Today's Topics:
PSYCHO-SOCIAL REPRESSION AND THE MISSING CONVERSATION
RE: Ralph's questions
Re: Innocence and Experience
The Missing Conversation
RE: re. Ralph's questions
Re: symbolic or literal? -Reply
OT: Beyond Words -Reply
Re: Belligerent Blakeans -Reply
PSYCHO-SOCIAL REPRESSION AND THE MISSING CONVERSATION -Reply
Re: Belligerent Blakeans -Reply
Re: The Missing Conversation
RE: re. Ralph's questions
Re: Belligerent Blakeans -Reply
Blake's outbursts
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ralph Dumain
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: PSYCHO-SOCIAL REPRESSION AND THE MISSING CONVERSATION
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19980914131800.0e6f16ec@pop.igc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I started writing this on Friday, just after I learned I mistakenly sent a
private post to the whole list, which, as there was no sensitive information
in it, did not do any harm anyway. Writing this became too laborious an
effort so I shelved it for the time being, but Paul Tarry's latest reminds
me that perhaps I should finish it, even though it's mostly off-topic. I
was going to mention that I have no intention of carrying the recent
acrimonious discussion any further than I have in that direction. I do feel
the obligation to try to turn a negative into something productive. Life is
full of uncanny coincidences, which Blake termed miracles, and one of them
occurred on Friday. Just after I fired off my last nasty posts, I received
a long distance phone call from a friend who desperately needed some
feedback from an intelligent interlocutor on a matter that was depressing him.
It was about his phone conversation with a friend in the midwest who just
lost her young son in a car accident, caused by his reckless speeding at 100
miles an hour. My friend was terribly depressed because her psychological
reaction exemplified the emotional repression and low self-esteem that
characterized this woman's personality and a behavior as a whole. Worse, it
is likely that the reason this young fool got himself killed in a car crash
is because the male car culture is itself a manifestation of the inability
of people to express their emotions any other way, hence the cult of
adrenalin and speed. This is consistent with a pervasive mentality in that
region of the country, which the residents of one of its states term
"Minnesota Nice". That is, superficial politeness and gentility on the
outside, a phony persona of goodwill masking tightly compressed frustration,
hatred, and ill-will, in a medium where one is terrified of the slightest
personal conflict, so one represses oneself in relating to the outside
world, but then at home resorts to alcoholism, abusing family members, etc.
There is also an ethnic factor, being that a large proportion of the
population of this area consists of emotionally constipated Nordic types
whose only emotional outlet is alcohol, speeding cars, etc. They all nurse
unacted desires, so they are all emotional cripples.
How this manifested itself in this woman's case is multivarious, but the
denial of her own emotions, of her own right to be on this earth, led her to
comment on her son's death: "he's in a better place now". This was the
final blow that creeped my friend out completely and me too.
Aside from my dislike of religious people on G.P., the real issue is
religion in its social context. It's not just an abstraction. This woman
was not expressing a generic religious belief. Her son was only 21. He was
not dying of cancer, suffering from some horribly painful, terminal
diseased, he was not a paraplegic, he was not paralyzed from the neck down,
he was not starving to death like some refugee from Bangladesh, he was not a
terrorized war victim in Bosnia. He led a perfectly comfortable life. So
if he's in a better place now, being dead before he had a chance to live,
what does that say about the self-esteem of the person uttering such a
phrase? And how can one have a rational, or even a human conversation, with
a person so estranged from her own being? That a middle-class person could
so lower her expectations of her own life is a profound example of the
horrible dehumanization that the entire population has undergone since
Reagan became president in 1981.
This is what was eating my friend up, and I was extremely perturbed as well,
because the condition exemplified in this story is so pervasive in so many
ways. You think you can have a rational conversation as equals with other
people, and then you realize that you cannot do so no matter what tone you
take--friendly, unfriendly, polite, hostile, sympathetic, critical,
whatever--because there is an unspoken reality which necessarily blocks all
communication. The overt conversation one attempts to have is not a real
conversation. The reason that communication is blocked is that the mind has
numbed itself, retreating from the overwhelming reality that faces it but
that it cannot face. The mind regresses into a rigid, primitive state,
taking refuge in positions it cannot reasonably hold, in the face of its own
experience even. You can't say anything that will get through under those
circumstances.
My friend added to these observations by saying: and this is the real
conversation we should all be having; it takes precedence over all other
malfunctioning conversations. This is _the_ topic of discussion.
It's not just a matter of constipated midwesterners; it's a universal
problem. Where is that conversation that is not taking place but in the
final analysis is really all there is to discuss?
I'll leave it for you to fill in the implications for what is going on in
the Blake list. But just imagine, if it's this bad for us here today, what
must it have been like 200 years ago, and how could an intelligent person
have endured it? A person who is too sane for the society he is living in
can be driven crazy, or at least be driven to the edge now and again. Too
bad our good Dr. F can't devote his attention to this, but then that is the
ethos of bourgeois professionalism: always separate yourself and your
expertise from the surrounding conditions in which you function so that you
need never hold them or yourself to account. Pyscho-social repression is
the issue, one which Blake faced, one which we face, and one which disables
the human mind, yielding senselessness and absurdity.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:44:42
From: Izak Bouwer
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: RE: Ralph's questions
Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19980914134442.3997571a@igs.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 12:23 PM 9/14/98 +0200, Huw Edwards wrote:
>Doesn't the truth simply present itself. Are you
>suggesting that it is>hidden in some way?
I always try, as far as possible and without
destroying context, to refer people to Blake himself.
In his description of his drawing "A Vision of the Last
Judgment" he discusses what he means by truth and error
in some depth. For instance:
"Truth is Eternal. Error, or Creation, will be Burned up,
& then, & not till Then, Truth or Eternity will appear."
(_VLJ_ K617)
It is clear that Blake does not mean by truth our
everyday truths ("I saw him steal the wallet") or
rational truth (of the "2+2=4" or theoretical type --
Blake says:
"General Knowledges are those Knowledges that Idiots
possess." [_Anno. Reynolds_ K451] ),
but 'spiritual truth.' This kind of truth is
notoriously well hidden:
"The Nature of Visionary Fancy, or Imagination, is
very little Known, & the Eternal nature & permanence
of its ever Existent Images is consider'd as less
permanent than the things of Vegetative & Generative
Nature ..." (_VLJ_ K605)
>What kind >of cultivation of understanding are you
>suggesting - >an intellectual one? Or perhaps a more
>meditative >approach?
"Men are admitted into Heaven not because they have
curbed & govern'd their Passions or have No Passions,
but because they have Cultivated their Understandings."
(_VLJ_K615)
How can Blake's world of the Spirit be accessed?
Some of his most fundamental statements involve the
ideas of "Self-annihilation" and "Forgiveness of Sin."
What kind of approach would you say is needed to
realize this?
>Jeez, I hope you're not saying that Blake>is out of my
>reach simply because I have no idea what he's on about
>most>of the time. >I am interested more in the mechanics;
>nouns and verbs;>trochees and spondees etc. Does this
>still qualify me as a valid>Blakean?
What is remarkable to me is that Blake is relevant to
people with such a variety of interests: Marxists,
those interested in the Kabbalah, and in Eastern religions,
etc. etc. In my opinion not enough work is done in
analyzing Blake's literary style, and the construction
of his poems. I for one would appreciate it if you
could write a little more about this aspect of Blake
studies.
hamba kahle,
Izak Bouwer
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 19:34:30 EDT
From: NorNob@aol.com
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Innocence and Experience
Message-Id: <708609a7.35fda806@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi, Henrietta, hope you found an advisor in time, etc. Just one thing about
your latest contribution. German uses the term "Literaturwissenschaft", aka
"literary science". I suppose it depends on just what you mean by science,
but if you take it in its original Latin sence of "knowledge", then it simply
means "knowledge or study of literature" and nothing at all grandious. Hope
all is well. My trip to Germany was rewarding. Ron Javorsky
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:18:10
From: Izak Bouwer
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: The Missing Conversation
Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19980914221810.3e076b50@igs.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear Ralph,
Please take note, this posting is by Gloudina Bouwer.
Below is an excerpt of a posting you made a while ago. It is for
this kind of "argument" that I read everything you say with
great attention. You are a valuable member on this list.
However, I find it really offensive when you spout irrelevant
insults at individuals and, lately, racial slurs against people
in your own country. It seems to me that you are trying to be
both schoolyard bully and serious Blake student at the same time.
Unfortunately, you cause people not to take your very legitimate
opinions very seriously. So I challenge you : please leave off
all the grandstanding and changing of subjects and abuse, and
get back to the subject, which is Blake.
Ralph Dumain wrote:
> One of the keys to understanding how
>Blake's thoughts are put together is to understand how Blake uses his
>religious resources (rather than a competing mundane philosophical
>tradition, which if it even existed, was not available to him) to combat
>empiricism and mechanical materialism. Though I am getting a bit off the
>track, it's also essential to remember that Blake's opposition to "reason"
>is an opposition to all kinds of theology besides natural theology and not
>just an opposition to natural science. One of the problems regarding the
>"symbolic" vs. the "literal" is to always keep in mind that the only thing
>"literal" that matters to Blake is human subjectivity, the capacity of the
>mind to be free of certain repressive restraints. He neither knew or cared
>one way or the other about the specific content of the physical theories of
>Newton or Descartes or any of them. Rather, Blake sussed out the overall
>ideological functioning of these ideas in society and attacked them on the
>plane of ideology without bothering to separate out the scientific from the
>ideological content. This is just one of Blake's many conflation in seeking
>to bypass liberalism and the Enlightenment. To me this is as plain as day,
>intuitively obvious, but there is plenty of evidence for me to prove my case.
Gloudina Bouwer
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 09:41:17 +0200
From: Huw Edwards
To: "'blake@albion.com'"
Subject: RE: re. Ralph's questions
Message-Id: <71B7CE499BB9D111909A0060B03C49A115E5BB@netchevy.publicis.co.za>
Content-Type: text/plain
> ----------
OK, point taken. This is hardly doing anyone any good. Shit,
this is quite a baptism of fire. In the first instance I was merely
referring to Ralph's penchant for using such pleasantries as Idiots,
Von Schlock, and Swami Asshole. (By the way Ralph, that should be Swami
Assholeananda. Let's at least observe the forms.)
Much as I enjoy exercising my powers of abuse, I'm here to learn
more about Blake. Someone told me to study Blake as an example of the
simple use of nouns and verbs, so here I am.
Thanks Izak, for your reply. And yes, I can see your point about
accessing Blake's spiritual world. Those are very vedic principles you
mention. Personally, I believe that spiritual truth is hidden by the
intellect. But maybe that's just in defense of ignorance.
Huw
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:31:41 +0200
From: P Van Schaik
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: symbolic or literal? -Reply
Message-Id:
I think it will be clear to whom the epithets used by Ralph really apply if I
reword his responses as follows:
I note that in recent weeks Mr Leger-de-main (who elicits insults by
continually insulting others ) has gotten nastier, more
irascible, more disconnected, more obtuse and unreasonable than ever,
starting with his hysterical responses to my very restrained responses
to his insults. If he weren't so psychologically crippled, I would have
taken him down a long time ago, but I've been restraining myself. I think
it's best to disengage myself completely at this point. It would be best if
we carry on multiple conversations on this list at one time and try to stick
to some and stay outof others.
I DO try not to reply to Mr Tom Dillingsham and LEger-de-main, but their
snide insults are meant to raise a sneer at the expense of others, and
though these should be ignored, the temptation to reply to such
occasionally becomes overwhelming. Mostly, I think this list has been
very tolerant of their mental sleight of hand and slander.
At 10:17 AM 9/11/98 +0200, P Van Schaik wrote:
>Mr leger-de-main is at it again
>THinking only he has a brain.
>
>Even doggerel can convey meaning clearly.
Pam
>Blake himself thought that what he wrote described literal reality, like
>the Prophets of old:
>The Prophets describe what they saw in visions as real and existing
>men, whom they saw with their imaginative and immortal organs...
>(Decriptive Catalogue, 37)
Again, you've contradicted yourself. Imaginative and immortal organs,
real
or not, are not the literal organs we're all talking about. Your
imaginative liver, spleen, kidneys, gall bladder, etc., are not the same as
your physical giblets. Blake does not confuse the physical and
imaginative,
as you do when you blather what you don't know about quantum
mechanics.
>I see Albion sitting upon his Rock in the first Winter,
>And thence I see the Chaos of Satan & the World of Adam...(Jerusalem
I)
>
>In order to open the eyes of mortals to the inward worlds within them
>which expand into Eternity, Blake has to visualise on the stage of his
>mind the entire Fall, while at the same time, making it clear what he
thinks
>of the mean-spirited minds he encounters in the Schools, Universities
>and Churches of the world. So here, the symbolic and literal worlds
>are blended into poetic drama which is intended to free the mind from
>prejudice.
Which does not contradict my point at all. You are getting more obtuse,
inattentive, and disconnected by the second.
>When Leger-demain calls any spiritual observation slop, then the
ongoing
>battle between building and destroying Golgonooza/Jerusalem is
>resumed. And whenever anyone scores a point against him he calls
>foul by sneering and name-calling.
You'd be better off standing in front of the mirror and repeating the
above
paragraph. Your writing is slop, self-serving, self-referential. There's
no accountability. Nobody is abridging your right to free speech, so keep
on blathering away. But you don't get a blank check to spout your
deranged,
small and provincial piffle while everybody else stands silent. Keep on
baying at the moon with Swami Asshole, Randy Allblight, and the rest of
your
juvenile jamboree. I'll not interfere. Just stay out of my conversations
if you can.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:02:51 +0200
From: P Van Schaik
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: OT: Beyond Words -Reply
Message-Id:
Dear Paul
Thanks for venturing so sincere a posting on so dangerous a board. In
response, I'd like to venture the following - a few lines I wrote long
ago:
WORDS
I wish that words could glow
Like anenomes in snow
That they could enlume
Every dark corner of one's being
And like the dove's plume
Denote that which is holy.
******
I think it was Italo Calvino who, in one of his novels , declared that we
are all looking for the holy word (something to release us from our sole
selves) in what we read and I think this is true. Sad, then, that we all
have to succumb to the heavy doses of violence thrust at us on TV
where every 20 seconds someone is pointing a gun (and trying to take
someone else down) , and to a concomitant general rudeness in most
public places.
I found the people in Australia an exception to this ... consistently
generous of spirit and full of laughter. So, if you are looking for a break
from nastiness, consider going there for a holiday.
Pam
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:10:19 +0200
From: P Van Schaik
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Belligerent Blakeans -Reply
Message-Id:
It is true that Blake voices strong opinions about those with whom he
disagrees, but I can't equate that with `laying viciously' into anyone.
Blake uses words as weapons to lay open the heart to inward worlds
and those who hinder his using words, as Jesus used parables, are
seen for who they are, but without his being guilty of inward
viciousness. I find his compassion too strong to impute such to him.
PAm
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:00:38 +0200
From: P Van Schaik
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: PSYCHO-SOCIAL REPRESSION AND THE MISSING CONVERSATION -Reply
Message-Id:
Re : "he's in a better place now".
Blake may have retorted:
All is not Sin that Satan calls so: all the Loves & Graces of Eternity.
(Laocoon)
Ralph says:"Aside from my dislike of religious people, the real issue is
religion in its social context. It's not just an abstraction. "
You would have to include Blake among these, so why do you choose
this particular forum for venting your anger at those who love Blake for
his spiritual wisdom?
If the mother believes, as Blake does, that the True Self is eternal, how
can you be so discomfited by her that you regard her as a ` person so
estranged from her own being' that she makes you feel sick?
Blake set out to write poetry to uplift the soul:
Spiritual War: ... is Art deliver'd from Nature and Imitation. (Laocoon)
He also wrote a very moving letter to someone who had lost her son.
There are very opposed views of what Blake 's vision of time and
eternity are online. Now, I know that I, and many other readers of Blake
am not blocking my mind to Blake's vision of the Eternal Man, so those
who do so seem best to fit Ralph's description:. when he says:
" The overt conversation one attempts to have is not a real
conversation. The reason that communication is blocked is that the mind
has numbed itself, retreating from the overwhelming reality that faces it
but that it cannot face. The mind regresses into a rigid, primitive state,
taking refuge in positions it cannot reasonably hold, in the face of its own
experience even. You can't say anything that will get through under
those circumstances."
At the end of The Book of Urizen, Blake describes all the fallen children
of Albion in very similar terms when, under Urizen's scaly eyes, they all
forget their former divine existence
He also laments lost Innocence in The Book of Los:
O Times remote!
When love & joy were adoration,
And none impure were deem'd. ( Plate 3)
Instead of perpetually accusing others of being impure, Ralph, in your
own words "this is the real conversation we should all be having; it
takes precedence over all other malfunctioning conversations. This is
_the_ topic of discussion. It's not just a matter of constipated
midwesterners; it's a universal problem. Where is that conversation that
is not taking place but in the final analysis is really all there is to discuss?
'
I am tired of being called names for trying to fill in the gaps that Mr Ralph
and Mr Tom leave out of Blake. Wouldn't Walt Whitman be more the
type of poet to discuss if you believe that Blake is interested only in this
world? Or Wordsworth? Or, if you insist on your Blake, then do start an
edition of him, as I suggested earlier, online, in which all can see what
you most admire in the poet.... just excise all the spiritual bits that you
don't like.
Pam
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:15:11 +0100
From: timli@controls.eurotherm.co.uk (Tim Linnell)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: Belligerent Blakeans -Reply
Message-Id: <199809151114.MAA03497@merlot.controls.eurotherm.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>It is true that Blake voices strong opinions about those with whom he
>disagrees, but I can't equate that with `laying viciously' into anyone.
Pam, this is a quite astonishing statement! Apart from the quote I gave
about Fuseli, there are countless examples of Blake being extraordinarily
vicious, many of which make Ralph's insults look rather tame (and some of
which give Blake's take on the discussions over the last few days). For=
example:
To H[ayley]
You think Fuseli is not a Great Painter Im Glad=20
This is one of the best compliments he ever had=20
The Sussex Men are Noted Fools=20
And weak is their brain pan=20
I wonder if H----the painter=A0=A0
Is not a Sussex Man=20
Swelld limbs with no outline that you can descry=20
That Stink in the Nose of a Stander by=20
But all the Pulp washd painted finishd with labour=20
Of an hundred journeymens how dye do Neighbour=20
I mock thee not tho I by thee am Mocked=20
Thou callst me Madman but I call thee Blockhead=20
Hes a Blockhead who wants a proof of what he Can't Percieve=20
And he's a Fool who tries to make such a Blockhead believe=A0
A Petty sneaking Knave I knew=20
Mr Cr---- how do ye do=20
You must agree that Rubens was a Fool=20
And yet you make him master of Your School=20
And give more money for his Slobberings=20
Than you will give for Rafaels finest Things=20
The Great Bacon he is Calld I call him the Little Bacon=A0=A0=20
says that Every Thing must be done by Experiment his first
princip[le] is Unbelief And Yet here he says that Art must be
producd Without such Method. He is Like Sr Joshu[a] full of
Self-Contradiction & Knavery=20
This is just a sample, and are gratuitious insults, not just strongly
expressed disapproval. Far from being ways of 'laying open the heart to
inward worlds', these remarks are simply outbursts of impulsive anger or
expressions of deeply rooted beliefs and prejudices. As such there is no
essential difference between Blake's remarks and the discussions on this
list, which was the point at issue.
I am rather afraid that in attempting to deny Blake's angry passionate side
(which led of course to much of the violent and angry imagery in the
Prophetic works), you are guilty of reinventing Blake in a form in which you
wish him to be, ignoring or fudging the evidence to the contrary to suit
your thesis. Passion and unreasoned anger are as much a part of what made
Blake magnificent and unique as his undoubted compassion and his love for
children (for example).
Tim
>Blake uses words as weapons to lay open the heart to inward worlds
>and those who hinder his using words, as Jesus used parables, are
>seen for who they are, but without his being guilty of inward
>viciousness. I find his compassion too strong to impute such to him.
>PAm
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:40:12 -0400
From: "c. c. carpenter II"
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Re: The Missing Conversation
Message-Id: <35FE602C.F4035866@brysonweb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
unsubscribe ccc@damn.com
Izak Bouwer wrote:
> Dear Ralph,
> Please take note, this posting is by Gloudina Bouwer.
>
> Below is an excerpt of a posting you made a while ago. It is for
> this kind of "argument" that I read everything you say with
> great attention. You are a valuable member on this list.
>
> However, I find it really offensive when you spout irrelevant
> insults at individuals and, lately, racial slurs against people
> in your own country. It seems to me that you are trying to be
> both schoolyard bully and serious Blake student at the same time.
> Unfortunately, you cause people not to take your very legitimate
> opinions very seriously. So I challenge you : please leave off
> all the grandstanding and changing of subjects and abuse, and
> get back to the subject, which is Blake.
>
> Ralph Dumain wrote:
> > One of the keys to understanding how
> >Blake's thoughts are put together is to understand how Blake uses his
> >religious resources (rather than a competing mundane philosophical
> >tradition, which if it even existed, was not available to him) to combat
> >empiricism and mechanical materialism. Though I am getting a bit off the
> >track, it's also essential to remember that Blake's opposition to "reason"
> >is an opposition to all kinds of theology besides natural theology and not
> >just an opposition to natural science. One of the problems regarding the
> >"symbolic" vs. the "literal" is to always keep in mind that the only thing
> >"literal" that matters to Blake is human subjectivity, the capacity of the
> >mind to be free of certain repressive restraints. He neither knew or cared
> >one way or the other about the specific content of the physical theories of
> >Newton or Descartes or any of them. Rather, Blake sussed out the overall
> >ideological functioning of these ideas in society and attacked them on the
> >plane of ideology without bothering to separate out the scientific from the
> >ideological content. This is just one of Blake's many conflation in seeking
> >to bypass liberalism and the Enlightenment. To me this is as plain as day,
> >intuitively obvious, but there is plenty of evidence for me to prove my case.
>
> Gloudina Bouwer
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:15:38 -0500
From: RPYODER@ualr.edu
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: RE: re. Ralph's questions
Message-Id: <980915081538.20c1918d@ualr.edu>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Huw,
I don't know who sent you to Blake to look at his "simple use of nouns and
verbs," but it must have been a joke. Blake's use of nouns and verbs is hardly
simple, even as early as "Infant Joy" ("I happy am"), and it only gets more
complicated as he goes. As it happens, I think Blake is much simpler than
most people tend to think -- in my most cynical moments I think the "Blake
industry" has a certain stake in perpetuating the image of Blake as hopelessly
obscure -- probably something to do with a sort of academic priesthood. (And,
yes, BTW, I am a tenured academic myself.) But Blake's use of nouns and verbs
fascinating as it is, his hardly simple.
Welcome to the jungle, tigers, lambs, leviathan and all.
Paul Yoderr
(scratch that last r)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 98 16:18:32 +0100 ( + )
From: Paul Tarry
To: Blake Group , Blake Group
Subject: Re: Belligerent Blakeans -Reply
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Tim typed:
>As such there is no essential difference between Blake's remarks
>and the discussions on this list, which was the point at issue.
I think there is an essential difference, Blake's outbursts were private
and for his eyes only.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:57:15 -0500
From: tomdill@wc.stephens.edu (TOM DILLINGHAM)
To: blake@albion.com
Subject: Blake's outbursts
Message-Id: <98091511571540@wc.stephens.edu>
It is not at all clear, as Paul Tarry suggests, that Blakes vituperative
comments were "private and for his eyes only." We know that he incorporte
d materials from his notebooks into his "published" works and that some
of his angry comments were written in letters to others. Under the
circumstances, it is not at all clear that he would have confined his
remarks to his private diaries and notebooks. As for Ms. Van Schaik's
preposterous and pathetic efforts to extricate herself from her own
incessant self-contradictions, one can only assume that she is trying
to provide an ongoing illustration of the fate of a mind trapped in
its own conflicting desires. Her repetition of _tu quoque_ every
time her failures of logic, common sense, or common courtesy are
pointed out indicate the "endless round" she must tread.
Tom Dillingham
--------------------------------
End of blake-d Digest V1998 Issue #65
*************************************