Well . . . it’s food for thought . . . ?
I don’t get it …
I would like to print that out and frame it, if that’s okay. Do you by any chance have a higher resolution image?
On 2002-09-16 20:57, garycrosby wrote:
I don’t get it …
Me neither.
Dale
[ This Message was edited by: DaleWisely on 2002-09-16 21:05 ]
Dale, you said maybe this will help. What exactly do you think it will help? -JP
Oh, wait a minute (wink, wink), now I get it! (wink, wink) It took a little while. How could I have missed it? -JP
On 2002-09-16 21:05, JohnPalmer wrote:
Dale, you said maybe this will help. What exactly do you think it will help? -JP
Ok, ok, I’m sorry! I’m just being weird.
Dale
On 2002-09-16 21:07, JohnPalmer wrote:
Oh, wait a minute (wink, wink), now I get it! (wink, wink) It took a little while. How could I have missed it? -JP
Whew! That was close.
\
Dale
Dale Wisely
Chiff & Fipple HQ
[ This Message was edited by: DaleWisely on 2002-09-16 21:09 ]
I think it’s sorta like an elephant version of Wm. Blake’s “The Tyger.”
Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
. . . . . .
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?
Help me, John. I’ve been staring at this thing and, other than being a really cool picture of God’s design specs ready to be submitted to subcontractors for bidding, I’m drawing a blank.
I’ve been so confused lately…
On 2002-09-16 21:45, vaporlock wrote:
Help me, John. I’ve been staring at this thing and, other than being a really cool picture of God’s design specs ready to be submitted to subcontractors for bidding, I’m drawing a blank.
I’ve been so confused lately…
Probably one of his psychologist things. Sort of like those inkblot tests. This one is of the Lord conceiving an elephant (does He do that?). Or maybe it’s contextual art, soon to be the newest Chiff & Fipple Cafe Press product.
It looks just like my mother. Oh, waitaminnit…
-joe
Hey, I’m still trying to figure out what that pink and white square is, down by Dale’s name.
JP
An elephant. Cool. It helps.
Here I will invoke G.K. Chesterton. Read, for example, his wonderful account of the realists vs the nominalists in his book William Blake (published two years after Orthodoxy, in 1910). ‘Metaphysics must be avoided,’ he begins; ‘they are too exciting. But the root of the matter can be pretty well made plain by one word. The whole difference is between the old meaning and the new meaning of the word “realist”. In modern fiction and science a Realist means a man who begins at the outside of a thing:… In the twelfth century a Realist meant exactly the opposite; it meant a man who began at the inside of a thing… If he saw an elephant he would not say in the modern style, “I see before me a combination of the tusks of a wild boar in unnatural development, of the long nose of the tapir needlessly elongated, of the tail of the cow unusually insufficient,” and so on. He would merely see an essence of elephant. He would believe that this light and fugitive elephant of an instant, as dancing and fleeting as the May-fly in May, was nevertheless the shadow of an eternal elephant, conceived and created by God.
When you have quite realized this ancient sense in the reality of an elephant, go back and read William Blake’s poems about animals, as, for instance, about the lamb and about the tiger. You will see quite clearly that he is talking of an eternal tiger, who rages and rejoices for ever in the sight of God… He meant that there really is behind the universe an eternal image called the Lamb, of which all living lambs are merely the copies or the approximation. He held that eternal innocence to be an actual and even an awful thing’ (pp. 136-41). ‘All his animals are as absolute as the animals on a shield of heraldry. His lambs are of unsullied silver, his lions are of flaming gold. His lion may lie down with his lamb, but he will never really mix with him’ (pp. 135-6).
http://www.secondspring.co.uk/worldreligions/scaldecott3.htm
On 2002-09-17 00:59, JohnPalmer wrote:
Hey, I’m still trying to figure out what that pink and white square is, down by Dale’s name.
There’s been some discussion of this matter. Some hold that it looks like Richard Dreyfuss, while others seem to think that it’s Captain George Costanza of the U.S.S. Enterprise. Actually, though, if I’m not mistaken, that guy from Quantum Leap leapt into the captain’s chair, and it only looks like George when he’s looking in the mirror. I don’t know. All these television references are confusing my head. It’s too late at night. Maybe I’ll go to bed.
Sheesh. I stayed up late tonight to see if Walden would call Dale a hippie for that elephant thing.
I wuz all wrong, wrong,wrong. He’s still on about that guy from the show where all those New York people stand around and talk about nothin’. (thanks to Mike Judge)
Dale Warhol Force One.
Kicks just keep gettin harder to find…
[quote]
On 2002-09-16 22:53, Walden wrote:
This one is of the Lord conceiving an elephant (does He do that?).
/quote]
One of Blake’s illustrations is of God (Yahweh) with an architectural instrument (dividers) designing the universe, rather like the Masonic conception of God as the architect of the universe.
On 2002-09-17 01:11, avanutria wrote:
Here I will invoke G.K. Chesterton. Read, for example, his wonderful account of the realists vs the nominalists in his book William Blake (published two years after Orthodoxy, in 1910).
. . . . . . . .
Splendid quote, avanutria. Thanks! I must look up that reference. I always thought of Chesterton as kinda dull. I was wrong.