Print

Print


I am happy to concede the placement. It is just that religion means such different things to different people, and often, given the influence of clich├Ęs, people have no idea what they mean by religion. One distinction may be relevant; ie. the via negative via-a-vis the via positiva. The v. negativa by definition proceeds on the basis of absence, as with prophets and monks etc. spending endless years without all the sacramental helps that religions can provide. Such folk can develop such intense passion that they literally have their heads delivered on a platter as a sort of pizza centrepiece. 
Peter.

Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Frustrating, isn't it, trying to say what it is that poems do 
>essentially that makes them poetry. But you are a little too excitable 
>here. All I did was take the terms already in the thread and ask how 
>they work together in the statement, "Despite the allusions, my reading 
>of that section contains no religion."  I'd still like to know. If the 
>allusions are there, AS ALLUSIONS, what does it mean that the section 
>"contains no religion." I accept the significance of  Peter's challenge 
>question, but I was in line ahead of him....no cuts....:-)
>
>Ken A
>
>On 4/14/2014 9:48 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>> There are _no_ parts of TWL with "religious weight." It seems to me you have no interest in Eliot or in Poetry in general but only in finding  mirrors of your own thought and feeling.
>>
>> I have profound differences with both the pre-Christian and the Christian Eliot -- but it has never interfered with my reading of either. Some of the passages in 4Q which I most treasure are also the most permeated with Christian feeling. I really cannot understand those who look to poems to reflect their own conception of the world.
>>
>> No poem, read carefully, is either Christian or non-Christian; pagan nor non-pagan; Confucian or non-Confucian. Atheist or Theist or X.
>>
>> Poems manifest, imitate, image POSSIBILITIES, not "realities."
>>
>> Carrol
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Armstrong
>> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 5:41 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: The opening lines of 'The Waste Land' via-a-vis Easter
>>
>> On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 11:54:40 -0400, Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>>> The immediate specific justification of a Christian context to the
>>>> opening passage is the passage which immediately follows, saturated
>>>> with Christian allusions to Ezekiel et al.
>>> Sorry, but despite the allusions my reading of that section doesn't
>>> contain religion.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>      Rick Parker
>>        Rickard,
>>
>>      Maybe you could define "contain"? Tom Jefferson read the Bible without religion by the exigency of excising the religious terminology.
>> Effective for him perhaps, but no one of any persuasion could reasonably call the end result "The Bible." I assume you're not editing out the parts of TWL that have religious weight and which its author, presumably, put in for that reason. Or is this related to that anticipated retirement project you mentioned earlier?
>>
>>       For my part, I've decided to write a bar song -- or maybe it's just a retirement song -- about the TWL to the tune of The Bowery. So far, I've got the refrain down pat.
>>
>>      Thanks,
>>      Ken A
>>
>> ---
>> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
>> http://www.avast.com
>>
>
>
>---
>This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
>http://www.avast.com