Today's Topics:
Re: Blake and Madness
Blake and "madness"
Blake and "madness"
Re: Blake and "madness"
The Acid of Urizen (more) -Reply
/ criticisms. - Angels
Re: Blake and "madness"
Re: Blake and "madness" -Reply
/ criticisms. - Angels -Reply
Jacob Behmen
Blake and Madness -Reply from Boehme re this
Blake and "madness" -- List moderator?
Blake and "madness" -- List moderator? -Reply
Jacob Behmen -Reply
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 16:58:59 CST
From: "Ed Friedlander, M.D."
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Blake and Madness
Message-Id: <26FE5FF0D8E@ALUM.UHS.EDU>
> Ed, it's been a while since I read Youngquist too. I used the term
> "diagnosing" rather tongue-in-cheek, since Youngquist is, like me, a
> student of literature. I have to say I question the ability of even a
> clinician to diagnose a dead poet through his writings,
Exactly. That's why I turn to personal records for Blake, and the
autopsy report itself for Coleridge (who had mediastinal
tuberculosis, which probably had quite a bit to do with his
longstanding malaise).
> just as you say you
> cannot diagnose or treat over the internet. But I appreciate hearing what
> an MD has to say about the poems, just as I appreciate the expertise of
> theologians, historians, etc.
>
> Jennifer Michael
>
* * *
Ed's Pathology Notes
http://worldmall.com/erf/lectures.htm
Obviously, I cannot be your doctor, cannot diagnose or treat over the
internet, and can speak only for myself. However, I can help you
find information, resources, articles, and experts... all as a free
public service. Let me know how I can help you and your friends.
-- Ed Friedlander, M.D. "the Pathology Guy"
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 19:46:37 -0500
From: tomdill@wc.stephens.edu (TOM DILLINGHAM)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Blake and "madness"
Message-Id: <98083119463728@wc.stephens.edu>
Dr. Friedlander's response to my comments evades the issues I
raised while offering further evidence of the very good reasons
to be suspicious of his essay. His website page on "The Tyger"
offers the comment that his views have been "unpopular" with
Blake scholars, but just as he does in his recent response, at
that site he brushes aside objections with an assertion of his
superior "authority" as a physician (ignoring the fact that he
was no such thing when he wrote the document), and announcing that
he will "stand by" his claims. He has every right to do so, of
course, and we will grant him the possibility that his hindsight,
from the position of his later medical training and expertise,
allows him to conclude that though he was an inexpert writer,
he now knows that his earlier work was "accurate." In his post,
he asks "are there any other physicians on the list," and that
along with other details illustrates the problem.
Dr. Friedlander's essay explores both some of Blake's poems and some
of his reported or recorded utterances and actions during his lifetime.
Dr. Friedlander, rather in the manner of Freud analysing Leonardo
or Moses, concludes that he has enough evidence to offer what passes
for a clinical diagnosis of Blake's behavior--ignoring all along the
very serious questions about whether such retrospective analysis is
ever possible or worthy of serious attention. (As an admirer of the
work of Erik Erikson, I believe such analysis does have value, but
the work of what Joyce Carol Oates has called "pathographers" is
of very widely varying quality and the more the analysis is based on
interpretations of literary texts or, worse, on anecdotes reported
long after the death of the subject by people with their own
agendas, the less trustworthy the analysis.
Dr. Friedlander asserts his qualifications, however, while dismissing
mere literary critics and "philosophers" as less authoritative. But
that claim is based on a very dubious claim of authority--that is, he
suggests that *only* a medical doctor (which, again, he was not)
is qualified to observe and make judgments about such phenomena,
thereby ignoring the possibility that there might be a whole range
of contexts and possible interpretations that do not start from the
assumption that eccentric behavior or utterances are, by definition,
pathological. Dr. Friedlander offers a brief list of 8 "instances"
which he asserts are clearly evidence of "unmediated schizophrenia."
I would differ. He fails to take into account the perfectly real
possibility that Blake had an antic and satirical sense of humor,
a highly developed sense of irony, and a good sense of the ways
in which other people responded to his public persona--and that
he played to it with all the ingenuity of (for example) a Robin
Williams. Not one of the "events" cited (assuming that any of them
happened as reported, which is not at all certain--consider the
role of hearsay in our own culture) is necessarily intepretable as
Dr. Friedlander chooses to interpret them, since there are other
possibilities. Candidate for the Bachelor of Arts Friedlander
had a thesis to write, a hypothesis to prove, and not surprisingly,
he found "evidence" that supported his argument. Who could not?
The point, again, is that his claim of authority as a medical doctor
is both his strength and his weakness--weakness because it foregrounds
the boundaries of his perception and understanding of the materials
he discusses.
Let me present an analogue: some years ago, the eminent child
psychologist Bruno Bettelheim published a fascinating, even
seminal study, called _The Uses of Enchantment_ which argued for
the importance of fairy tales in the emotional development of
children. I have used the book in my courses because I admire
much of it--but Dr. Bettelheim had one limitation that actually
forces anyone using the book to be very cautious to qualify
much of what he says--he had absolutely no knowledge of the
history of fairy tales or the field of folklore, and so much
of what he had to say about the fairy tales themselves,
including his interpretations of them, was laughably incorrect
because he fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the materials
he was working with, though he could accurately observe how they
affected the children who encountered them.
In other words (as the Sokal hoax purported to demonstrate,though in
a different direction), not all "interdisciplinary" study is entirely
trustworthy and just because the "doctor" claims a particular kind
of authority in medical or psychiatric areas means nothing when he
treads on literary grounds where others have equal or greater
authority with reference to their field of study.
There are also well known standards of scholarship--expectations about
the currency of materials and the care with which methods of analysis
are deployed. Perhaps there have been no "physicians" studying
Blake recently, but as I said before, there have been studies of
madness and creativity (including rather technical studies using
the manual definitions of schizophrenia and creativity) as I am
sure Dr. Friedlander is aware. Some have been quite controversial,
others fairly remote from our immediate concern. But I do have
some experience with these materials because of my research into
the work of Christopher Smart, another poet commonly and erroneously
labeled "insane" both during his own lifetime and since.
I am not sure what constitutes an "ad hominem attack" in Dr. Friedlander's
vocabulary, but I do not consider this post or my previous one to fit
into that category--a challenge to the validity and currency of a
document may seem to be a personal attack because it questions the
standards of judgment by which the document is presented. I fully
expect that Dr. Friedlander will continue to stand by his essay,
and that is his right, but I would say that it should not be
disseminated without a warning label.
Tom Dillingham
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 01:02:54 CST
From: "Ed Friedlander, M.D."
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Blake and "madness"
Message-Id: <277F6A67536@ALUM.UHS.EDU>
> Dr. Friedlander offers a brief list of 8 "instances"
> which he asserts are clearly evidence of "unmediated schizophrenia."
> I would differ. He fails to take into account the perfectly real
> possibility that Blake had an antic and satirical sense of humor,
> a highly developed sense of irony, and a good sense of the ways
> in which other people responded to his public persona--and that
> he played to it with all the ingenuity of (for example) a Robin
> Williams.
Each list member will need to decide for himself or herself as to
which is more plausable...
My thesis that Blake turned abnormal brain anatomy and chemistry into
works of great meaning and beauty...
Tom's thesis that Blake feigned schizophrenia, including such
clinically precise details as the imposter delusion and the thoughts
appearing as flying words.
Now, I use techniques similar to Robin Williams in the classroom and
around it, and our past president has even called me "our school's
own Robin Williams".
Now, both as an undergraduate and as an expert witness, I have things
to prove. Yet in both cases, truth's always been my primary concern,
and to suggest otherwise, as Tom does, is surely an attack on my good
character. Try this in court, Tom, and you'll be as sorry as the
last attorney that I ate alive while defending an innocent, poor man.
New workers in the mental health arena typically believe, for the
first few weeks, that the schizophrenic patients are merely kidding.
Tom's free to continue to do so.
Humanities people who are naive about science are fond of pointing
out that any collection of evidence is always compatible with several
possible interpretations (do you remember "grue emeralds"?) One
difference between humanities people and science people is that
humanities people continue to enjoy (as they should) "the range of
perspectives", which science people try to decide which idea is the
most parsimonious, and the easiest to believe.
As in Blake's case, Coleridge's autopsy is compatible with
mediastinal histoplasmosis -- which he could have acquired from spores
released from dried mud from the boots of someone returning from the
new world. Unless we're doing theology, there are always several
possibilities. Tom may be right after all.
Although I continue to be surprised by Tom's anger at me, he's
definitely on-the-mark about the dangers of misunderstandings between
the two cultures of humanities and sciences. There's also
pseudoscience and subscience -- like much of old-fashioned psychiatry.
Today Bruno Bettelheim is remembered by his fellow-psychiatrists as a
cruel charlatan who never published his statistics and blamed parents
for causing autism by emotional abuse -- which is clearly untrue.
I am surprised by Tom's intemperance, and look forward to other
people with clinical experience (I was a psychiatry orderly in
college, as Tom should remember from my essay) who'll join this
discussion.
In the meantime, if (heaven forbid) some list member begins talking
about Hotspur telling him he was killed by a "fluid influence of
Prince Hal" or saying that Tom's been replaced by a convincing
imposter, perhaps it actually will be a joke.
-- Ed
* * *
Ed's Pathology Notes
http://worldmall.com/erf/lectures.htm
Obviously, I cannot be your doctor, cannot diagnose or treat over the
internet, and can speak only for myself. However, I can help you
find information, resources, articles, and experts... all as a free
public service. Let me know how I can help you and your friends.
-- Ed Friedlander, M.D. "the Pathology Guy"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 08:30:57 +0100
From: timli@controls.eurotherm.co.uk (Tim Linnell)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Blake and "madness"
Message-Id: <199809010732.IAA17639@merlot.controls.eurotherm.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I wasn't aware of the controversy regarding Friedlander's essay when I
mentioned it, but had mentally rubber stamped it with the two words
'Possibly inauthoritative' on the front cover in (visionary) red ink. Words
that one should apply to any interpretations of Blake and his work, of course.
However Friedlander does do better than many in quoting pretty much the
whole record of Blake's statements on his work and the accounts of third
parties, rejecting I think only the obviously spurious accounts of Blake in
Bedlam, and also the account of Blake bowing to Abraham in the Strand, which
was I think originally an anecdote about Swedenborg (curiously I have just
come across a letter in the family archive from John Linnell to William
Agnew in the 1860s in which he asks to be sent a copy of Swedenborg's life
to verify this for a 'lady friend' who was asserting the contrary,
presumably Anne Gilchrist). One point about the third party record is that
personal agendas pretty much cancel each other out, being well balanced
between those who saw Blake as an inoffensive 'madman', and those who
believed him wholly sane (primarily those who had an emotional attachment to
him, and who might be believed either to have privileged information or be
blind to the truth, depending on your point of view).
The view that Blake was a kind of Robin Williams character has become pretty
much received wisdom, being the explanation offered by Linnell, Palmer,
Richmond, and so on for behaviour that met the wholly negative contemporary
idea of 'madness' (which is absolutely not the same as that applied by
Friedlander in attempting to diagnose schizophrenia). To my mind, although a
possibility given the contemporary records of Blake's behaviour, it is
unsatisfactory given the existence of the prophetic books: I tried and
failed last year to argue that these were the wholly conscious product of a
mind attempting to reproduce the success of Ossian, and Milton: if not, one
is left either with divine inspiration or the kind of altered state produced
by drug use or mental 'illness' in which subconscious imagery is given full
rein. If we assume as I do that it is not divine inspiration, and in the
absence of any suggestion of drug use by Blake, then there is only one
conclusion. I hasten to add however that I don't doubt however some level of
conscious involvement by Blake, certainly on the level of editing, of which
there is evidence in his manuscripts.
I didn't read Friedlander's request for any further 'physicians in the
house' as any kind of attempt to assert a falsely authoritative position,
indeed it is something of an admission that he needs further dispassionate
and independant criticism by a knowledgable third party, which is obviously
the case. Any more that the post from Michael James Mahin attempts to
implant himself as the only expert on the list on existentialism.
There is a more general point though, which is why I lobbed in the grenade
in the first place: Friedlander's work is simply another example of an
'intertextual' reading, confidentally asserting truth by means of selective
quoting and more or less reasoned argument. As such, the only thing we can
be confident of is that it expresses a position reached by the author after
some study - as Jennifer and Tom point out, anything extrapolated from a
necessarily incomplete record is conjecture. The difference with
Friedlander's work is simply that it lies outside of the fields from which
links are usually suggested, and the extremely negative reaction to it tells
us as much about our own attitudes to mental illness as anything else. All
grist to the mill, Satanic though it be.
But then, Ralph, perhaps I should keep my offensively pointy English nose
out of this sort of thing?
Regards
Tim Linnell
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 10:53:58 +0200
From: P Van Schaik
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: The Acid of Urizen (more) -Reply
Message-Id:
The synopsis you derive from what is said about Boehme in a
Lawrence book comes very close to the way I see Blake's narrative of
the Fall, Randall.
Pam
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 10:58:30 +0200
From: "DAX"
To:
Subject: / criticisms. - Angels
Message-Id: <01bdd586$b0f7b680$LocalHost@massetti>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi All,
First of thank you Tom Devine for your hint:
The thankful receiver bears a plentiful harvest.
I am thankful, but the harvest is not yet plentiful, did you like the
introduction?
I liked very much this message from Pam van Shaick:
>I have to agree fully with your perception of the rapture of response to
>the primary text. That is why I do like to stay as close as possible to
>Blake's own use of imagery in arriving at any conclusions and also have
>resisted, throughout decades of teaching literature, all ready-made
>models --other than the kabbalah which I came to only after delighting in
>the original texts of Blake, and found to my astonishment fits like hand
in
>glove with the interpretations I had arrived at independently of any
>knowledge of kabbalah. When I studied for two years in America, I was
>actually seen as rather odd in wanting to base most of my essays on
>what I saw in the primary text, though I did, of course, do the required
>secondary reading and refer to it in footnotes --- so many of them I used
>to dream of them at night.
This is very beautiful the text is the only thing that will remain *True*.
The text says to you the references with other texts. Only this way can find
the invisible line that runs through different authors. And perhaps I do not
say nothing
sounding new whether I say that among Milton Blake and D.H. Lawrence is a
deep relation.
Praz says that Milton has a conception of sexual ties analogous to those of
D.H.L.,well for Blake
we have the poem _Dark Satanic Mill_. But perhaps it is more than all this.
It is true they look at the past, though Milton would have liked to be blind
instead:
The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he
wrote of Angels and God, and at liberty when
of Devils and Hell, is because he was a true Poet
and of the Devil's party without knowing it.
(from _The
Voice of the Devil)
Why was English literature so sensitive to the theme of contraries, Heaven
and Hell?
There is an effort to give expression to these strenghts, that Christendom
had fought to divide.
Why was not D.H.L. considered among them fighting for this new language?
I will try to say my word on the Blakean text, but I will hold _The Marriage
of Heaven and Hell_ for another time, when I have the references with
D.H.L..
I was reading about the angel of _The Chimney Sweeper_
It seems to me that this angel is rather cold, but there is
something/someone else against him.
The angel is in the dream of Tom but he is not *with* Tom. The Angel is
peripheral.
In the first stanza there is someone speaking an "I" figure.
We suppose that he is a frind of Tom.
But this I is not the sight, he is not in the coffin, as much as Tom is not
in the cuffin
"all of them lock'd up in the coffins of black" (l. 12)
And the Angel:
"set them all free" (l. 14)
But at line 21
And so Tom awoke and WE rose in the dark.....
What is this presence?
Is a boy, is Tom? Or is "That Energy, call'd Evil, [that] is alone from the
Body(; and that Reason (the Angel, call'd Good, is alone from the Soul)
Energy is Eternal Delight.
Ciao
patrizia
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 02:23:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ralph Dumain
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Blake and "madness"
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19980901051735.430f4506@pop.igc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 01:02 AM 9/1/98 CST, Ed Friedlander, M.D. wrote:
>Now, both as an undergraduate and as an expert witness, I have things
>to prove. Yet in both cases, truth's always been my primary concern,
>and to suggest otherwise, as Tom does, is surely an attack on my good
>character. Try this in court, Tom, and you'll be as sorry as the
>last attorney that I ate alive while defending an innocent, poor man.
It would seem to me that if you were to face off against Tom in court it
would not be as an advocate of the less fortunate, but rather more like the
defendant in a malpractice suit. And we know how doctors and similar elite
professionals behave when the lay public calls them to account for their
crimes. Less fortunate, my ass. The veiled threat implied in this sentence
does not sit well with me. Perhaps you are contemplating taking Tom to
court for questioning your competence and/or integrity on this list. I
would recommend to the list moderator that anyone making such threats be
summarily removed from this list. I'm tempted to spell out what I think of
you and what I think of _your_ mental condition as exhibited in your
performance on this list, but it's difficult holding my nose with one hand
while typing with the other.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 11:36:08 +0200
From: P Van Schaik
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Blake and "madness" -Reply
Message-Id:
It would seem to me that many artists allow their sub-consciences as full
rein as they can achieve without being mad. I get really nervous when
someone presents only 3 choices and then says choose one of these
categories as one of them must be the only snug fit for a man such as
Blake, or any one. Too little is known by scientists as yet about the brain
to trust such categories. For example, many people, in many countries
and ages have attested to near-death experiences in which they see
`dead' friends and relatives as welcoming them to a colourful
other-world, and many have been regressed into past lives. Because
science, as yet, can't fit these things into categories, they pooh-pooh
such experiences.
The self is composed of many accreted experiences and can draw on
the sub-conscious for extra help , inspiration and even wisdom as the
latter stores a wealth of info which the conscious mind must push aside
to streamline ordinary living. When the sub-conscious is accessed, it
can feel as if one is accessing divine aid since one's normal daily self is
merely like a cork bobbing in a vast sea of forgotten knowledge.
I therefore do not think one has to be pushed into seeing Blake as mad
because he conversed with angels and the spirit of his dead brother, or
thought he saw God.
Moreover, he was working within esoteric traditions which saw no
strangeness in positing this world , and all in it, as involved in Sleep.
Pam
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 11:47:56 +0200
From: P Van Schaik
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: / criticisms. - Angels -Reply
Message-Id:
I just happen to have in front of me a note I took years ago from a
Treatise on alchemy and which could have a (very tangential) bearing
on your wanting to relate Blake to DHL:
Join heaven to earth in the fire of love, and you will see in
the middle of the firmament the brid of Hermes
Sparks of the Phoenix of DHL?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 98 10:57:21 +0100 ( + )
From: Paul Tarry
To: Blake Group
Subject: Jacob Behmen
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Boehme, Behmen however you spell his name is very often listed as
a major influence on WB but his thought and works remain
somewhat obscure (to me at least). I did stumble across a couple of
his books and snapped up The Three Principles of the Divine
Essence whilst in Berkeley (never seen them in England, am I
missing the right shops Londoners ?) unfortunately the book has had
a tendency to snap shut before I get to the halfway point. I know its
a big ask but maybe somebody could outline the influence and ideas
that are common to Blake and Boehme ? I'm sure it would be very
interesting.
Gratuitous but beautious quote from Meister Eckhart follows, have
fun, Paul;
Truly, with the will I can do all things. I can share the sorrows of all
men and women, feed all the poor, perform everyone's actions, and
whatever else you can think of. If you do not lack the will to do
something, but only the capacity to carry it out, then truly in God's
eyes you have done it, and no-one can take it away from you even
for a moment; for wanting to do something as soon as you can and
actually doing it are the same in God's eyes. Moreover, if I wanted to
possess as much will as all the world has, and if I desired this
perfectly and wholeheartedly, then I would indeed possess it; for
what I desire is already mine. Similarly, if I truly wanted as much love
as everyone in the world has ever possessed, and if I wanted to
praise God as much as everyone has ever praised him, or if I wanted
whatever else you can think of, then you would truly possess it, as
long as your will is perfect.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 11:59:24 +0200
From: P Van Schaik
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Blake and Madness -Reply from Boehme re this
Message-Id:
Boehme might have replied to the question of Blake's supposed
madness in these words:
All men, even from Adam, who have taught of God without
the Divine Vision of the Spirit of God in them, have spoken from
the Tower of the confounded Tongues; and hence has strife risen
about God....(Chapt 36, Works)
Pam
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 06:07:18 CST
From: "Ed Friedlander, M.D."
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Blake and "madness" -- List moderator?
Message-Id: <27D09945F3D@ALUM.UHS.EDU>
> I therefore do not think one has to be pushed into seeing Blake as mad
> because he conversed with angels and the spirit of his dead brother, or
> thought he saw God.
Of course not. Nor have I done so, as will be obvious to anyone who
has examined my postings or original document.
I am well-acquainted with visits from deceased relatives, having
kept my ears open during my patient-care days, and briefly serving as
a field investigator for the Duke parapsychology group in the mid-
1970's. These typically come with a "time to go" or "no you must
stay" message, and at a time when life hangs tenuously -- not during
a pleasant walk across a Felpham field. (I heard directly from the
reporter about one visitor who was unknown to the sick man -- she was
a perfect match for the patient who had died in his ICU bed just
before she was admitted.)
The similarities and differences to the visit from Empress Maud and
"my brother John, the evil one, in his black cloud making his moan"
would seem clear enough to me.
> Moreover, he was working within esoteric traditions which saw no
> strangeness in positing this world , and all in it, as involved in Sleep.
> Pam
>
Thanks Pam for a more temperate and helpful reply. If you've been to
my own controversial site, you'll know that I began Part II by
focusing on how Blake's prophetic books are dreamlike.
If we did not have the biographical materials (interviews, private
notes), I would not make any case.
Since I'm a man of goodwill, I am really puzzled by the attacks on my
integrity and now my sanity. I am accustomed to this kind of
thing from pseudoscientists and certain religionists, but not from
academicians. Will the list moderator please act? Thanks.
* * *
Ed's Pathology Notes
http://worldmall.com/erf/lectures.htm
Obviously, I cannot be your doctor, cannot diagnose or treat over the
internet, and can speak only for myself. However, I can help you
find information, resources, articles, and experts... all as a free
public service. Let me know how I can help you and your friends.
-- Ed Friedlander, M.D. "the Pathology Guy"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 14:01:18 +0200
From: P Van Schaik
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Blake and "madness" -- List moderator? -Reply
Message-Id:
At the risk of seeming mad myself, I have to say that it is not only when
one is about to die that one can see (or hear) from dead relatives. They
sometimes come to tell one that they have just died, as was the case
with my grandmother whose voice I heard very clearly one morning (in
my own head) as I was bathing. I was surprised into replying with a
question: "Are you feeling better?" (as she was in hospital after a stroke
and her voice sounded very clear). She replied: "No, I'm dead!" and
minutes later, at work, I heard the news that she was.
Now, if this is possible, then Blake could have heard from the spirit world
- or mistaken his subconscious promptings for such -- while walking in
the fields.
Ed. re being pushed into one of three choices, I was replying to Tom
Devine's posting.
Pam
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 13:51:25 +0200
From: P Van Schaik
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Jacob Behmen -Reply
Message-Id:
Here are a few ideas which I happen to have at hand as am
incorporating them into a paper to be given to the Religious Forum at
Unisa where I teach.
Both Blake and Behmen have in common a view of the world as first
being `before Time ...in God, but without Substance" . Behmen sees
Lucifer as `kindling the wrath fire in the Nature of God', just as Blake
sees Urizen. Behmen calls it being `shut up in the Anger... in the fierce
wrath of God' and he and Blake have in common with the kabbalists this
view of the wrath of God becoming out of balance with God's love.
For both, the way back to heaven is to uplift the female principle, an idea
also found in kabbalah.
Pam
--------------------------------
End of blake-d Digest V1998 Issue #57
*************************************