It is quite possible to acknowledge, as I do, that the experiences
mystics describe occur and even that they bring kinds of knowledge and
deep experience, without assuming that the only way to explain them is a
god or to extrapolate from them a set of rules and formulae for life.
Eliot objected to William James because he psychologized religion, but
one can also argue that Eliot and others might well have made the
psychological sacred. Certainly Eliot's own psychology was intensely
present in his work and he knew well the language of the then-current
psychological explanations for what he depicted. That he later turned
to ritual (and that seems to have mattered deeply if not most to him)
does not remove the earlier frameworks he used.
>>> [log in to unmask] 09/12/05 10:55 AM >>>
I wonder if the destruction of the anagogical mind is a "positive
It would perhaps be better to view the point in a wider perspective than
to be depricative of either side. As Russell said, "I don't at all
discard what belongs to mysticism, but I feel it is rather an
inspiration and a refuge in great moments than a mood to live in while
one has difficult work to do." Your other observation, "It is true that
anagogical modes of thought produced great art. But so have (and will)
other modes." should be welcome.
Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Peter Montgomery wrote:
> The anagogical mind is dead?
One of the very few positive achievements of capitalism was bringing
about this destruction. It is a mind that can only arise within the
brutalities of the feudal world and its fixed (and seemingly visible)
It is true that anagogical modes of thought produced great art. But so
have (and will) other modes.
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.