Today's Topics:
Thanks to all and to all a good night!
Death of a list
Thanks for your responses
the world as it is
Re: Death of a list
Re: the world as it is
Re: whirlwind
Re: Sorensen
RE: Altizer introduction -Reply -Reply
RE: Altizer introduction
Re: Death of a list
life of a list
whirlwinds in Blake
Re: THE EARTH & THE TYGER
Re: THE EARTH & THE TYGER
THE LAST SUPPER -- FOLLOW-UP
Re:Crabbe Robinson, also re: the body
more conference info
WB and "gnosticism"
Science in Eternity?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 08:24:08 -0600 (CST)
From: William Neal Franklin
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Thanks to all and to all a good night!
Message-Id:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I have this week completed and turned in my dissertation and it is time to
send thanks to all who have contributed over the past year and a half. My
subject has been Blake and poetics and spirituality and creativity and I
have gleaned a vast number of useful tidbits from the discussion. Special
thanks to many-- I won't even begin to name them because I might leave
out someone important. My reading file is several hundred pages thick
and I don't feel just now like going back through it all.
Y'all have fun now. I'm for a blissful silence.
Bill Franklin
unsubscribed
------------------------------
Date: 15 Feb 97 12:12:58 EST
From: Philip Benz <100575.2061@CompuServe.COM>
To: "internet:blake@albion.com"
Cc: "internet:seth@albion.com"
Subject: Death of a list
Message-Id: <970215171258_100575.2061_GHW90-1@CompuServe.COM>
Death of a list: please read
Isn't it a shame to see a fine resource like the Blake list
self-destructing before our eyes?
I understand that this list is unmoderated, but other unmoderated
lists I've been on have some basic ground rules that help facilitate
communication and avoid list-destructive conflict.
Is my concern entirely out-of-place? Could we ALL (that means all of
us, especially those whose recent posts have caused the present sorry
state of affairs) make an effort to keep this list alive? We might try
to follow a few ground rules (if that's not being too Urizenic):
1) Avoid ad hominem attacks. Attack what people say, not what they are.
2) Avoid excessive message volume. More than one or two messages from
any one person in a 24-hour period can be very annoying, especially to
those of us who must *pay* for our connect time.
3) Make a clear distinction between what should be posted *on* the
list, for all to see, and what should be posted *off list* to individual
respondants.
I suppose the very fact of my posting this message shows the
anal-retentive controller side of my inner self, and I am also rather
new to this list. But somethings needs to be said.
I certainly don't want to attack anyone, especially after receiving
a number of very helpful replies to my recent naive and uninformed
posts. But if I could just take three recent examples of further
behavior that we could do without, perhaps those involved could moderate
their passions in the future.
Some of us have posted *too many* messages to the list. Indeed, some
of those messages add very little to the discussion as they are only one
or two lines in length. Such messages should be kept *off-list*, sent to
the individuals we agree or disagree with.
My last point concerns ad hominem attacks. When we refer to
someone's messages as "rabbit turds", at least we are still attacking
the message itself. But calling someone a "moron" and accusing them of
"mental illness" reflects more on the accuser than on the victim. If
such messages must be sent, please let's keep them *off-list*, addressed
to the individuals concerned.
Other scholarly lists have simple ground rules, the breaking of
which can result in the exclusion of offending individuals from those
lists. Perhaps we need such rules here. Or perhaps we can all take a
deep breath and make an effort to remain a wee bit more scholarly when
posting to the list and save our passions for personal e-mail.
So please, if you agree or disagree with what I've said, e-mail me
personally at [100575.2061@compuserve.com] and don't clog the list.
Cheers, --- Phil
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 17:22:25 +0000 (GMT)
From: Anders H Klitgaard
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Thanks for your responses
Message-Id:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Dear Peg (aka Albion), Pam van Schaik, and Jennifer Michael.
Thank you all very much indeed for your greetings! Please excuse
my somewhat late response. I have tried to track down the books that were
proposed to me. It will, however, probably take a while before I can return
with intelligent comment. (To Pam: your article doesn't seem to be
available from the library here in St Andrews - is it available on the
Net?)
Sincerely,
Anders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home address: Hepburn Hall, room 1
Hepburn Gardens
St Andrews
FIFE KY16 9LW
SCOTLAND
Phone: 01334 465093
E-mail: ahk1@st-andrews.ac.uk
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 10:55:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Marcus Rudolf Brownell
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: the world as it is
Message-Id:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
I too am not so sure I understand what the "world as it is" means. Blake
has shown me since I've been getting to know him that the world wasn't
what I always thought it was. Jake brings up the idea that the world
news would help orient those who don't understand the "world as it is" as
a reference point. This notion still seems to contain within it too any
different reference points. ABC world news? BBC world news? Political
happenings? Nobel prize winners? etc.. There are so many different
points of view as to what constitutes news. I'm not dismissing this
thought, just asking for further clarification. Which brings me to my
latest interest which is not yet well developed, so begging your
indulgence on a personal fancy:
Blake and the vortex has been interesting me lately by looking at it in
relation to the presence of the Whirlwind in the Bible. Job, Ezekiel,
and Elijah all make some sort of contact with God (Eternity? Revelation?
perhaps someone could help me with a better term though I'm afraid one
will not suffice for all three encounters,) in terms of a Whirlwind.
Fractals, those lovely spiral forms that supposedly depict the nature of
order and chaos in the world seem to be the type of "gate" that Blake saw
the vortex as through which the traveller thro' Eternity passes. I'm not
up on Chaos Theory and all that, but my hunch is that science today is
slowly headed towards a similar non-objective, fixable notion of the
world as we somehow know it. I've not read _The Tao of Physics_ but I'm
also guessing Capra introduces a more spiritual (I can't use that word to
my satisfaction) take on the nature of physics, the study of the physical
world. When Blake describes "wheels within wheels" and "minute
particulars" I see fractals, which evoke so much more than just fractals.
Sorry about the muddledness of my fancy. Hopefully it is at least of
minor interest to some. I'd be interested in others' thoughts which
don't have to be on the list should this be too fuzzy a topic for many of
you. I'd also appreciate a little more netiquette which might include a
little more consideration about whether or not a posting is really a
personal posting or of potential general interest.
Sincere thanks for all that this list has given me to think about so far,
Marcus Brownell
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 14:40:20 -0600 (CST)
From: reillys@ix.netcom.com (susan p. reilly)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Death of a list
Message-Id: <199702152040.OAA27967@dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com>
Dear Phil,
You said it all, and beautifully. What a pity that this list, which
was once a source of enlightenment and delight, has degenerated to
such a sorry state.
Susan
You wrote:
>
>
>Death of a list: please read
>
> Isn't it a shame to see a fine resource like the Blake list
>self-destructing before our eyes?
> I understand that this list is unmoderated, but other unmoderated
>lists I've been on have some basic ground rules that help facilitate
>communication and avoid list-destructive conflict.
> Is my concern entirely out-of-place? Could we ALL (that means all
of
>us, especially those whose recent posts have caused the present sorry
>state of affairs) make an effort to keep this list alive? We might try
>to follow a few ground rules (if that's not being too Urizenic):
>
>1) Avoid ad hominem attacks. Attack what people say, not what they
are.
>2) Avoid excessive message volume. More than one or two messages from
>any one person in a 24-hour period can be very annoying, especially to
>those of us who must *pay* for our connect time.
>3) Make a clear distinction between what should be posted *on* the
>list, for all to see, and what should be posted *off list* to
individual
>respondants.
>
> I suppose the very fact of my posting this message shows the
>anal-retentive controller side of my inner self, and I am also rather
>new to this list. But somethings needs to be said.
> I certainly don't want to attack anyone, especially after
receiving
>a number of very helpful replies to my recent naive and uninformed
>posts. But if I could just take three recent examples of further
>behavior that we could do without, perhaps those involved could
moderate
>their passions in the future.
> Some of us have posted *too many* messages to the list. Indeed,
some
>of those messages add very little to the discussion as they are only
one
>or two lines in length. Such messages should be kept *off-list*, sent
to
>the individuals we agree or disagree with.
> My last point concerns ad hominem attacks. When we refer to
>someone's messages as "rabbit turds", at least we are still attacking
>the message itself. But calling someone a "moron" and accusing them of
>"mental illness" reflects more on the accuser than on the victim. If
>such messages must be sent, please let's keep them *off-list*,
addressed
>to the individuals concerned.
>
> Other scholarly lists have simple ground rules, the breaking of
>which can result in the exclusion of offending individuals from those
>lists. Perhaps we need such rules here. Or perhaps we can all take a
>deep breath and make an effort to remain a wee bit more scholarly when
>posting to the list and save our passions for personal e-mail.
> So please, if you agree or disagree with what I've said, e-mail me
>personally at [100575.2061@compuserve.com] and don't clog the list.
>
>Cheers, --- Phil
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 12:55:06 +0000
From: "Steve Perry"
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: the world as it is
Message-Id: <199702152047.MAA08161@surf.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
This discussion is of great interest to me in that as an
undergraduate, absorbed by the concept of TRUTH, I persued a number
of disciplines, starting off with History, moving eventually to
Philosophy, then finally settling on English Literature, and
particular poetry and my own writing. My quest was for a language
or speech that began to represent the "world as it is". When I
disocovered Blake as a graduate student, after I had been through a
number of lesser heroes, such as Marx, Dilthey, Spengler, Kant,
Huserl, and Wittgentstein, as well as some a few scientific masters,
such as Heisenberg and Einstein, as translated into "English" by
Gabrow and others, I finally realized that there was only one god
that owned a place in my pantheon, and it was WB.
The reason largely is that Blake's ourvre allows for the incredible
dynamism of human experience. It explains how we react to and
experience the world in its four fold mainifestation. It provides a
complex of dramatic heroes and heroines that express profound
spirtiual and emotional and intellectual struggles and interactions
that are truly reflective of both the indivduals internal life and
the external travail of human history. It has a believable
escatology. Blake also provides an ontolgy and an epistemology that
extend far beyond those discussed by his contemporaries, and I mean
such heavies as Kant, Berkley, Locke and others. While,
contemprorary science today in the guise of such populizers as Capra
is only beginning to describe what Blake had arduously illustrated
two hundred years before.
I still don't think I have read anyone who captures a more complete
vision as to the way I see "the world as it is" than Blake. There
are those people who see parts of the puzzle and illuminate them,
however, know one seems to bring such a cohesive brilliance to the
aggreagate as Blake.
Blake as a man also impresses me. He had a temper and was
out-spoken, but he was also meek and mild. He worked very hard, he
truly lived in the world, making his bread from his work. He
bothered to learn from others and was willing to change, even late in
his life when he was influenced by Linnel and the "Ancients". He was
a stuborn but open minded person. No small accomplishment.
Now, I know that I have not said anything specific, and I can
probably be rightly accused of gushing, but I do know what Ralph
means when he talks about "the world as it is", for I have thought
and looked long for someone who brings us that vision and for me
Blake more than anyone brings me maybe no the most specific version
but absolutly the most complete vision.
Steve Perry
"Did He who made the Lamb make Thee"?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:07:52 +100
From: "VLADIMIR GEORGIEV"
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: whirlwind
Message-Id: <166C3155BB7@picasso.ceu.hu>
Dear Marcus,
The subject of whirlwind in religion is indeed a most intriguing one.
Their essense can be demonic or divine. In Bulgarian and generally in
Balkan folklore people are believed to be taken up by violent whirlwinds
and return either mad or blind. The Bulgarian prophetess Vanga who
was an extraordinary clairvoyant and travelled in the past and future
without any problem died last year aged 87. As a girl in Macedonia she
was taken uo by a whirwind during a storm and fell back blind (she
never saw the light again) but possessing a metaphysical vision.
Cheers,
Vlado.
vladimir Georgiev
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 23:06:38 +100
From: "VLADIMIR GEORGIEV"
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Sorensen
Message-Id: <167C1657A6D@picasso.ceu.hu>
Dear friends,
It just came to my attention that Peter J. Sorensen has published a
very intriguing book titled William Blake's Recreation of Gnostic
Myth (Mellen, 1995). Has it been discussed on this list and what is
your impression of it? Has Sorensen published something shorter on
the same subject, for instance an article?
Thanx in advance.
Good night,
Vlado.
vladimir Georgiev
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 97 01:46:44 UT
From: "tHOMAS aLTIZER"
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: RE: Altizer introduction -Reply -Reply
Message-Id:
Pam,
Delighted with your response and I hope that we will be able to communicate
with each other. And we are in desperate need of a contemporary form of the
Kabbalah, although at this point I am deeply impressed with Leo Bronstein's
Kabbalah and Art (1980). Do you know it? From my perspective, the Gnostic
interpreters of Blake are far astray if only because they are alienated from a
truly modern Kabbalah.
Tom
----------
From: P Van Schaik
Sent: Friday, February 14, 1997 1:59 AM
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: RE: Altizer introduction -Reply -Reply
Dear Thomas, Thank you ... our library already has most of your books
including History as Apocalypse and I have now ordered The
Contemporary Jesus. .. and I shall be reading all of those which seem
relevant to my own work on Blake and the correspondences between
his ideas and those of the kabbalah. I look forward to being able to
communicate directly with you about the ideas your work will stimulate in
me ... . something I've never before been able to contemplate before.
The Department of Theology here is also intrested in your work. Pam
van Schaik, Unisa, Pretoria, RSA
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 97 01:33:59 UT
From: "tHOMAS aLTIZER"
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: RE: Altizer introduction
Message-Id:
Vlado,
Delighted to discover that you are a Greek monk. But the source of my death
of God theology is not ancient Gnosticism but rather Blake, Hegel, and
Nietzsche, at least directly. But ultimately it is the Crucifixion and the
Crucifixion alone. I shall try to send you acopy of my new book soon.
Tom Altizer
----------
From: VLADIMIR GEORGIEU
Sent: Friday, February 14, 1997 9:26 AM
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: RE: Altizer introduction
Dear Prof Altizer,
Many thanks for your reply. Please do not bother about being
recognized by others. Nobody of the great minds of humanity has
achieved fame in his lifetime and many even died for what they
thought.
I am a monk (Orthodox church) and lecturer with a monthly salary of
10$ which must be compared to Chad or Upper Volta. I arrived in
Hungary to do some research and my budget here is also rather tight.
May I receive a sample copy of your latest book titled The Contemporary
Jesus or any other, in which you deal with modern Gnosticism? When I
return to Bulgaria, I can send you in exchange a book or a music
cassette.
My postal address until July 1997 is: Vladimir St Georgiev, room 726,
CEU Centre, 87 Kerepesi ut, 1106 Budapest, Hungary.
As far as I understand, you founded the God is Dead theology. Does
your system develop Nitzsche's premises or does it stem from the 2nd
century Gnostic master Basilide?
Yours truly,
Vlado.
> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 01:26:09 UT
> From: "tHOMAS aLTIZER"
> To: blake@albion.com
> Subject: RE: Altizer introduction
> Reply-to: blake@albion.com
> Vladimir Georgiev,
>
> My e-mail address is jonathanjackson@msn.com and my postal address is P.O.
> Box 331, Buck Hill Falls, Pa. 18323. Have you really been interested in my
> work? This is rare. I did just publish a book which has a good deal on
> Gnosticism: The Contemporary Jesus (State University of New york Press) and
> there is a paperbound version.
>
> Tom Altizer
>
> ----------
> From: Vladimir Georgiev
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 1997 2:46 PM
> To: blake@albion.com
> Subject: Re: Altizer introduction
>
> Prof. Altizer,
>
> Please send me privately your E-mail and postal address. I am
> interested in modern Gnosticism and I have been looking for you for
> ages. Thanks in advance.
>
> Yours truly,
>
> Vlado.
> h96geo46@sirius.ceu.hu.
> vladimir Georgiev
>
>
>
vladimir Georgiev
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 17:25:39 -0600 (CST)
From: mthorn@ix.netcom.com (MT)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Death of a list
Message-Id: <199702152325.RAA03511@dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com>
It's just a temporal, cross-sectional, situational phase.
The list is not yet among the dearly departed deceased.
It will recover.
Honest.
Relax.
Don't worry now.
Bye.
mt
susan p. reilly wrote:
>
>Dear Phil,
>
>You said it all, and beautifully. What a pity that this list, which
>was once a source of enlightenment and delight, has degenerated to
>such a sorry state.
>
>Susan
>
>
>Phil wrote:
>>
>>
>>Death of a list: please read
>>
>> Isn't it a shame to see a fine resource like the Blake list
>>self-destructing before our eyes?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 10:31:31 -0500
From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: life of a list
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Indeed.
I would refer anyone who is upset by disagreements, excessive posts, or
other expressions of opinion regarding the wide-ranging universe that
pertains to William Blake, to "A Poison Tree" poem in _Songs of
Experience_, another one of his ultra-classics.
If one cannot feel the freedom of speech to express disagreement with a
"friend" who has publicly stated a position to the group, or to further
articulate one's own, *evolving* positions for clarification to this group,
the other alternative is to hold it in (in current, dysfunctional
vocabulary, this is called "stuffing it"), with quite devastating effects,
according to Mr. Blake, wouldn't you agree?
-Randall Albright
http://world.std.com/~albright/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 15:41:49 -0600
From: jmichael@seraph1.sewanee.edu (Jennifer Michael)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: whirlwinds in Blake
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The first whirlwind that comes to mind for me is the one in which Paulo and
Francesca are caught in Dante's _Inferno_ 5 (the circle of the lustful),
which Blake illustrated.
Jennifer Michael
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 19:39:51 -0700 (MST)
From: fawman@compusmart.ab.ca (Steven Mandziuk)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: THE EARTH & THE TYGER
Message-Id: <199702170239.TAA02168@bernie.compusmart.ab.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Well, with characteristic floods from both Van Schaik and Albright, I
>see it's time to say good-bye again. Too bad for me, obviously.
>Tom Dillingham
>
>
Perhaps you should stick to the Bukowski and Robbins "discussion"
groups.>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 19:44:07 -0700 (MST)
From: fawman@compusmart.ab.ca (Steven Mandziuk)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: THE EARTH & THE TYGER
Message-Id: <199702170244.TAA02640@bernie.compusmart.ab.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> Randall Albright is even worse, for he is a moron, and clogs up my
>> inbox with an even more voluminous spattering of his little rabbit
>> turds. Albright, I was most happy when you disappeared from the
>> list. Did your absence indicate a relapse, or were you well in
>> the meantime and have only just relapsed, now gracing us once
>> again with your mental illness online? Please take your Prozac,
>> and then calm down and collect your thoughts before responding to
>> people. Pay attention to what they have written before your
>> sphincter starts pumping. The Blake list is not your personal
>> kitty litter box. If you can't control your bowel movements,
>> could you at least try to squeeze it all out into one post at a
>> time, so I can delete your posts without wasting half of my day?
>
>
>Dearest Ralph,
>
>That's simply incredible. I never imagined that Americans can be so
>vulgar and intolerable. Why do not you leave this list and let
>discussion take it normal course again?
>
>Vlado.
>vladimir Georgiev
>
>
I completely agree Mr. Georgiev. This is not the forum for Mr. Dumain's
temper tantrums. He should go to the Barney the Dinosaur site if he wants
to behave like a spoiled child.
"A Friend">
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 06:58:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Ralph Dumain
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: THE LAST SUPPER -- FOLLOW-UP
Message-Id: <199702171458.GAA09428@igc6.igc.org>
For Josh Hansen:
I must assume "The Last Supper" is available on video. I did not
rent it myself nor did I see it in a movie theater. I attended a
small public showing on a TV screen, so somebody must have
obtained a videotape somewhere. I still can't recall he
director's name, but he is the most internationally famous Cuban
director, having done all the major Cuban films since the
Revolution from Death of a Bureaucrat (1966) up to that recent
film in which the Cuban commies finally come to terms with the gay
issue. Try your nearest video rental store with a good stock of
foreign films. Content-wise, this is a great film.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:57:42 +0000 (gmt)
From: "T.J. Connolly"
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re:Crabbe Robinson, also re: the body
Message-Id:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I am not sure if these books will be any more available in
Hungary--probably though--G. Bentley's Blake Records is a very useful
collection of things people said about Blake around his own time. Also,
the Norton edition of Blake's selected works--sorry I can't remember the
editors but the title is Blake's Poetry and Designs--also has useful
secondary sources in the back, including the relevant part of Crabbe
Robinson. Good luck--and thanks for the other gnosticism references, by
the way.
Thanks everyone for your suggestions on Blake and the body... I will
certainly follow them up!
Tristanne
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:02:09 +0000 (gmt)
From: "T.J. Connolly"
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: more conference info
Message-Id:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Thanks for asking about the conference--it's sort of in my former
area--Hamilton, Ontario, near beautiful Niagara Falls and interesting
Toronto--but not among the dreaming spires--
However, if you want to come to Cambridge, there will be a conference here
on the topic of Literature and Political Violence--certainly applies to
Blake--for information on this, please contact Alex Houen, King's College,
Cambridge, CB2 1ST, England.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 16:30:41 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Tristanne J. Connolly"
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: a couple of conferences
Hello!
I forgot to mention in my wee introduction that I am from Canada:
Hamilton, Ontario, near Toronto. Hamilton is the home of McMaster
University, where this year's conference of the North American society for
the STudy of Romanticism is taking place. The theme is Romanticism and its
Others. It looks to me like it will be very interesting and there are a
ton of different categories for discussion and papers (including
invent-your-own). A lot of the categories have much to do with Blake. If
you are interested please send a message to others@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca,
and/or check out the web page (wowee!) at
http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~hc-courses/research/NASSR.HTM
(what a mouthful!)
Please check this out! It will make my former professors and fellow
students very happy if you go...
Secondly I noticed that there is a conference on Romanticism and Violence
at Sheffield this Feb. 15. The contact address is j.labbe@sheffield.ac.uk
---Tristanne.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:23:47 MET
From: "D.W. DOERRBECKER"
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: WB and "gnosticism"
Message-Id: <92377F70BFA@netwareserver.uni-trier.de>
February 16th (posted 17th), 1997
Someone on the list has asked for a full citation of Andrew J.
Welburn's discussion of Blake and the gnosis; Welburn's unpublished
Ph.D. thesis, as listed under #341 in volume 31 of the *Index to
Theses Accepted [... in ...] Great Britain* (and in my own 1995
compilation *[...] Blake in British Theses, 1950+1994*, #74) presents
a study of
*The Gnostic Imagination of William Blake: A Comparative
and TypologicalInvestigation into the Unity and Structure
of Blake's Mythology*.
It was accepted by the University of Cambridge in 1980. Since then,
Welburn has published an article on "Blake's Cosmos: Sources and
Transformations" in the *Journal of English and Germanic Philology* 80
(1981): 39-53, and has (apparently) incorporated material from his
thesis in two chapters of his *The Truth of Imagination: An
Introduction to Visionary Poetry* (Basingstoke, Hants. and
London: Macmillan Press, 1989; briefly reviewed by B. E. McCarthy,
*Choice* 27 [1989-1990]: 1506). Other fairly recent studies of
gnostic elements in Blake's myth are listed on pages 410 (Curran), 414
(Bloom), 437 (Churton's popularized *Gnostics* of 1987), 515 (Horn's
Los Angeles dissertation on *Blake's Gnosticism: The Material World
as Allegory* of 1978), 574 (the same author's contribution to
*Critical Paths: Blake and the Argument of Method*, ed. Mark Bracher
and Donald Ault, Durham, NC and London 1987), 584 (Nanavutty's
contributions of 1976 and 1984 to the *Aligarh Journal of English
Studies*), 586 (Riehl), 602-603 (Peterfreund's article on
"Blake, Priestley, and the `Gnostic Moment'"), 643 (Sorensen's 1988
dissertation on *Gnostic Myth and Ritual in the Poetry of William
Blake* which, if only my memory serves me right, has been published
about a year or two ago in Salzburg, Aus.) of G. E.Bentley's *Blake
Books Supplement* (Oxford, Oxon.: Clarendon Press, 1995).
Ain't this enough? Or is it too much already?
--DW Doerrbecker
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:00:45 -0600
From: David Medearis
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Science in Eternity?
Message-Id:
I only have a few minutes, so I will try to rush though this:
I was surprised at first to hear that many of you disagree with my claim
that Blake feared Science and Technology. But now I think that the
disagreement stems more from a loose interpretation of the word
"Science," than anything else. When I used the word (Science) I was
speaking specifically about the Science of this world, and not of some
abstract concept of "Science in Eternity." I use the term to mean--
knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the
operation of general laws esp. as obtained and tested through scientific
method. I would be very interested to know how you would
operationally define "Science in Eternity."
But, assuming that the definition of the word Science is consistent with
the definition that I have provided; would you still maintain that Blake
loved science? Or would you now agree with me that he feared and
hated it?
Next, If you agree with me that Blake feared and hated science, do you
also agree with me that this a weakness in Blake? Or do you think that
he was correct in fearing and hating science?
Last, do you think that Blake's fear and hatred of science are projected,
so to speak, on Urizen, as I suggested in my earlier post?
Ironically, I haven't had time to post lately due to a pretty intense
chemistry course; but I do look forward to hearing your replies.
Thank you
David Medearis
--------------------------------
End of blake-d Digest V1997 Issue #19
*************************************