If you are still talking about Blake's works and haven't dropped

	back into this world, then where did the God stuff come from?

	Are you suggesting that eternity as a concept presupposes God?

	You can't just drop God into THIS concept of eternity because he

	is part of the Judeo-Christian one.  Where is God in Blake?



> What if we LIVE in Heaven and Hell? What if they're both constructs, and

> the way we act, and the way we think... what if you turn the Existentialist

> question of "?" and say "Absolutely!" OF COURSE everthing matters.

> Everything is a manifestation of God.



	What if WE live in Heaven and Hell?  It disconcerts me so much

	for you to whip back and forth between realities like that...

	

	But, what if Blake is saying we LIVE in heaven and hell?  That they

	are constructs, etc.  How does that make everything a manifestation

	of God? 



	And thanks for clarifying your discussion of the words and

	pictures...really reproducing Blake's work without the pictures

	should be against the law, don't you think?  (I'm serious now.)



Darlene Sybert

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

University of Missouri at Columbia   (English)

TuTh 12:30-2:00  Tate Hall, Room 16 (Knock)

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

They say that Hope is happiness;/ But genuine Love must prize the past

And Memory wakes thoughts that bless/ They rose the first--they set the last. 

And all that Memory loves the most/  Was once our only Hope to be,

And all that Hope adored and lost/  Hath melted into Memory.

Alas! it is delusion all;/ The future cheats us from afar/

Nor can we be what we recall,/  Nor dare we think on what we are. -Byron

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



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



Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 20:37:09 -0600

From: "Jeffrey Skoblow" 

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: Re: Eternity and Blakean Evolution

Message-Id: <9608010137.AA21579@daisy.ac.siue.edu>



This is a question I've wrestled with also.  I wouldn't say that 

Eternity is made up of Time and Space, but that Eternity includes 

Time and Space.  I think of Urizen, that unhappy Eternal, separating 

himself from the other Eternals, and spinning his webs of space and 

time-- the Eternals looking on aghast, Los springing into complicated 

action.  If all of Time and Space can be identified (in the Book of 

Urizen) with Urizen, and if Urizen remains an Eternal, then Time and 

Space would seem to be categories of Eternity-- like some bad 

neighborhood in Eternity, some pathological expression of a problem 

inherent in Eternity.  Why should Urizen have done what Blake has him 

do?  What is it about Eternity that spawns the unhappy labors of 

Urizen?  Eternity is not Time and Space, and Time and Space is not 

Eternity, but the two ends of the antithesis speak one another-- 

Eternity is in love with the productions of Time, and the creatures 

of the temporal world are clearly (or can be, when they get their 

heads screwed on right) in love with the Eternal.

Urizen then seems to me not so simply a Bad Guy, a force to be 

expunged or whatever-- Urizen represents an Eternal necessity too, 

and since he IS Eternal, there's no sense in imagining a time before 

him, some prelapsarian moment.  Time and Space have always existed, 

if Urizen creates them and if he is Eternal...

but now I'm spinning in circles.

Jeffrey Skoblow









> Date:          Wed, 31 Jul 1996 01:32:17 -0500 (CDT)

> From:          Darlene Sybert 

> To:            blake@albion.com

> Subject:       Re: Eternity and Blakean Evolution

> Reply-to:      blake@albion.com



> On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, R.H. Albright wrote:

> > 

> > Eternity is made up of Time and Space, isn't it? Los and the ever-awful

> 

> 	Hmmmm...there's something wrong with that statement...

> 	Isn't eternity the annihilation of time in Blake's world?

> 	  This one moment... that never passes away.  Truth is eternal, 

> 	but error and  created forms will cease

> 	

> 	Or to quote Blake (there's a novel idea): 

> 	"The vegetative Universe opens like a flower from the Earth's

> 	center in which is Eternity.  It expands in Stars to the Mundane

> 	Shell and there it meets Eternity again, both within and without."

> 	Jerusalem plate 13.     "The Visions of 

> 	Eternity, by reason of narrowed perceptions, are become weak

> 	Visions of Time and Space"  (Jerusalem plate 49.)

> 

> 	Our imaginations are those Worlds of Eternity in which we shall

> 	live for ever in Jesus our Lord.  (Milton) 

> 

> 	Blake's objective was to open the eyes of man "inward into the

> 	World's of Thought, into Eternity ever expanding in

> 	the Bosom of God, the Human Imagination.  (Jerusalem again.)

> 

> 	You must go to Jerusalem, Randall.

> > 

> > To me, if I were to follow your explanation on the last 3 points, it would

> > reduce the elasticity of Blake... how he sometimes says one thing but draws

> > another... as is obvious in Tyger, Tyger" and I tried to show in my Book of

> > Urizen and Orc's Bum Rap posts (I admit these were sarcastic, but they were

> > based on visual-verbal CONTRAST to show how Blake expands, not contracts,

> > our doors of perception).

> 	

> 	I've read your theories about this, but I couldn't extract the

> 	reasoning from the sarcasm...when you say he draws one thing and 

> 	says another, are you implying contradiction or that this difference

> 	materially affects the meaning of the picture and/or the poem?

> 	And give me the short answer...I have a hard time following those

> 	long posts...  :-)

> 

> 

> Darlene Sybert

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

> University of Missouri at Columbia   (English)

> TuTh 12:30-2:00  Tate Hall, Room 16 (Knock)

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

> They say that Hope is happiness;/ But genuine Love must prize the past

> And Memory wakes thoughts that bless/ They rose the first--they set the last. 

> And all that Memory loves the most/  Was once our only Hope to be,

> And all that Hope adored and lost/  Hath melted into Memory.

> Alas! it is delusion all;/ The future cheats us from afar/

> Nor can we be what we recall,/  Nor dare we think on what we are. -Byron

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

> 

> 

> 



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



Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 20:44:59 -0500

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

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: Re: Blake sighting

Message-Id: <96073120445899@womenscol.stephens.edu>



The character of Roithamer in Bernhard's _Correction_ does have

some slight similarities to Ludwig Wittgenstein, but they are 

more circumstantial (he travels back and forth between Cambridge

and Vienna, he is a builder of a visionary building, but he is

not, like LW, a philosopher--a scientist, rather, with a strong

philosophical bent--and there are many ways in which the 

character develops that are not consistent with LW's life or

character--that can be found in great and complex detail in

a brilliant novel called _The World As I Found It_ by Bruce Duffy,

as well as in the fine biography by Ray Monk) than philosophical

or even temperamental.

With reference to Blake, however, I think that a case could be

made that Bernhard is at least circling around some of Blake's 

ideas in this book, and that he gets even closer to some of

them in his later novel, _Wittgenstein's Nephew_, though

he makes no mention of Blake in that one.  It is the 

Blake who refuses to accept the primacy or prior reality of

the physical world of nature whose thinking seems to be

brought forward in Bernhard's work, but Bernhard (so far

as I can tell) refuses any thoughts of even the possibility

of redemption or the victory of the creative imagination.

No road out of Ulro for Bernhard's characters.  At least so

far as I know them.

As for the datura, I had forgotten that its seeds produced those

interesting alkaloids.  Bernhard makes no such reference in the

text of the novel, but I will look at the passage again to see if

the possible hallucinogenic effect has any relevance.  Probably

it does.

Thanks for the comments.



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



Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 22:55:57 -0400

From: WaHu@aol.com

To: blake@albion.com

Cc: weber@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu

Subject: Re: Re: Eternity and Pictures

Message-Id: <960731225532_446779847@emout15.mail.aol.com>



Excellent Darlene.



Time is the only thing that prevents everything  from happening at once.

 I've heard it said.





If Eternity were ALL TIME or ONLY TIME, nothing would happen.

If Eternity were NO TIME or TIMELESS all you could say would be "Did you see

that?"

or "Crazy weather we're having."



To paraphrase Blake in terms of a TV Show Promo:  "Coming up in one hour,

right after Infinity, Eternity.  Stay tuned."



Infinity and Eternity are not important concepts anymore.  They are names of

perfumes.



Hugh Walthall       wahu@aol.com



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



Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 23:35:25 -0400

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

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: Re: Eternity and Pictures

Message-Id: 

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



Darlene wrote:

>Why is it so hard for you to accept that eternity and time are not part of

>each other?>>>>>>>



Because eternity is nothing more than time going round and round on an

infinite loop!



You can put an "infinite" setting on listening to a cassette, too! What's

happening when a cassette is playing? Time is passing.



But point me to more places like Jennifer did with that one DREADFUL

passage from "Milton", where Blake distinguishes between the two, and I'll

consider them!



>> To me, that's empowerment and justifies... terribly sorry the intervention

>> was ill-timed, Darlene and Paul, but... feeling that you should tap the God

>> within you, as well as recognizing that there's a God greater than you. If

>> eternity is made up of the little seconds like when Blake lived and when we

>> live...>

>

>        If you are still talking about Blake's works and haven't dropped

>        back into this world, then where did the God stuff come from?



It came from Paul's and your noble attempts to give me "keys" (yeah,

right... I think they were TRAPS!- just kidding- slightly!) into

"Jerusalem". I failed the test, I guess, but... what am I talking about?



1. One is the plate where Los says, "What are we doing, all sitting here

and not tapping the God within?" To me, that was empowering talk. Emerson

used that kind of language all the time.



2. The other is the plate where Los/Jesus/Blake says "If I didn't die for

you... how could... " and whatever he says, it gets Urizen et al up and on

their feet. Emerson talks about The Over-Soul alot, too. We have to realize

it's not just within us. There is a HIGHER force, and we can't control alot

(any?) of what it's done to throw us into this particular part of the Milky

Way. Born with a different face. Hey... I didn't CHOOSE to be this way, in

fact I didn't even CHOOSE to be here, but here I am! Is the "Elohim

Creating Adam" watercolour painting just a joke, by the way, or could this

"no choice in the matter" have been part of its more complex point?



>        Are you suggesting that eternity as a concept presupposes God?



I don't get that theoretical. I don't care what people call eternity or God

or why we've been thrown on this particular spot of the Milky Way platter.

Here we are. Everything matters.



>        You can't just drop God into THIS concept of eternity because he

>        is part of the Judeo-Christian one.  Where is God in Blake?



Do my answers #1 and #2 fit the bill?

If not, how about these:

God is in the WHY WAS I BORN WITH A DIFFERENT FACE poem. The joke is, he

thinks his poetry is dead, and to me it's one of his most immortal.

God is in the lamb and tyger poems of _Songs_.

God is in Blake's "Fly".

God is in Orc trying to help out America and Europe.

God is also in Urizen.



>> What if we LIVE in Heaven and Hell? What if they're both constructs, and

>> the way we act, and the way we think... what if you turn the Existentialist

>> question of "?" and say "Absolutely!" OF COURSE everthing matters.

>> Everything is a manifestation of God.

>

>        What if WE live in Heaven and Hell?  It disconcerts me so much

>        for you to whip back and forth between realities like that...

>

>        But, what if Blake is saying we LIVE in heaven and hell?  That they

>        are constructs, etc.  How does that make everything a manifestation

>        of God?



No! What if WE live in Heaven and Hell, as I originally said!



What if that's part of Blake's message in at least "The Marriage of Heaven

and Hell" poem. How did he make the constructs in that poem? Good is

passive, evil is active... spends a lot of time in Hell, doesn't he? And

finds alot of wisdom there.



And even if it's the poetic imagination (gee, poor Locke...) that has

created these constructs, that's at least a powerful vision that I get from

"The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" that I believe is TRUE. All deities

reside within the human breast. We or someone before us made them up and

only keep them alive as far as they aren't worthy of being plowed over and

utilized for new constructs. That's what my Simone Weil paraphrase, which I

last saw in _The Need for Roots_ about 20 years ago, is so important. Why

do I keep Blake around? What truths do I see... and if I don't see *truths*

as much as just beautiful imagery at times, what's wrong with that? Isn't

that part of the baffling nature to his art?



>        And thanks for clarifying your discussion of the words and

>        pictures...really reproducing Blake's work without the pictures

>        should be against the law, don't you think?  (I'm serious now.)



Agreed. And not talking about the pictures should be against the law, too.

(smile........)



Thanks for replying, Darlene.



Randall Albright



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



Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 09:13:36 -0500

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

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: Re: Eternity and Blakean Evolution

Message-Id: 

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



Avery wrote,

>The traditional view of eternity is that it is both timeless and spaceless.



Yes: "Eternity is in love with the productions of time," indicating that

time/space and eternity are complementary, but different.



Jennifer Michael



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



Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 10:16:48 -0500

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

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: Thel

Message-Id: 

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



>Thel,  unlike Albion, listens to those

>who would help her and is thus safely restored to the Vales of Bliss

>instead of falling into Experience.  Ironically, however, the critics

>generally present her as weak in refusing to take on the challenges of

>mortal existence and the woes of fleshly love.  Pam van Schaik



Pam, could you say more about your reading of _The Book of Thel_?  I don't

think we've discussed it here, at least not for a while.  Are you saying

that the fall could and should be avoided, as opposed to the usual line

that Experience can open the door to a "higher Innocence"?



Jennifer Michael



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



Date:      Thu, 1 Aug 1996 12:59:39 -0400 (EDT)

From: "Avery F. Gaskins" 

To: 

Subject:   Re: Eternity and Blakean Evolution

Message-Id: 

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

Content-Type: Text/plain; charset=US-ASCII



In belief systems which posit a Creator (Jehovah in the Old Testament, Allah in

the Koran, Jesus in Paradise Lost, or Urizen in Blake), time and space are ex-

clusively aspects of the created universe. They are not relevant in Eternity.

Time and space will cease to exist if the universe ceases to exist, and souls

who escape the universe at death and become a part of eternity will cease to

sense them. One problem with all that, however, is how Blake will find a "bound

ing line" so that objects in eternity can have shapes if there is no concept of

finite space.

              Avery Gaskins



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



Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 16:34:43 -0400

From: fact440@radix.net

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: Re: Unsubscribe

Message-Id: <199608012034.QAA04561@news1.radix.net>

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



unsubscribe



griffin

fact440@radix.net



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



Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 17:00:08 -0400

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

To: blake@albion.com

Subject: Blake Definitions of Eternity 

Message-Id: 

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



Darlene:



I want to thank you for these "Eternity" definitions as well as the

specific sources.



>        "The vegetative Universe opens like a flower from the Earth's

>        center in which is Eternity.  It expands in Stars to the Mundane

>        Shell and there it meets Eternity again, both within and without."

>        Jerusalem plate 13.     "The Visions of

>        Eternity, by reason of narrowed perceptions, are become weak

>        Visions of Time and Space"  (Jerusalem plate 49.)

>

>        Our imaginations are those Worlds of Eternity in which we shall

>        live for ever in Jesus our Lord.  (Milton)

>

>        Blake's objective was to open the eyes of man "inward into the

>        World's of Thought, into Eternity ever expanding in

>        the Bosom of God, the Human Imagination.  (Jerusalem again.)



"Milton", "Jerusalem"... hmmmmmm.



-Randall Albright



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

End of blake-d Digest V1996 Issue #97

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