Print

Print


So?

Eliot never claimed the he, himself, achieved it--only that he admired it.
Reread Gordon.  And his poems are not theological pronouncements anyway.
Quoting them is not a refutation or a lifetime of biographical study.
N

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> To repeat Eliot:
>
> For most of us, this is the aim
> Never here to be realised;
> Who are only undefeated
> Because we have gone on trying;
> We, content at the last
> If our temporal reversion nourish
> (Not too far from the yew-tree)
> The life of significant soil.
>
> CR
>
> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> As I just noted, that is not the position of the mystics, and some
>> claimed to have reached that stage.
>> N
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, God or no God, perfection is relative. We can acquire only a
>>> degree of it.
>>> And so at no stage can we be "perfect."
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> CR
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The proposition, "God is perfect," is probably heretical. In all of its
>>>> usages "perfect" retains some of its literal meaning, "brought to an end,
>>>> completed."  And hence the word _could_ (I've never explored the matter)
>>>> carry the implication that at _some point in time_ God was incomplete, but
>>>> now has become what He Is.
>>>>
>>>> That way madness lurks.
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> Carrol
>>>>
>>>> P.S. I've just discovered by accident that the complete text of Canto
>>>> XVI is available for download at the Poetry site. That Canto is a marvel
>>>> even when pronounced by the synthetic voice of ZoomText. Il miglior fabbro
>>>> indeed.
>>>>
>>>
>>