[lit-ideas] Re: THANKSGIVING
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:37:01 -0600
CB:
I would be very happy to read arguments to the contrary.
You're wanting ME to expound on how I could justify my statement that
Hopkins wouldn't mind my equating God with Existence? Silly boy. As for
me, there is no God, there is only existence; and there is no existence,
there is only God. That's my only profession of faith. Hopkins seems to
have had more love for life in him that stars have gravity. And lit up the
world with wordbursts of ferocious love. GM probably would take issue with
my faith, but I see it as one and the same. I understand his need for a
love object (a God) instead of all existence, but that's him. All existence
is in me. Yes, I am God. But not for a whole lot longer, adore me while ye
may.
Mike Geary
Godding in Memphis
----- Original Message -----
From: <cblists@xxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 4:04 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: THANKSGIVING
On 26-Nov-09, at 8:26 PM, Mike Geary wrote:
(I take "Saviour" to mean Existence. I'm sure GM wouldn't mind.)
Thanks very much for the Hopkins, Mike.
I wonder about Hopkins accepting 'Saviour' = 'Existence' - he was a
Jesuit priest, and neither his 'terrible poems' nor anything after point
to any 'existentialist' resolution of his 'dark night of the soul' (which
such a theology should afford him).
I would be very happy to read arguments to the contrary.
Chris Bruce,
in Kiel, Germany
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
