Print

Print


Dear CR: The excerpt you sent that mentioned the Incarnation illuminated the passage from Four Quartets for me. I'm satisfied that by being in time Eliot means being in the body, and that the rose-garden and the church and other earthly locations are settings for the body to unite with spirit in mystical experience.

I come to this interpretation based on my understanding of how Christianity can divide the self -- soul and body. The Christian religion includes the vision of  a rift in being, the body being seen sometimes as an enemy of or obstacle to salvation or enlightenment -- that is what I think his "not to be in time" vs "in time" is saying, for only in the body are we in time.

As I said, Joyce had his own way of dealing with this split, in life as well as in his writings. It's been a very productive discussion. If we hang in there and don't give up in frustration, we will get closer to understanding Eliot's secrets! Persistence pays off! Best, 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 09:41:32 -0800

All the same, I'm sorry for my previous post -- it was decidedly
  
one "false note". I shall be grateful if you [and the List] could
  
expunge it from our discussion and, instead consider this:
  
 
  
Diana,
  
 
  
Your statement [2] below is an absolute crystallization of
  
the moment of intersection of time and timelessness. This
  
is the moment I have been waiting for in our argument.
  
I think we have "arrived" :)
  
 
  
Regards.
  
 
  
~ CR 
  
 
  


Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
  
  
  
  
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"
    
 
    
and
    
 
    
[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
http://mail.yahoo.com




Get FREE Web site and company branded e-mail from Microsoft Office Live