Dear CR: My point, not very well-made, was that I don't see that you make a distinction between an experience of the still-point by a disembodied, out-of-time consciousness and as experienced by a living being who is in the body and in time. Eliot does make the distinction. Diana

From:  cr mittal <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:  "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
To:  [log in to unmask]
Subject:  Re: Four Quartets -- a reading
Date:  Tue, 19 Dec 2006 07:22:25 -0800

Diana, you wrote:
I think by focussing on the phrase "the still point" you are ignoring
the distinction Eliot clearly draws between
 [1]  pure fleshless divine "consciousness"
[2]  mystical experience available to incarnated humans who are
not divine, i.e., "we." The Incarnation does not refer only to Christ,
but to God's gift of spirit to all of humanity, the possibility of salvation
by imitating Christ's example of right living and devotion. This is
graphically represented by the Holy Ghost descending
from heaven
into the apostles as "tongues of fire" in the New Testament, spirit
inhabiting flesh, discoverable by the Christ-like.
Now, as per your elucidation, Eliot's lines on "the still point" say
what you are saying in point [2] above.  Isn't it? 
But that's how I have explained those lines all along, haven't I ?
[The difference between point [1] and [2] above is all too obvious
and has no bearing on the exposition of the lines.]
I'm sorry I'll have to look up my earlier posts to see if I said
anything different from what you say in [2] above.
~ CR


Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

Dave vs. Carl: The Insignificant Championship Series.  Who will win?