Kevin's Watch

So, I'm kinda reading this work of William Blake, and decided that the ideas were interesting enough to debate! You can find the text of the work here, if you'd like to join me, mwahaha!

Without Contraries is no progression. Attraction and Repulsion, Reason and Energy, Love and Hate, are necessary to Human existence.
From these contraries spring what the religious call Good & Evil. Good is the passive that obeys Reason. Evil is the active springing from Energy.
Good is Heaven. Evil is Hell.

Some interesting assertions in these lines:
1. Blake doesn't seem to equate Good & Evil with morals as is common. Of course, this doesn't mean that he doesn't believe in a moral good or a moral evil, but rather that "what the religious call Good & Evil" is actually apart from "morality."
2. Blake seems to believe that in order for us to exist, there must be a world of opposing values. Also, that this is the foundation of growth. This could point to an idea that "bad" is something that is necessary for us to exist.

wikipedia wrote:Humans are born morally pure; Judaism has no concept analogous to original sin. Judaism affirms that people are born with a yetzer ha-tov (יצר הטוב), a tendency to do good, and with a yetzer hara[ (יצר הרע), a tendency to do evil. Thus human beings have free will and can choose the path in life that they will take. The rabbis even recognize a positive value to the yetzer ha-ra: without the yetzer ha-ra there would be no civilization or other fruits of human labor. The implication is that yetzer ha-tov and yetzer ha-ra are best understood not only as moral categories of good and evil but as the inherent conflict within man between selfless and selfish orientations.

Blake seems to be expounding on this concept within Judaism, in my opinion.

Now, it seems as if that is needed to understand the following:

All Bibles or sacred codes have been the causes of the following Errors.

1. That Man has two real existing principles Viz: a Body & a Soul.
2. That Energy, call'd Evil, is alone from the Body, & that Reason, call'd Good, is alone from the Soul.
3. That God will torment Man in Eternity for following his Energies

Pretty clear, don't think I need to respond. Immediatly, Blake uses the concept of contradictions leading to progression by linking some to the errors previously mentioned. In this case, it is by contradiction that we progress by recognizing error and seeing truth.

But the following Contraries to these are True

1. Man has no Body distinct from his Soul for that call'd Body is a portion of Soul discern'd by the five Senses, the chief inlets of Soul in this age
2. Energy is the only life and is from the Body and Reason is the bound or outward circumference of Energy.
3 Energy is Eternal Delight

It's interesting to note that here, Blake seems to be parroting part of the form of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. This is when Jesus says something along the lines of "Ye have heard that..." and then responding with "But I say unto you..." (Matthew Chap. 5 contains the version that I am referencing here). This seems fitting, as Jesus is quoting directly from Jewish scripture and then revealing truth by contradicting them. So Blake, acting as prophet, is following this model by referencing scripture and reveling truth by contradicting it.

So we find in Blake's declarations that:
1) The Soul and the Body are one entity, not seperate.
2)That the Senses are inlets of the Soul, or rather, that we absorb information into our Beings through the Senses.
3)Energy is life, and as such eternal life would be composed of it.
4)Reason is what restricts this Energy, and what defines what is done with it.

Here, I believe that Blake separates the universe into the material and immaterial realms. The material is that which the Senses observe, while the immaterial is that which is unobserved. This creates a problem in that by use of our Senses, we perceive the part of the Soul (the Body), perishing in the process of death. This could mean that the Soul also perishes at this time, and if not then a part of it has, and the Soul has changed. What this change means to the existence of the immaterial Soul, we shall have to wait and see if Blake addresses this issue.

Menolly wrote:

wikipedia wrote:Humans are born morally pure; Judaism has no concept analogous to original sin. Judaism affirms that people are born with a yetzer ha-tov (יצר הטוב), a tendency to do good, and with a yetzer hara[ (יצר הרע), a tendency to do evil. Thus human beings have free will and can choose the path in life that they will take. The rabbis even recognize a positive value to the yetzer ha-ra: without the yetzer ha-ra there would be no civilization or other fruits of human labor. The implication is that yetzer ha-tov and yetzer ha-ra are best understood not only as moral categories of good and evil but as the inherent conflict within man between selfless and selfish orientations.

Blake seems to be expounding on this concept within Judaism, in my opinion.

I have no doubt that you are correct in your statement. This seems to be a common theme in Blake's writing... at least what I've read. He has compared the conflict being that of Innocence vs. Experience, while acknowledging that one need not dispose of the other. Furthermore, I've read that some believe that Blake was influenced by gnostic philosophy, which some say has its origins in Judaism

Gnosticism certainly has connections on some roots with Judaism, and probably the most surviving documentation on that one, but there are others.

Part of a class I took years ago dealt with Blake, and I don't recall much...
but it did lead me to something I still believe, and I think is part of his intent [or at least an area of questioning his intent opens up]..."The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" is troublesome, if not outright wrong. The flesh [in desiring sex, for example] is doing nothing other than exactly what it is designed/meant to do. If you fail to follow the 'moral' rules about when to do it, it is your spirit that has failed to do what it is supposed to.
Just offered FWIW.

Have generally always liked Blake. And agree with Orlion's summary of his declarations a couple of posts up.

Blake wrote:...I went to the Garden of Love,
And saw what I never had seen;
A Chapel was built in the midst,
Where I used to play on the green.

And the gates of this Chapel were shut
And "Thou shalt not," writ over the door;
So I turned to the Garden of Love
That so many sweet flowers bore.

And I saw it was filled with graves,
And tombstones where flowers should be;
And priests in black gowns were walking their rounds,
And binding with briars my joys and desires.

--A

Here's some commentary of a line from this work from our "lord and saviour"

Dr. Stephen R. Donaldson wrote:The "chaos vs order" theme which pervades the GAP sequence is certainly not original with me. (Only the specific details of how that theme is deployed are mine.) Indeed, the theme is so deeply embedded in Western thought that it might be impossible to determine who first put it into words. But speaking solely of my own intellectual development, I like to credit William Blake, who wrote, "Reason is the circumference of energy." This struck me when I first read it, and still strikes me today, as an ideal expression of the paradox which makes art, beauty, and even humanity possible. If energy (chaos) is not controlled by reason (order), it remains formless and destructive. If reason is not constantly challenged and stretched by energy, it remains rigid and destructive.(06/01/2005)

Just a quick drop in to offer a perspective on Blake (my own being that Blake was messed up, right on some things, yet so wrong):
commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWilliam_Blake%2C_1910_Chesterton_Biography.djvu&page=1

chesterton.org/discover/lectures/18willblake.html
(A summary of the book by a Catholic)

Hoping it will provide some food for thought!

Started reading the link, and I got to say... I feel I don't much like Chesterton (as a person, I kinda view him as an earlier version of Glenn Beck).

That said, I think he has a point on Blake being an impatient guy... kinda explains at least some later events in life when he stopped writing (and imprinting, I presume) maybe not as a matter of pride that no one gave him his due, but rather that he was impatient and tired of trying to have people understand his views.

Now, if only he could spend more time on that rather then pages about things like how the Irish are more logical

Blake wrote:The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.

--A

Orlion wrote:Started reading the link, and I got to say... I feel I don't much like Chesterton (as a person, I kinda view him as an earlier version of Glenn Beck).

Hi Orlion!
(Making a brief hop in just for a second)
I only have echo impressions of Beck, being on the other side of the world, but one thing I would say in defense of GKC on the comparison is that GKC made no enemies, to a great extent because of both his great and genuine humility, and because he generally always found what was admirable and best in his opponents and their ideas, and went to pains to point it out. This had the effect of quieting a lot of objections; he really was fair-minded. I don't know if that can be said of Beck. I myself am still working on learning to do that.

Has anyone here read Lewis's "The Great Divorce"? One of Lewis's ideas, as I understood it, was a refutation of Blake's "Marriage", and indeed, the title is based on it.