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.NOn 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 aimNever here to be realised;Who are only undefeatedBecause we have gone on trying;We, content at the lastIf 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.NOn 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.
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.