Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

The pint is spilled out on the floor

Expand Messages
  • David Lenander
    ... Yes, he does that a lot. But, regarding your next points I am reminded of something I ve long wondered about.... ... Where is the reference by Eliot to
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 26, 2002
      mythsoc@yahoogroups.com wrote:

      >
      >
      > Message: 2
      > Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:59:24 -0000
      > From: "ssigrist" <ssigrist@...>
      > Subject: Just a half pint more
      >
      > Friends,
      > David does what the best literary talk
      > does, makes one want to go back to the
      > book--in this case Smith.

      Yes, he does that a lot.

      But, regarding your next points I am reminded of something I've long wondered about....

      > It will necessarily be along the lines of
      > what Eliot recalled Willaims as doing,
      > in a pub adopting for the moment a heresy
      > which said the world was created at Christmas
      > (by the way a question on THAT, I recall
      > looking through St John of Damascus' list
      > of heresies which seemed a likely source
      > and finding one something like that but not
      > precise...has anyone another, or is that
      > --and my memory is vague--it and then
      > the heresy itself fine tuned by Williams
      > as it were?).
      > [. . . .]
      > +Seraphim

      Where is the reference by Eliot to what Williams was saying, was this in his intro to _All Hallows' Eve_? What I've long thought about, and maybe Eliot somehow makes this explicit, but while I hadn't realized that it had achieved the heights (or depths) of heresy, I was aware of the idea that the
      Incarnation had transformed all history, retrospectively "redeeming" time B.C. as well as the more obvious A.D. While Eliot certainly refers to this in the _Four Quartets_ (I think, I haven't thought about this in a long time, or reread Eliot in years), I've always wondered if he takes it farther in
      "Tradition and the Individual Talent," where he argues that a new poem (poet) retrospectively changes the previous corpus of poetry. And doesn't that seem a Williamsian idea? Do you suppose that--but, surely, that essay was well before Eliot knew Williams?


      David Lenander,

      e-mail: d-lena@... web-page: http://umn.edu/~d-lena/BirdnBab.html
    • jamcconney@aol.com
      In a message dated 4/26/2002 3:08:07 PM Central Daylight Time, d-lena@umn.edu ... No, as I understand it, Williams meant this absolutely literally. The world
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 26, 2002
        In a message dated 4/26/2002 3:08:07 PM Central Daylight Time, d-lena@...
        writes:


        > the world was created at Christmas
        >
        No, as I understand it, Williams meant this absolutely literally. The world
        was created at the exact moment that Jesus was born--complete with camels,
        rocks, towns and the whole shebang, including human beings with a lifetime of
        supposed memories, a fossil record, etc. etc. etc. In other words, exactly
        the same thing the author of a book does when he brings a character (perhaps
        80 years old) into the narrative of his novel, provides memories and even
        flashbacks and in all ways treats this character as having had a long life
        previous to his/her appearance in the book. Williams' point was not to prove
        that this theory is true but rather to demonstrate how impossible it is to
        prove that it _isn't_.

        Jamaq


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Stolzi@aol.com
        In a message dated 4/26/02 5:09:33 PM Central Daylight Time, ... But if that were true, the Virgin never did get to say that famous word, and Jesus was just
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 26, 2002
          In a message dated 4/26/02 5:09:33 PM Central Daylight Time,
          jamcconney@... writes:

          > No, as I understand it, Williams meant this absolutely literally. The world
          > was created at the exact moment that Jesus was born--complete with camels,
          > rocks, towns and the whole shebang, including human beings with a lifetime
          > of
          > supposed memories, a fossil record, etc. etc. etc

          But if that were true, the Virgin never did get to say that famous word, and
          Jesus was just created by fiat, not grown in her womb over nine months, thus
          vitiating the Incarnation (imho).

          Besides, Jesus is the Word of God - in Xtn theology, the full expression of
          God, everything God has to say - not the word of the Virgin.

          My, that Williams could be one heretical chap at times.

          Diamond Proudbrook
        • jamcconney@aol.com
          In a message dated 4/26/2002 8:53:48 PM Central Daylight Time, Stolzi@aol.com ... No, I think you re missing the point--Williams simply loved to play devil s
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 27, 2002
            In a message dated 4/26/2002 8:53:48 PM Central Daylight Time, Stolzi@...
            writes:


            > My, that Williams could be one heretical chap at times.
            >

            No, I think you're missing the point--Williams simply loved to play devil's
            advocate to demonstrate a theory. You're right, of course, that the
            creation-at-the-Nativity concept would give us a totally different theology.
            He also believed in the good scholarly principle that no theory should be
            automatically off the table.

            And he could be pretty off-the-wall at times :-))

            Jamaq











            . You're right, of course, that such a theory would give us a totally
            different theology.


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • jamcconney@aol.com
            In a message dated 4/27/2002 8:15:12 AM Central Daylight Time, ... This little extra tag at the end of my last post wasn t because I was being extra
            Message 5 of 6 , Apr 27, 2002
              In a message dated 4/27/2002 8:15:12 AM Central Daylight Time,
              jamcconney@... writes:


              > . You're right, of course, that such a theory would give us a totally
              > different theology.
              >

              This little extra tag at the end of my last post wasn't because I was being
              extra emphatic--it's there because at that point my cat decided to lie down
              on the keyboard. Apologies!
              Jamaq


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Lisa Deutsch Harrigan
              Isn t that what cats are good for? Mythically yours, Lisa PS Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer.
              Message 6 of 6 , Apr 27, 2002
                Isn't that what cats are good for?

                Mythically yours,

                Lisa

                PS Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on
                your computer. <g>

                jamcconney@... wrote:

                > This little extra tag at the end of my last post wasn't because I was being
                > extra emphatic--it's there because at that point my cat decided to lie down
                > on the keyboard. Apologies!
                > Jamaq
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.