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. Nancy >>> [log in to unmask] 09/12/05 10:55 AM >>> Carrol, I wonder if the destruction of the anagogical mind is a "positive achievement". 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. ~ CR 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) social hierarchy. It is true that anagogical modes of thought produced great art. But so have (and will) other modes. Carrol --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.