Today's Topics:
Re: Circles or Spirals?
Orc - Luvah
Re: Blake and Science Again...
Re: Norton ed, MLJ & FZ
Circles or Spirals? -Reply
Re: Circles or Spirals?
Re:Crabbe Robinson (fwd)
Divine? Yes. Divine.
Re: Blake and Science Again... -Reply
RE: Altizer introduction -Reply -Reply -Reply
Orc, Los, and The Mental Traveller
Re: Blake and Science Again... -Reply
BLAKE SIGHTING: RAYA DUNAYEVSKAYA
Out of print books
circles and spirals
Re: Science in Eternity?
Orc, Orc
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:01:11 -0500
From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Circles or Spirals?
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Jennifer Michael:
You bring up some interesting points.
1) Science and architecture. You're surprised that Blake would link them?
Architecture is about the most ART-like "science" you can get, which is why
so many art schools also offer an architecture program. Rhode Island School
of Design, for one.
2) Your knowledge of English history and the use of Chimney Sweeps is
interesting, and adds to my historical view of the place. But it certainly
is not disclosed by William Blake any more than the historical context of
the American or French Revolutions. What I have, as a person living in 1997
as a working knowledge of English history at that time, is that the country
was at the forefront of the Industrial Revolution, powered largely by COAL,
and I place these chimney sweepers in coal at least as much as in wooden
chimneys. Kind of like the clean-up crew for James Watt's spin-off designs
from the steam engine...
"Watt, James. 1736-1819.
British engineer and inventor who made fundamental improvements in
the steam engine, resulting in the modern, high-pressure steam engine
(patented 1769)."
---American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd edition
Your critique that I have not brought up the "best" examples for Blake
against science has gotten me to view the "Chimney Sweeper" poems in both
_Innocence_ and _Experience_ (for which I commend you! they're GREAT
poems!), and I see yet another classic Blakean blur between the two
"views", really. And here is my own, limited view on those poems:
a) In both poems, where does the kid feel "happy"? In THE COUNTRY,
away from this industrialized blight of which he is a cog. Yes! Let's not
get into a circle on this, but a spiral! In the first instance, during a
dream the Angel sets them all free, so they can go "down a green plain,
leaping laughing... and wash in a river, and shine in the Sun." And in the
second instance, it was because the kid "was happy upon the heath, and
smil'd among the winters snow"... that he gets the lovely treat of being
yanked away from it all and being put "in the clothes of death".
b) London was, at that time, as Napoleon later noted, in "a nation
of shopkeepers". Hey, what's so bad with a little capitalism, right? Except
that these kids are, for whatever reason, cogs in a machine. And in
_Innocence_ version, the mere shock of it turns the hair of one of the kids
into a shocking gray (Blake calls it WHITE). What's so innnocent about
that, that they get traumatized so? And what's the solace given, in both
_Innocence_ and _Experience_? And why shouldn't we, as readers, buy it?
c) In both poems, it is precisely this cruelty toward kids that a
science not tempered with humane values can produce. They're slaves. They
have no future. But they help the great Technological Wheel spiral on.
At least, those are some starters. To me, these poems together are a
perfect example of Blake's critique of science, dislocation, and
industrialization in "a city called Machine", as they called it in "Dead
Man" by Jim Jarmusch.
-Randall Albright
http://world.std.com/~albright/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:02:59 -0500 (EST)
From: bouwer
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Orc - Luvah
Message-Id: <199702190402.XAA17919@host.ott.igs.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Nowhere does Frye in Fearful Symmetry say that Orc is
Los. Orc is a form of Luvah. (Even Damon's Dictionary
says that.)
Fearful Symmetry: p. 234
"Luvah" the eternal name of Orc. From the Four
Zoas on, Blake tends increasingly to speak of
Orc as Luvah, and in Jerusalem the name "Orc"
hardly occurs at all, except in passages
explaining his identity with Luvah..."
See also the Table on p. 277 : Eternal Name... Luvah
Time Name.... Orc
Frye however, in my humble opinion, sins frequently
when he tries to "explain" Orc by indicating that
"Orc ages into Urizen." On p. 227 he says the following:
"..as states of existence Orc and Urizen, youth and
age, are eternally different things. They represent,
roughly speaking, the "two contrary states of the
soul" which Blake calls innocence and experience."
On p. 229 "Orc, now Urizen,..."
(A number of Blake scholars have adopted this view.)
I do not accept Frye's persistent claim that Orc ages into
Urizen. This fatally flaws for me his interpretation of
"The Mental Traveller."
Gloudina Bouwer
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:14:00 +0000
From: "Steve Perry"
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Blake and Science Again...
Message-Id: <199702190506.VAA21091@surf.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
> David Medearis:
> As far as Blake preferring his four-fold vision, or what I would simply
> call "the muse" or "inspiration", I think that's every artist's right. If
> some people were going to excess with Newton/Bacon/Locke "rational"
> thinking, I see no problem with Blake posing what may seem like an excess
> on the other side.
David, there are no sides. Blake is saying that you can look at the
same thing and see something different. A grain of sand or infinity.
Newton, Bacon & Locke's science sees a grain of sand. So do we all
but unfortunatly there is no method, no epistemology for seeing
anything else in that science but a grain of sand. So the chief
ailment of our times is to be bound by perceptions visa vis a few
chinks in our skull, which positivistic science has made into the
only inlets of perception.
------------------------------
Date: 19 Feb 97 01:02:36 EST
From: Philip Benz <100575.2061@CompuServe.COM>
To: "internet:blake@albion.com"
Subject: Re: Norton ed, MLJ & FZ
Message-Id: <970219060235_100575.2061_GHW39-1@CompuServe.COM>
Tristanne said: << 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-- >>
Shame on you, TJ! The editors of the Norton Critical Edition,
_Blake's Poetry and Designs_ are members of this list: Mary Lynn Johnson
& John E. Grant.
When I've finished reading _The Four Zoas_ (hah! finished he says!)
I'll have to try to get hold of MLJ's book on it. I bet if I were still
in Iowa, I'd find a couple three copies down on the fourth floor...
As I wouldn't want to be posting a content-less micro-message, lemme
ask you all a question: of the four zoas, we identify Urizen with the
human reason (the Ugly Man of the Catalog), Luvah/Orc with the human
pathetic (the Beautiful man), and Urthona/Los with the human sublime
(the Strong man). Does that mean that Tharmas, who drops out of sight
early in FZ, can be identified with Jesus?
Cheers, --- Phil
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:17:44 +0200
From: P Van Schaik
To: blake@albion.com, albright@world.std.com
Subject: Circles or Spirals? -Reply
Message-Id:
Randall, I hope others will try to take up your questions. Having been
warned that people take exception to the same people forever jumping in
to respond, I'm going to stay out of discussion more and more. I do not
see the Songs of Innocnece as taking place in an unfallen world. One
has to glean what Blake's view of Eternity is like from his longer poems. I
don't think `America' and `Europe' are very complete as prophetic, epic
poems and , as Orc plays a very significant role in reversing the Fall, as
Los, does, I think critics have not done justice to him. Pam
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:50:52 +100
From: "VLADIMIR GEORGIEV"
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Circles or Spirals?
Message-Id: <1BD7CB26695@picasso.ceu.hu>
> I disagree. Our bodies... true, we see THROUGH our corporeal eye, but
> without it, we wouldn't see at all! These bodies of ours are NOT husk!
> They're divine! I think Blake was trying to say that, and if you want
> further reference, check out the _Songs_ and "Marriage of Heaven and Hell",
> folks. You can read in "Milton" how we need to throw off these "rags",
> whatever that means, but I'm not referring to "Milton".
Randall,
Are you joking about our bodies being "divine"? Divine means eternal
and invisible what bodies are simply not. Only Mormons believe that
gods have bodies and humans can become gods but it lacks any logic.
I think that Pam is on a better course here seeing Blake as a
proponent of reformed Gnosticism via the Kabbalah.
Yours,
Vlado.
vladimir Georgiev
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:32:53 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Tristanne J. Connolly"
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re:Crabbe Robinson (fwd)
Message-Id:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:32:13 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Tristanne J. Connolly"
To: VLADIMIR GEORGIEV
Subject: Re:Crabbe Robinson
Dear Vlado,
Sorry about the vagueness of my references--I can elaborate on Blake
Records: ed. G. E. Bentley Jr., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969. The Norton
edition--it's at home and I'm doing my e-mail from college, so I'll have
to be vague until I remember to write it down and send it to you. Another
message on this list comes to my rescue about the editors--the publisher
is W.W. Norton and Company, I think New York, and date I'll tell you
later. Hope this helps,
Tristanne.
p.s. the reference in Blake Books to Gnosticism is on page 545. If you
find it I think you'll find it rather laconic--the only specific thing
Crabbe Robinson mentions is the creation of the world by the demiurge:
'Nature is the work of the devil', says Blake (give that to the tyger and
see if he swallows it!) tjc.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:25:51 -0500
From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Divine? Yes. Divine.
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Valdimir:
No, I'm not joking about our bodies being aspects of the "divine"... and
let me first define "divine" for you.
"divine
1.a. Having the nature of or being a deity. b. Of, relating to, emanating
from, or being the expression of a deity: sought divine guidance through
meditation. c. Being in the service or worship of a deity; sacred.
2. Superhuman; godlike.
3.a. Supremely good or beautiful; magnificent: a divine performance of the
concerto. b. Extremely pleasant; delightful: had a divine time at the ball.
4. Heavenly; perfect."
---source, American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd edition
At the very least, I'm talking about definitions 3a and 3b. But when Blake
said, in answer to a visitor late in his life, that he felt that-- I'm
paraphrasing-- Jesus was the real God, and so are you and so am I", he's
also referring to 1. Specific references in Blake's canon that support my
view that we, mortals, are part of the divine, as in definition #1 above,
are:
"All Religions are One"--> What is Blake saying, among all the
other principles and The Argument, about "The true Man is the source, he
being the Poetic Genius." To me, when "inspired", hooked up to the muse or
four-fold vision, whatever you call it, he's hooked into the divine, into
universals which transcend weaknesses of all individuals, including Jesus
(I have my own views on Jesus being FLAWED, and it's based on "The Clod and
the Pebble" poem, in part).
"The Divine Image" in _Songs of Innocence_ may be just an aspiration. But:
"...all must love the human form/In heathen turk or
jew./Where Mercy, Love & Pity dwell/There God is dwelling too."
"A Poison Tree" in _Songs of Experience_: What happens when you don't give
another person the benefit of being called "your friend" but "your enemy"?
What goes wrong, both for the "enemy" as well as the narrator? That is a
divergence from the divine.
"A Little Girl Lost" in _Experience_: What is Blake saying when he starts
with "Chidren of the future Age/Reading this indignant page,/Know that in a
former time/Love! swet Love! was thought a crime."
Is there anything *wrong* with "A Divine Image" in _Experience_, or is this
part of divinity, too? In that, like a deity, these qualities which he
ascribes will always be with the human condition, like Satan, perhaps?
Moving on... to "Marriage of Heaven and Hell"... from Plate 8:
"The pride of the peacock is the glory of God./The lust of the oat is the
bounty of God./The wrath of the lion is the wisdom of God./The nakeness of
woman is the work of God."
And then, occasionally I like to call on "experts" like Michael Davis, in
his _William Blake A New Kind of Man_, particularly for poems like "Milton"
that I don't feel equipped to really defend myself:
"Blake's epic tells of Milton's return to earth after he has been
dead for a hudnred years. Milton erred in his seventeenth-century life by
placing reason above imagination and by denying sex, after the Fall, the
quality of divine inspiration."
-p. 104, 1977 paperback edition, University of California Press
What do you think of Davis's view, Milton trekkers? Reductionist? At least,
it's a concise, well-described view. And sex... a quality of divine
inspiration... ties back with "A Little Girl Lost" in Experience, the way I
read it.
Thanks for the dialogue, Vladimir---
Randall Albright
================================
Oh... and here are few tidbits for the Blake/Lawrence connection:
D.H. Lawrence "is amazing; he sees through and through one... He is
infallible. His like Ezekiel or some other Old Testament prophet..."
---Bertrand Russell,
quoted on page 190 of _D.H. Lawrence, Triumph to Exile_
by Mark Kinkead-Weekes, Cambridge University Press, 1996
"That fellow was really disturbing. It wasn't that his words were
either jaunty or offensive. He uttered them as if they had been not so much
assertions as gropings for truth..."
---Ford Madox Ford, from "The Fox" (D.H. Lawrence) chapter in
_Memories and Impressions_
Selected and Introduced by Michael Killigrew, Penguin 1979
edition
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:30:22 -0600
From: David Medearis
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Blake and Science Again... -Reply
Message-Id:
That was not me who said this Steve. It was R.H. Albright.
Steve Perry wrote:
> David Medearis:
> As far as Blake preferring his four-fold vision, or what I would simply
> call "the muse" or "inspiration", I think that's every artist's right. If
> some people were going to excess with Newton/Bacon/Locke
"rational"
> thinking, I see no problem with Blake posing what may seem like an
excess
> on the other side.
Me (david) : I did not say this, and I do not agree with it. I do see a
problem with posing what may seem like an excess on the other side.
Steve Perry replies to what he thought I (David Medearis) wrote:
>>David, there are no sides. Blake is saying that you can look at the
same thing and see something different. A grain of sand or infinity.
Newton, Bacon & Locke's science sees a grain of sand. So do we all
but unfortunately there is no method, no epistemology for seeing
anything else in that science but a grain of sand. So the chief ailment
of our times is to be bound by perceptions visa vis a few chinks in our
skull, which positivistic science has made into the only inlets of
perception.<<
Yes, that is why I think Blake feared and hated science. I am surprised
that everyone is so reluctant to just admit it. Blake hated Newton and
Lock like the Church hated Darwin and Galileo. Blake saw Newton as a
threat to his perception of the world, and he saw Lock as a threat to
his perception of the human mind.
I also agree with Pam who wrote:
The science of the fallen world which insists that only what is
>demonstrable exists - or, that which can be ascertained by the 5
senses
>- this science is what Blake sees as misleading since it teaches that
>what is as yet invisible to the scientist does not exist. Pam
But I disagree with her conclusions. Science should insists that only
what is demonstrable exists - or, that which can be ascertained by the
5 senses. That is what makes it Science. Architecture, on the other
hand, is an art, so I can easily see way Blake loved it.
But just as spirituality should not mix with science, science should not
mix with spirituality. When this happens you get guys like Depak Chopra
misrepresenting quantum theory in order to support some hoary old
superstitions. I love Blake as an artist, but if I want to understand how
the would works, I would rather get my information from Physics,
Chemistry, and Calculus.
David Medearis
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 97 01:13:21 UT
From: "tHOMAS aLTIZER"
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: RE: Altizer introduction -Reply -Reply -Reply
Message-Id:
Pam,
Yet I would like to read something from yourmanuscript.My address is: P.O. Box
331, Buck Hill Falls, Pa. 18323, USA.
Tom
----------
From: P Van Schaik
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 1997 3:06 AM
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: RE: Altizer introduction -Reply -Reply -Reply
Dear Thomas, Tried replying directly to you, but can't see your entire
email address onscreen and the route is to all even if I press otherwise..
No, I haven't read Bronstein, and will try to obtain a copy of this on
inter-library loan, as we don't have it.. My own work has taken me in the
direction of relating all the symbols of Blake to the Kabbalah: Jerusalem
to Binah, Jesus to Hokhmah ( and as seeing this divine marriage as
central to existence in unity with God - hence the tragedy of Jerusalem's
being cast out) , of Urizen to Din, of Tifereth to Beulah. I see Blake's
vision of the Fall as corresponding closely to the Lurianic tsitsum, and
the endings in Albion's restoration as closely parallel to the Grand Jubilee
of the Kabbalah. At present, Zwi Werblowski in Jerusalem is trying to
find time to read my manuscript on this, but i have had no other feedback
from anyone. Would you , perhaps, be interested in seeing a chapter or
two? Pam
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:48:21 -0500
From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Orc, Los, and The Mental Traveller
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Gloudina Bouwer:
I wouldn't say it's as clear as Orc doesn't become Los, although I DO agree
that Orc doesn't become Urizen........
I see Orc in "America" and "Europe" as a super-hero who can be identified
with Prometheus getting UNbound (beginning of "America") and Jesus (it took
Enitharmon 2000 years to wake up... Gee, is this the Second Coming?) for
those apocalyptic visions. I am using definition #3 of "apocalypse" from
American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd edition: "A prophetic disclosure; a
revelation" for my meaning of the word.
In that Blake later associates Los, the Eternal Prophet, with Jesus (as
well as himself), one could make a case that Orc is an earlier "Los",
particularly since Orc gets virtually discarded in favor of Los as Blake's
mouthpiece along the way, as you note.
Los, Orc's father, is virtually absent in "America" and "Europe", coming in
only at the end of "Europe" for that messy end, while he lets Enitharmon
awaken all those Evil Angels (?) from a Pandora's box-like sleep. Orc is
the Super-Star in both poems, however. Los becomes the superstar in
"Milton" and "Jerusalem".
As far as "Mental Traveller", the boy/man is not identified by Blake as any
of his own mythologically changeable creatures, even if Frye conjectures an
Orc to Urizen metamorphosis. So he is his own mythological character. And
if the changes he goes through aren't exactly as simple as these from
Shakespeare...............
"When that I was and a little tiny boy,
With hey, ho, the wind and the rain,
A foolish thing was but a toy,
For the rain it raineth every day.
"But when I came to man's estate,
With hey, ho, the wind and the rain,
'Gainst knaves and thieves men shut their gate,
For the rain it raineth every day.
"But when I came, alas, to wive,
With hey, ho, the wind and the rain,
By swaggering could I never thrive,
For the rain it raineth every day.
"But when I came unto my beds,
With hey, ho, the wind and the rain,
With tosspots still had drunken heads,
For the rain it raineth every day..."
---from the last lines of _Twelfth Night_, sung by the Clown
...........I can at least see some parallels about how people *change* as
they age and new responsibilities or growth befall them.
What happens when the boy in "Mental Traveller" becomes a man and is able
to turn the tables on the woman? If he becomes magnanimous for awhile, then
this, then that... he is reacting to his changing world, and to the age
which he IS, with the environment in which he is currently faced. Same with
the woman who starts the story...
and...
keeping this open-ended...
a man named William Blake.
I thought Blake lived in Albion, a place, not a person, by the way. That
works clearly in "America", at least........... on one level.............
"Albion: England or Great Britain. Often used poetically"
---source, American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd edition
-Randall Albright
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 17:08:46 +0000
From: timli@controls.eurotherm.co.uk (Tim Linnell)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Blake and Science Again... -Reply
Message-Id: <32564.199702191708@merlot.controls.eurotherm.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>But just as spirituality should not mix with science, science should not
>mix with spirituality. When this happens you get guys like Depak Chopra
>misrepresenting quantum theory in order to support some hoary old
>superstitions. I love Blake as an artist, but if I want to understand how
>the would works, I would rather get my information from Physics,
>Chemistry, and Calculus.
It might be worth pointing out here that I studied Physics at University,
and have never read the pop science books on quantum mechanics. The fact is
that Blake felt instinctively that there was more to the universe than a
sort of Newtonian machine, and in the event he was proved right by modern
quantum physics. As he said (paraphrased) we don't know yet what we shall
know in the future, no scientific 'truth' is ever certain.
What you are doing here, frankly, is not commentating on Blake, but airing
your personal prejudices on art and artists. Blake knew and understood
scientific theory, and used science daily in his engraving work. When he
made judgements, which he did both for and against hoary superstitions, he
used clear and reasoned arguments to support his hypotheses.
Tim Linnell
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:47:59 -0800 (PST)
From: Ralph Dumain
To: blake@albion.com
Cc: jimmurray@igc.org, tomdill@wc.stephens.edu
Subject: BLAKE SIGHTING: RAYA DUNAYEVSKAYA
Message-Id: <199702191747.JAA16876@igc4.igc.org>
WEIRD BLAKE SIGHTINGS: RAYA DUNAYEVSKAYA
Dunayevskaya was the co-founder of the Johnson-Forest Tendency
within the American Trotskyist movement in the 1940s and later
founder of a philosophy of revolution based on Hegel she called
"Marxist-Humanism." In the last final months of her life she
wrote a two-page letter of April 22, 1987 addressed to "Kevin,
Peter." This is pp. 11211-11212 of her microfilmed archive. The
SUPPLEMENT TO THE RAYA DUNAYEVSKAYA COLLECTION, a guide to vol.
XIII of her archive -- her last writings -- characterizes this
document as follows (p. 14): "Notes on William Blake sent to Kevin
A. Barry and Peter Wermuth for projection to a student who had
asked Dunayevskaya about Blake when they met at Dunayevskaya's
lecture at Northern Illinois University." In the letter itself,
Dunayevskaya refers to Alfred Kazin's PORTABLE BLAKE. She
mentions the difficulty of Blake getting his poems published, "The
French Revolution," and Joseph Johnson's radical circle. She
singles out Kazin's paragraph on the impact of the French
Revolution on Blake and Beethoven. She also singles out the
quotation from Blake beginning with: "A Line is a line in its
minutest subdivisions..." Her greatest excitement, from what I
gather from one grammatically and semantically mangled sentence,
comes from Blake's linkage to Thomas Paine. She refers to Blake
as "the greatest poet, and the first ever revolutionary feminist
as well as the intellectual socialist."
(R. Dumain, 19 Feb 1997)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:04:32 -0700
From: "Charlie K."
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Out of print books
Message-Id: <199702191901.MAA21500@gost1.indirect.com>
Would anybody be able to direct me to a place where I might find the
following books for sale?
I'm looking for copies of...
Blake Records
by G.E. Bentley, Jr. (1969)
*and*
The Notebook of William Blake: A Photographic and Typographic
Facsimile
by David V. Erdman, ed. (1973, reprinted in 1977)
Thanks for any help,
Charlie
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:40:48 -0500
From: Marcel M OGorman
To: blake@albion.com
Cc: albright@world.std.com
Subject: circles and spirals
Message-Id: <199702192040.PAA21938@ronell.ucet.ufl.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
randall wrote:
<< a) In both poems, where does the kid feel "happy"? In THE COUNTRY,
away from this industrialized blight of which he is a cog. Yes! Let's not
get into a circle on this, but a spiral! In the first instance, during a
dream the Angel sets them all free, so they can go "down a green plain,
leaping laughing... and wash in a river, and shine in the Sun." And in the
second instance, it was because the kid "was happy upon the heath, and
smil'd among the winters snow"... that he gets the lovely treat of being
yanked away from it all and being put "in the clothes of death".>>
i'm very much interested in this circle-spiral distinction. not to change the
subject, but...are you (randall) suggesting that the circle and spiral belong
to a fixed schema of representation in blake's inconic repertoire? it would
seem here that the circle (cog? wheel? hermeneutic?) is an icon of
technological oppression and that the spiral (whilrlwhind? oz-invoking
tornado?) is a vehicle by means of which freedom is achieved. is this what
you are suggesting? and yes, i am putting words in your mouth/on your
monitor, so to speak.
by the way, i am new to the list...a phd. student at the university of
florida...passive observer for the past few weeks.
mmgogo
--
----------
http://www.ucet.ufl.edu/~ogorman
----------
Everywhere the virus of potentialization
and mise en abyme carries the day --
carries us toward an ecstasy
which is also that of indifference.
--J.Baudrillard
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 17:27:38 -0500 (EST)
From: PJermolow@aol.com
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Science in Eternity?
Message-Id: <970219172522_650276155@emout15.mail.aol.com>
David,
I don't think the definition of, "science", clarifies your point. In my
opinion, Blake did not fear, or hate, science,(hate being a very strong
word). I think that Blake would rather not deal with science at all, this is
due to the lies perpetrated by our creation of reality with our senses, and
farther lead astray by a systematic approach in which we try to develope and
define reality. Blake was more individual and deeper than learning about
creation systematically. My example would have to come from, SOE--The School
Boy. Read this and then tell me what Blake feels about both, systematic
science and education(it's for the birds).
PJermolow
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:11:16 -0800
From: Hugh Walthall
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Orc, Orc
Message-Id: <330BB2C4.1324@erols.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Orc does not age into Urizen. Orc is hired by Urizen as a spokesperson
or consultant. A retired athlete, he greets folks at Urizen's Casino.
As Old Boney--he runs fantasy military weekends (Now YOU command the
Austrians at Jena! Think you can beat me, punk?) at St Helena Golf &
Country Club.
Orc is a bimbo, Orc is Mars. He scares Urizen shitless until Urizen
figures out he's for hire. It is Clauzwitz, the military theorist,
Blakean Contemporary, arguably the most influential writer of the
18th-19th centuries, who figures this out.
Aside to Ralph D.: You should include Clauzwitz in your perusal of
Idealist Philiosophers. He was much admired by Marx. If you want to
overthrow the Established Order, at some point you must read what they
read in the War Colleges.
Orc is Pericles, Coriolanus, Hollywood Heart-throb. Wreckless Youth
become predictable has-been Hero and Hall of Fame inductee. Hapless
Soldier. To quote the Sublime Bugs Bunny: What a Chump, What a maroon.
Hugh Walthall hugwal@erols.com
--------------------------------
End of blake-d Digest V1997 Issue #21
*************************************