>>> Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> 08/01/07 8:22 AM >>> 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. And yet the alternative assumptions do the same. Who decided there is a god who wants your criteria? > 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? no. > 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. It assumes no such thing. Read his poem to Valerie. Who said there was no connection as opposed to spirit without sensuality? Thanks, Ken A.