Today's Topics:
Re: Elohim
Druidic evidence
Forgiving...
Re: Blake and Cults
Re: Elohim
Last Druid Post
Re: Last post?
Merde Encore...
Druids
Re: Elohim
Re: Merde Encore...
Jerusalem
Re: Merde Encore...
Re: Last post?
Quote
All Religions Are One
Bravo Tom Dill
RE: Private E-Mails and DEAD MAN
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 15:34:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Benson Smith
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Elohim
Message-Id:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 1 May 1997 MLGrant@president-po.president.uiowa.edu wrote:
>
> Elohim (a plural word in Hebrew) is one of the two names of God in
> Genesis. The other is Yaweh. -- Mary Lynn
It should be noted that the word (Elohim, not Yahweh) is in fact plural.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 May 97 20:57:01 +0100 ( + )
From: Paul Tarry
To: blake online
Subject: Druidic evidence
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
seems to be thin on the ground.
And as J. Major said :
"A sound bite never buttered a parsnip."
New druid. New danger.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 17:59:45 -0400
From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Forgiving...
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I'm not a Christian either, Mr. Dillingham, but when I read that you were
again up to your vituperative, private e-mail flame tricks again, I could
not help but REMEMBER.
Never Forget.
But _always_ forgive.
After all, they know not what they have done!
Anyway...
I remember coming into your Urizenic world, Mr. Dillingham, a little over a
year ago with a shocking interpretation that "The Clod and the Pebble"
could be viewed as the extremities also known as sado-masochism. Since
Gloudina Bouwer is taking the trouble to redefine her husband's turf (I
personally prefer MY interpretation of "The Mental Traveller" to his,
although I can SEE IT, possibly, his way), please let me do so, too!
Although trying to discuss that matter of S&M with you and others in a
civilized manner, I found the quality of your private e-mails to be much
below what I have ever encountered before or since! And then the public
ones... at least I got a good laugh out of how hard you worked to
"deconstruct" my posts, like any good English teacher schooled in rational
thought would!
I still see my construct for that poem as valid, and I also think that this
dilemma of martyrs and exploiters is part of Blake's criticism of
Christianity *at his best*, even though he claimed to be a Christian
himself. Just look at how poor Adam got NAILED by Elohim in that classic
visual art piece of his!
So today I offer two new complexities:
1) The "Lamb" poem from Innocence. IS it innocent? Who signified the lamb
in that poem? What happens to lambs when they either get led off to
slaughter, or, if they're lucky, merely tended by a Good Shepherd that may
otherwise be known as Jesus? They are passive and GOOD, right? But what is
wrong with a God who allows himself to get nailed to a cross, like a lamb,
while promising that someday the lion will lie down with the lamb? What is
wrong with *blind faith*, which The Enlightenment was trying to pull the
Western World OUT OF?
2) The "Tyger" poem from Experience. IS it experienced? Isn't that... just
the way a tyger is? Poor little kitty, demonized by that signifier (Mr.
Blake), who betrays how impressed he really is with its power as well as,
visually, cute looks!
And can't we all, in various moods, move from character to character at
times? Or are we STUCK?
Why is Gloudina Bouwer so insistent that Northrop Frye is wrong and her
husband is right?
Protect those sandcastles, my friends!
But I'm sure there's more than ONE side to this story.
I mean, that wouldn't be very Blakean, otherwise!
And I'm sure that there are a lot more RIGID people out there than William
James these days, who would get quite exuberant about new, underdog ideas
like Mr. Bouwer presented in a scholarly fashion. What about ideas that are
presented in an artistic, imaginative, collage-like fashion?
"If the door of perception were cleansed..." (plate 14, MHH), you'd be
looking at Medusa's head.
"Where man is not, nature is barren." (plate 10, MHH) Actually, Frederick
Law Olmsted didn't think this way when he saw Yosemite! I suppose one could
say, "Ah, but a MAN was there to appreciate it!" But he didn't try to
"civilize" it, to give it an UNnatural religion!
And as far as idiots, Mr. Dillingham, well... I've often found the
arrogance of professors who snarl reductionistly at people as "idiots" to
be something of a not so progressive state of mind.
-Randall Albright
http://world.std.com/~albright/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 17:27:03 -0700
From: "Charlie K."
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Blake and Cults
Message-Id: <199705020023.RAA14006@gost1.indirect.com>
Tim Linnell wrote:
> *The name seems to come either from the Who's 'A quick one' album,
> which of course Randall's friends never listened to, or, perhaps,
> Genesis' The Lamb lies down on Broadway, which I DEFINITELY NEVER
> OWNED. Or at least never listened to... Ahem...
Oh man, 'The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway' is a great album, a true
artistic achievement within the medium of Rock & Roll. Rael is
indeed the name of The Lamb's hero. Definitely an overlooked
concept album (at least it is here in the states where nobody seems
to even know of its existence).
Olde Genesis is the stuff! Supper's Ready.
Charlie
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 01:17:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: Darlene Sybert
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Elohim
Message-Id:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> On Thu, 1 May 1997 MLGrant@president-po.president.uiowa.edu wrote:
> >
> > Elohim (a plural word in Hebrew) is one of the two names of God in
> > Genesis. The other is Yaweh. -- Mary Lynn
Elohim is the name used for God in the creation story of Genesis 1. Using
the plural form of God's name indicated plentitude of power and majesty to
the Old Testament Hebrews and, also, allowed for the New Testament
revelation of the trinity (Matthew 3:16-17).
However, Elohim is a generic term for diety, also. Even in the Bible, it
is used for pagan gods (Genesis 31:30), angels (Psalm8:5), men (Psalm
82:6), and judges (Exod 21:6) (and about 2490 other times).
YHWH or Yahweh, on the other hand, is a more exclusive name of God.
it is connected with the verb meaning "to be,' so it has the connotation
of self-existence (Ex 3:14) plus it is used for the Redeemer (Ex.6:6)
This name of God occurs 6823 times in the Old Testament (according
to Charles Ryrie's Study Bible), and is associated with holiness.
Adonai, on the other hand, means (something like) Master or Husband and
refers to the right to rule one's creation. It occurs only 412 times in
the Old Testament (notably in Isaiah 6:1), but is the only word used for
God in the New Testament--which is interesting because most people
associate God in the New Testament with love not law.
I'm not suggesting this has any particular relevance to the earlier post
about Elohim or to Blake: I just find it fascinating that there is
"difference" even in God.
Darlene Sybert vsa
http://www.missouri.edu/~engds/index.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You never know what is enough
until you know what is more than enough.
--William Blake
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 03:21:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: SylvanBear@aol.com
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Last Druid Post
Message-Id: <970502032125_-1968717695@emout10.mail.aol.com>
I seems people are getting tired of discussing the Blake/Druid thing, so this
will be my last post. If you wish to discuss it more, PLEASE e-mail me
directly.
My point in all this, and what Mr. Albright seems to understand, is that he
COULD have been a Druid. All the evidence points to his attitude toward the
Paleopagan Druids, and I must concur with his view. Human sacrifice is a bad
idea. This wouldn't stop him from becoming a Mesopagan Druid; just as it
didn't stop me from becoming a Neopagan Druid.
The Druids he spoke out against were farther removed from him than the modern
christians are removed from the crusades; and more personally offensive to
me, the witch trials.
Several Popes have spoken out against these periods in history, but I doubt
anyone would argue these Popes weren't christian.
Even so, I am curious to find evidence where Blake spoke against modern (to
his time) Druids.
To his credit, I appreciate Mr. Dillingham's suggestion of "Blake and the
Druids". I just wish he would have suggested it in the first place, instead
of insulting my religion, and religious brethren... I wonder what Blake would
have made of his initial remarks concerning Pagans; Druid or not...
At any rate, I apologize for Mr. Dillingham posting my private e-mails to
him. My wrath was for him alone; hence, my mailing him directly.
Druid Wisdom
Three things it is everyone's duty to do: listen humbly, answer discreetly,
and judge
kindly.
Three marvelous deeds: to forgive a wrong done, to amend everything possible,
and to
refrain from injustice.
Three reasons to war against fault: to not do to others as you would not have
them do to
you , that you not be arrogant , that you might always let the light of
wisdom shine.
Bright Blessings. Keep an Open Mind and Heart.
SylvanBear@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 10:07:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: SylvanBear@aol.com
To: Blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Last post?
Message-Id: <970502100700_-898089086@emout19.mail.aol.com>
This is a letter I recieved from Mr. Dillingham after my last post. I tried
to end the argument, but I guess he doesn't have the maturity he thinks he
does...
<<
Mr. SylvanBear--Your weaselly and smirking post will not impress anyone
who is able to read (that does not include Mr. Albright). You most
certainly did not say that Blake *COULD* have been a Druid, you said
that you had discovered that he *WAS* a Druid for 20 years. You then
continued to assert that you had "evidence" that supported your
assertion, though you did not provide any such evidence. You claim
(with no evidence to support it) that you have had many supporting
e-mails. You may have noticed that there were some to the list that
did not support you, though you do not acknowledge that. I also have
had several supportive e-mails off the list--perhaps you would like
to see them. If you want to enter a serious discussion, you need
to be prepared to express yourself precisely and to offer supporting
evidence where needed. You attempted something else altogether and
got called on it. It's too bad that your efforts led to conflict, but
your effort to pretend that your opening statements were innocent rather
than provocative and adversarial will not wash with anyone who read them.
My first dismissive post was an effort to avoid precisely what developed--
an exchange of insults (inevitable) over a non-issue. There is a member
of the list (William Franklin) who has done significant recent research
on the subject of Celtic backgrounds in Blake, including Druidic influences,
such as they are. His work is not fantasy but fact. Maybe you could
exchange views with him. (Perhaps you already have.) Just keep in
mind that there is a rhetorical difference between making an assertion
of "fact" and offering a hypothesis to be explored and discussed.
Tom Dillingham
>>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 11:02:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: SylvanBear@aol.com
To: Blake@albion.com
Subject: Merde Encore...
Message-Id: <970502110251_-1400735062@emout15.mail.aol.com>
Here is my response...
<<
Mr. SylvanBear--Your weaselly and smirking post will not impress anyone
who is able to read (that does not include Mr. Albright).
You're such an ass... Weaselly and smirking? Oh yeah, you're mature. I was
trying to end this crap.
You most certainly did not say that Blake *COULD* have been a Druid, you
said
that you had discovered that he *WAS* a Druid for 20 years. You then
continued to assert that you had "evidence" that supported your
assertion, though you did not provide any such evidence.
If you had read the posts, you would have noticed that I directed anyone
interested to Issac Bonewit's Homepage. This is where I got my proof. To my
count, I have proof that he was a Mesopagan, and no one has proof against. I
believe he was a Druid, and I'm looking for others to accept that he COULD
have been a Druid. I'm not trying to convince anyone into believing that he
HAD to be a Druid. Just that there is no reason why he isn't a Druid. Thusly
confirming my own beliefs that he was, in fact, a Druid. Do you understand
how argument works? Maybe I should speak s-l-o-w-l-y...
You claim (with no evidence to support it) that you have had many supporting
e-mails. You may have noticed that there were some to the list that
did not support you, though you do not acknowledge that.
I have seen a lot of invalid arguments. That he spoke against Paleopagans is
of no relevance to whether he was a Mesopagan, or not. Understand?
I also have had several supportive e-mails off the list--perhaps you would
like
to see them.
Translation: People like me better! Ha Ha! You're a poo-poo head!
Yeah, I'd like to see them. Not that I don't believe you, but I'm just
curious.
If you want to enter a serious discussion, you need
to be prepared to express yourself precisely and to offer supporting
evidence where needed.
As I recall, you didn't want to argue. You didn't want to discuss. As a
matter of fact, you encouraged everyone to ignore me...Good job, Ace. You
flaming hypocrite!
You attempted something else altogether and
got called on it. It's too bad that your efforts led to conflict, but
your effort to pretend that your opening statements were innocent rather
than provocative and adversarial will not wash with anyone who read them.
I'm not pretending. I e-mailed you screaming, and calling you a close-minded
bastard. Let people read them. BUT, list your own posts in there also. I
wasn't pissed because you didn't want to argue. I was pissed 1) because you
told everyone else to ignore me. That says, "hey, he's insignifigant. Ignore
him". Who do you think you are, telling anybody else when to speak, and what
to say? My argument is valid (whether your Royal Heiney recognizes it, or
not), and deserves response from those that want to argue against it. AND 2)
Because you insulted my religion. If I wasn't posting this publicly, I would
slam all over your's, buddy. But, out of respect for those intelligent
christians on the list, I will show restraint...
My first dismissive post was an effort to avoid precisely what developed--
an exchange of insults (inevitable) over a non-issue.
If it's a non-issue, then why did you start arguing??? You brag about your
Ph.D...that must have been one hell of a Cracker-Jack box...
There is a member
of the list (William Franklin) who has done significant recent research
on the subject of Celtic backgrounds in Blake, including Druidic influences,
such as they are.
You might as well tell Mr. Franklin that he blows goats, because you call his
"signifigant recent research" a "non-issue". I wouldn't be too happy if I
were Mr. Franklin...all that time wasted in research of a non-issue...
I would love to talk to the guy, but if Mr. Franklin is a member of the list,
don't you think he would have stepped up and said something if he was
interested?
His work is not fantasy but fact.
At least until he disagrees with you...
Maybe you could
exchange views with him. (Perhaps you already have.) Just keep in
mind that there is a rhetorical difference between making an assertion
of "fact" and offering a hypothesis to be explored and discussed.
I have all the facts I need. I have decided what I believe, and I won't
change until someone (here, or in literature) proves me wrong. Unlike some
close-minded individuals, I am willing to change my view if evidence is shown
to me. So far, I have seen none.
Tom Dillingham
>>
So, smart guy...since you seem to be bitching a lot about my arguments, why
don't you prove me wrong, and shut me up? You seem to have all these sources
to recommend...use them.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 08:42:45 -0700
From: "Charlie K."
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Druids
Message-Id: <199705021539.IAA25976@gost1.indirect.com>
I once heard from a lady who claimed to be a "Druid," that Druids
worship trees. Is this true? Cool if it is. She was definitely a
"mystical" lady, tarot cards and the whole bit. She drove the school
bus.
Charlie
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 12:33:48 -0400
From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Elohim
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Darlene:
Interesting information on the subject of Elohim. Do you think Blake was
playing on those various meanings in his "Elohim Creating Adam" painting,
or do you see it as a reference to Genesis 1?
In my King James version, Genesis 1 just says "God". Isn't this the version
of The Bible that was the "core text" in Blake's time?
By Genesis 2. I see "the LORD God" being invoked by verse 4. This is the
God that created Adam, verse 7, named Adam on verse 19. (Correct me if I'm
wrong on any of this! I'm interested...)
Then, during the end of that ever-delightful chapter, "Revelation", I see,
amidst the Shamanistic, non-inclusive, destructive-invoking scare-tactics,
that Saint John the Divine (or John of Patmos) saw "the holy city, new
Jerusalem, coming down from heaven, prepared as a bride for her husband."
(Chapter 21, verse 2) Lovely. Shelley, anyone? Doesn't sound like John
envisioned a Jerusalem being built and constantly re-built on this earth by
men. Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, further on..........
-Randall Albright
Darlene Sybert's words:
>Elohim is the name used for God in the creation story of Genesis 1. Using
>the plural form of God's name indicated plentitude of power and majesty to
>the Old Testament Hebrews and, also, allowed for the New Testament
>revelation of the trinity (Matthew 3:16-17).
>
>However, Elohim is a generic term for diety, also. Even in the Bible, it
>is used for pagan gods (Genesis 31:30), angels (Psalm8:5), men (Psalm
>82:6), and judges (Exod 21:6) (and about 2490 other times).
>
>YHWH or Yahweh, on the other hand, is a more exclusive name of God.
>it is connected with the verb meaning "to be,' so it has the connotation
>of self-existence (Ex 3:14) plus it is used for the Redeemer (Ex.6:6)
>This name of God occurs 6823 times in the Old Testament (according
>to Charles Ryrie's Study Bible), and is associated with holiness.
>
>Adonai, on the other hand, means (something like) Master or Husband and
>refers to the right to rule one's creation. It occurs only 412 times in
>the Old Testament (notably in Isaiah 6:1), but is the only word used for
>God in the New Testament--which is interesting because most people
>associate God in the New Testament with love not law.
>
>I'm not suggesting this has any particular relevance to the earlier post
>about Elohim or to Blake: I just find it fascinating that there is
>"difference" even in God.
>
>Darlene Sybert vsa
>http://www.missouri.edu/~engds/index.html
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>You never know what is enough
>until you know what is more than enough.
>--William Blake
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 11:33:35 -0500
From: jmichael@seraph1.sewanee.edu (J. Michael)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Merde Encore...
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The title says it all. Please take this ridiculous "discussion" off the
list. It was tiresome enough to hear old arguments about Blake and Druids,
but this series of kindergarten insults has nothing to do with Blake.
J. Michael
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 11:41:21 -0500
From: jmichael@seraph1.sewanee.edu (J. Michael)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Jerusalem
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Randall writes:
>Then, during the end of that ever-delightful chapter, "Revelation", I see,
>amidst the Shamanistic, non-inclusive, destructive-invoking scare-tactics,
>that Saint John the Divine (or John of Patmos) saw "the holy city, new
>Jerusalem, coming down from heaven, prepared as a bride for her husband."
>(Chapter 21, verse 2) Lovely. Shelley, anyone? Doesn't sound like John
>envisioned a Jerusalem being built and constantly re-built on this earth by
>men. Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, further on..........
Very true: as usual, Blake was rewriting the Bible. His Jerusalem is not
a paradise given to human beings from above, but one which they must build
for themselves, on earth. And his Jerusalem may end up as the bride of
Jesus (the Lamb), but what's more important to me is that she's the
Emanation of Albion and the means through which human beings "converse" at
the end of the poem: the essence of human community, also called
"Liberty."
Randall, does this mean you're going to start reading those loathsome long
prophecies? (I ask that tongue-in-cheek, of course.)
Jennifre Michael
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 11:43:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: Greg Sturgeon
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Merde Encore...
Message-Id:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
You know, my take on all this "Blake was/n't a Druid" stuff is that it's a
really good example of bad logic and rhetoric. Just asserting that Blake
*could* have been something because there's no proof that he wasn't does
not *prove* the first claim. Bill Clinton *could* be a closet homosexual;
there's no evidence that he's not, is there?
And relying on someone's website as "proof" is really suspect, in my book.
All it takes is an opinion and a modem, and presto! You've got a way to
offer "proof" of anything. No single source is likely to be taken as
proof of anything; no one should say Blake was anything when all they have
is one source to suuport it. (I haven't seen the homepage SylvanBear
pointed to, so I don't know exactly how its author arranges the "proof.")
And finally, I really don't think this topic is worth all the vituperative
energy being expended. Yeah, OK, Blake *could* have been a Druid. He
*could* have preferred coffee to tea; he *could* have been a freemason.
There are so many things he *could* have been that no one can prove, that
it ultimately becomes pointlessly solipsistic to read his poetry according
to such propositions.
Greg Sturgeon
c647679@showme.missouri.edu
http://www.missouri.edu/~c647679
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 10:17:57 -0700
From: David Rollison
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Last post?
Message-Id: <336A21C3.4F92@marin.cc.ca.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
There is nothing at all immature about Tom Dillingham's post here, and
nothing mean-spirited either. His point is well-taken and, actually, an
important "rule" of discourse.
SylvanBear@aol.com wrote:
>
> This is a letter I recieved from Mr. Dillingham after my last post. I tried
> to end the argument, but I guess he doesn't have the maturity he thinks he
> does...
>
> <<
> Mr. SylvanBear--Your weaselly and smirking post will not impress anyone
> who is able to read (that does not include Mr. Albright). You most
> certainly did not say that Blake *COULD* have been a Druid, you said
> that you had discovered that he *WAS* a Druid for 20 years. You then
> continued to assert that you had "evidence" that supported your
> assertion, though you did not provide any such evidence. You claim
> (with no evidence to support it) that you have had many supporting
> e-mails. You may have noticed that there were some to the list that
> did not support you, though you do not acknowledge that. I also have
> had several supportive e-mails off the list--perhaps you would like
> to see them. If you want to enter a serious discussion, you need
> to be prepared to express yourself precisely and to offer supporting
> evidence where needed. You attempted something else altogether and
> got called on it. It's too bad that your efforts led to conflict, but
> your effort to pretend that your opening statements were innocent rather
> than provocative and adversarial will not wash with anyone who read them.
> My first dismissive post was an effort to avoid precisely what developed--
> an exchange of insults (inevitable) over a non-issue. There is a member
> of the list (William Franklin) who has done significant recent research
> on the subject of Celtic backgrounds in Blake, including Druidic influences,
> such as they are. His work is not fantasy but fact. Maybe you could
> exchange views with him. (Perhaps you already have.) Just keep in
> mind that there is a rhetorical difference between making an assertion
> of "fact" and offering a hypothesis to be explored and discussed.
> Tom Dillingham
>
> >>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 10:28:34 -0700
From: "Charlie K."
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Quote
Message-Id: <199705021725.KAA04598@gost1.indirect.com>
[from the OED...]
DRUID
1. One of an order of men among the ancient Celts of Gaul and
Britain, who, according to Caesar were priests or religious
ministers and teachers, but who figure in native Irish and Welsh
legend as magicians, sorcerers, soothsayers, and the like. (The
English use follows Latin sources, whence it was derived, rather
than native Celtic usage.) In early use always in plural.
2. Hence in some modern applications. a. A priest, religious
minister, chaplain. b. A philosophic bard or poet.
c. The appellation of some officers of the Welsh Gorsedd.
d. 'United Ancient Order of Druids', a secret benefit society
founded in London in 1781, and having now numerous lodges called
'groves' in the United Kingdom, America, the Colonies, etc.
3. attrib. or as adj. Of or belonging to the Druids, Druidic.
Druid stone, sandstone, the stone of which Stonehenge is
constructed, grey-weather.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 14:31:55 -0400
From: albright@world.std.com (R.H. Albright)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: All Religions Are One
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
"Forgive what you do not approve, & love me
for this energetic exertion of my talent."
---William Blake, Jerusalem 3,
quoted in the dedication page to Geoffrey Keynes by
S. Foster Damon, _A Blake Dictionary_
And to think I actually LOVE this quote from "Jerusalem"...........
Or how about this one?
"As all men are alike (tho' infinitely various), So all Religions,
&, as all similars, have one source."
---Principle VII, "All Religions Are One"
-Randall Albright
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 13:34:44 -0500 (EST)
From: WATT
To: BLAKE@albion.com
Subject: Bravo Tom Dill
Message-Id: <8944341302051997/A14539/RUTH/11B513622700*@MHS>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Thank you Tom for your gentle reminder. I am rather more
close-minded, I think, than you are since I follow the example of others
on the list and simply delete all messages I receive with obvious flags on
them like, for instance, "Blake was a [fill in the blank]" or "Query: Was
Blake's Tyger a [fill in the Blank]. I simply don't have time for them. From
time to time, though, I open one of these flagged messages just to see if
something important is going on. Usually it is only after I have seen
several names I recognize (like yours, Ralph's, Jennifer's, Pam's, etc.). I
think it is good for us to be reminded that William Blake attracts nut cases;
so did [and does] Jesus. And sometimes you can learn from them. I
won't quote the obvious proverb here, in this case the more appropriate
one is: No bird soars too high. if he soars with his own wings. Again, thanks
for making the effort on behalf of the rest of us. Jim Watt, Indianapolis, IN
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 13:43:50 -0500 (EST)
From: WATT
To: Blake@albion.com
Subject: RE: Private E-Mails and DEAD MAN
Message-Id: <7850431302051997/A14697/RUTH/11B5136B2D00*@MHS>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Randall: don't be so hard on poor Tom D. As to the "long-winded" epics,
I don't know if you're right or wrong. What I _do_ know is that W.B. spent a
considerable part of his valuable time, composing, designing, etching,
printing and finishing them. Before I'd line myself up with the scholars who
find the epic poems "disappointing," I'd ask myself who is disappointed
--and why? I used to think they were harder to teach than the Songs and
MHH --but lately they haven't even been that. It could be that we are
finally catching up to them? Jim Watt
--------------------------------
End of blake-d Digest V1997 Issue #53
*************************************