Sounds an awful lot like one of Joyce's epiphanies, esp. as defined in
his STEPHEN HERO:
"This triviality made him think of collecting many such moments together
in a book of epiphanies. By an epiphany he meant 'a sudden spiritual
manifestation, whether in the vulgarity of speech or of gesture or in a
memorable phase of the mind itself. He believed that it was for the man
of letters to record these epiphanies with extreme care, seeing that
they themselves are the most delicate and evanescent of moments. He told
Cranly that the clock of the Ballast Office was capable of an epiphany.
Cranly questioned the inscrutable dial of the Ballast Office with his no
less inscrutable countenance:
-Yes, said Stephen. I will pass it time after time, allude to it, refer
to it, catch a glimpse of it. It is only an item in the catalogue of
Dublin's street furniture. Then all at once I see it and I know at once
what it is: epiphany.
Epihany also comes into the character of a Thomistic article (a disputation
perhaps a medieval equivalent to the modern essay). The following is from
an essay by McLuhan, I believe. I don't have any publication info on it,
which suggests it was not published. It is relevant because of the
of Aquinass on Joyce:
The third component of the Thomistic article always begins with the
words, Sed contra...,[Peter's note: roughly means: "On the other hand",
or "But to the contrary"] and offers a statement of the true path. The
words may come from Thomas's own reason or from an indisputable
authority. (Occasionally, the Sed contra takes the form of another
extreme view—the authority's—which is not always in harmony with
Thomas's own views.) This is the elocutio moment, that of showing-forth
or bestowing of right reason. It is normally brief, having the character
Vishvesh Obla wrote:
>I don't want to 'define' what 'poetry' is, nor do I
>think one can make any description of what it is,
>without falsifying it. One only perceives it by the
>sense of 'life' that one acquires (And Caroll, I know
>very well that you don't understand what 'Life' is,
>either, by some remarks you made on Leavis once).
>I would even say that it is easier to perceive it in
>its non-existence as expounded beautifully in the
>sanskrit phrase 'neti, neti' of the Upanishads.
>Anyway, for starters, this passage from D.H.Lawrence
>reflects what I have in my mind:
>'When Van Gogh paints sunflowers, he reveals, or
>achieves, the vivid relation between himself, as man,
>and the sunflower, as sunflower, at that quick moment
>of time. . . . The vision on the canvas is a third
>thing . . . the offspring of the sunflower itself and
>Van Gogh himself. [It] is forever incommensurable with
>the canvas, or the paint, or Van Gogh as a human
>organism, or the sunflower as a botanical organism. .
>. It is a revelation ...'
>--- Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>Nancy Gish wrote:
>>>You assume you know what the "poem" is and that it
>>has nothing to do
>>>with its historical context. [clip]
>>Vishvesh had written:
>>> you were bringing in such
>>>facts which more often do divert from than focus
>>Vishvesh, I don't have the foggiest idea what you
>>mean by "the 'poem.'"
>>Could you forget for a moment what does and does not
>>divert from that
>>mystic essence and tell us a little about what
>>(according to you) "the
>>poem" is. And why in the devil did you put _poem_
>>in scare quotes?
>>We can't talk about the poem with someone who fails
>>to say anything
>>about it while accusing everyone else of diverting
>>us form that mystical
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 4/5/2005