At 10:35 PM 7/31/2007, Nancy Gish wrote: >I am fascinated with studies of and ideas about consciousness, and I do >not see any reason why a god who created it--presuming one--would do so >only for it to be dissolved. This presents the interesting proposition that a god would meet your criteria. While I hope it is in some way true that so marvelous a thing as consciousness, or more exactly, individual consciousness, is not, like so much of 20th/21st cent Western culture, disposable, I don't find much value in creatures prescribing to their creator what his purpose must be. > It would make for a pretty dull eternity I >should think. Fortunately for Eliot, his poetry really is not grounded >in it--he talks about it but does not claim to have it. I am trying to follow this and it seems to say Eliot does not have consciousness. Is that correct? > Even in "Ash >Wednesday" the narrator (it has one) keeps talking about wanting to find >peace and stillness and keeps looking back with desire and nostalgia. I >think it interesting that Eliot was never really happy until he married >Valerie; it would seem that only sensual experience ever did provide his >garden. Leaving aside whether Eliot was never really happy, this assumes that marriage is first or primarily physical, or more simply, that another person's major impact is physical, but I see no reason that it should not be spiritual (of which I take the psychological to be a somewhat watered down subspecies). The sensual without the spiritual still seems to sum out to zero, or less than. Thanks, Ken A.