Comments on: Contemplating Blake

By: bookcrazy

bookcrazy — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 05:19:35 +0000

No Arulba, never meant that was your interpretation. I was only saying that it could be a possible interpretation but has to be rejected as it does not gel with Blake’s ideas. Don’t worry. I know at least enough not to presume that you would interpret it that way

By: arulba

arulba — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 05:10:55 +0000

No!!!! That is not what I mean at all!!!!!!

Not that it is better to die. That is not what I mean.

What I’m saying is that our ability to think or not to think has nothing whatsoever to do with life or death whatsoever. That’s the stuff of Paine’s dualism in his Age of Reasoning that is based on Descartes interpretation of St. Augustine. It’s a human interpretation but isn’t necessarily the meaning we need accept. If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would be perceived as it is -infinite.(Can’t remember the exact wording at the moment – but to me the quote has everything to do with the poem.)

I’ll read the link you provided tomorrow. My son and I are just finishing watching Waking Life by Richard Linklater. (My son took a bathroom break so have to be quick. )

By: bookcrazy

bookcrazy — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:26:46 +0000

A possible interpretation : if thought is of primary importance in life, and thought is missing from me, then is it better for me to die? Very unlikely interpretation to suit Blake.

Read the interpretation on this page (google books). I think the interpretation here is correct. Simplest poem ever with deepest meaning possible!

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=CSl1ovxGMR4C&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq=%22if+thought+is+life%22&source=web&ots=sBgoNF1qeO&sig=WaoYiJf2zRlAmiAZHI5RCHUpRU0&hl=en#PPA184,M1

By: arulba

arulba — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:42:31 +0000

I assume you know exactly what it is mean by my quick comment based on all of our discussion but thought I should clarify just to be sure.

The way I read it is that contrary to Descarte, “thought” has nothing to do with our existence. Therefore we can be just as happy with thought as without it. If I remember correctly, Blake wrote specifically against the Mind/Body split that had been originally proposed by Descartes and was becoming a very big deal in Blake’s day. (Age of Reason, etc.)

By: arulba

arulba — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:28:39 +0000

I read “want” of thought as absent of thought. As in, I think therefore I am. If I don’t think, I am not and therefore dead. (Anti-Cartesian?)

By: bookcrazy

bookcrazy — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 05:22:12 +0000

On the interpretation of ‘Fly’, there are two ways I can read it and both lead to contradictory interpretations.
First is similar to yours where you read ‘want of thought’ as ‘looking for thought’ or meaning. Something similar to Kipling’s lines, “If you can think but not let thoughts be your aim.”.
Second possible way to read ‘want of thought’ is to read it as a lack of any thought. Plus, because of the last couple of lines, can’t gel the poem together.

I went back to read the portion where Colin Wilson discusses Blake and found that he has also mentioned the similarities between him and Nietzsche. Actually he traces the similarities in a very interesting way. Should write a post on that soon.

By: arulba

arulba — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 06:35:34 +0000

Beautiful post. I read Blake in college and then again within a Catholic setting in 1998. I think it was entitled The Biblical Vision of William Blake or something like that and was led by a priest who was a professor of literature. I don’t remember where he was from or what his expertise was. But I very much enjoyed the discussion.

This is one of my favorite quotes: “If the doors of perception are cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite.”

It’s interesting that you found correlations between Nietzsche’s thought and Blake’s.

I don’t remember reading “The Fly”. I really like that poem, too. Seems like he was anticipating we meaning junkies. Happiness transcends thought?