Print

Print


No need to feel embarrased. We all make boobos.
Remember McLuhan's dictum: break down is break through.

Cheers,
P.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Diana Manister 
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 4:37 PM
  Subject: Re: Eliot on Charles Williams' mysticism


  Thanks Peter; that helps me feel less embarrassed!


  Diana

  Sent from my iPod

  On Mar 26, 2010, at 1:42 AM, Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


    An understandable mistake given the writing style.
    P.
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Diana Manister 
      To: [log in to unmask] 
      Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 10:55 AM
      Subject: Re: Eliot on Charles Williams' mysticism


      Dear Ken,
       
      Yes, you are right and I am wrong. On re-reading the excerpt, it's clear that "Deity" pertains to Love.
       
      I guess that's what Carrol meant when he wrote:
       
      "Huh?

      C"
       
      I deserved that!

      Diana
       
      Diana Manister wrote:
      > 
      > Dear Carrol,
      > 
      > Anathematizing descriptions of mystical experience is at least as old
      > as Lao-Tze, who wrote "Those who speak do not know; those who know do
      > not speak." The Cloud of Unknowing takes this position too, as do many
      > texts on the subject. Is it the Torah that forbids writing the name of
      > God?
      > 
      > Images representing God are proscribed by some religions too, aren't
      > they? Buddhism allows representations of gurus and the Buddha, but
      > they are not images of God.
      > 
      > The discussion we had on the list about worship of the Virgin Mary as
      > a deity being prohibited by the church might be informed by this
      > excerpt:
      > 
      > "The Figure of Beatrice...is a deity of whom most human beings seldom
      > see more than the shadow"
      > 
      > Curioser and curioser.
      > 
      > Diana
      > 

       
      > Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:07:26 -0400
      > From: [log in to unmask]
      > Subject: Re: Eliot on Charles Williams' mysticism
      > To: [log in to unmask]
      > 
      > Diana Manister wrote:
      > >
      > > The discussion we had on the list about worship of the Virgin Mary as 
      > > a deity being prohibited by the church might be informed by this excerpt:
      > > 
      > > "The Figure of Beatrice...is a deity of whom most human beings seldom 
      > > see more than the shadow"
      > > 
      > > Curioser and curioser.
      > Except that your quote isn't what Eliot wrote:
      > 
      > Love, in the
      > meaning which it had for Williams-....-is a deity of whom most human beings
      > seldom see more than the shadow.
      > 
      > "Love," not "the figure of Beatrice," is the subject of "is a deity..."
      > 
      > I didn't really see any ill will per se in Carrol's "mystic" demystification. Just the usual Carroling. Don't tell him I said so.
      > 
      > Ken A


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Learn More.