{By God}[29th November 1988]

[Redbook6:50-51)][19881129:1512h]{By God}[29th November 1988]

.1512

[continued]

When I do this sort of work,* I try to keep a detached or dispassionate attitude, and to be rational and empirical in my approach to my creative work and intuitions; but it is an empirical fact that when I do so and exclude God from my viewpoint or assumptions (as being a part of what I am studying, ie not [a]** given in the answer), I generally after a while forget why I am doing it, what to do next, etc. and wander around like a witless ant, unable to find my next task, until I invoke God’s help to tell me what to do; shortly after which I invariably find myself doing the next job, without any worries.

It is as though my purpose and direction come from God,*** even though the tasks set out seem – at this stage – to require me to assume that God is an open Question, presumably for the purpose of making sense within the currently acceptable framework of logic (ie of assumptions for logic). All this despite the fact that – notwithstanding visions in earlier volumes,**** which I believe to be real but symbolic – I have no clear idea what ‘God’ really is, even to me, except perhaps some sort of indefinable Quality.

It is, therefore,# a great relief to find that T.S. Eliot,#* for all his anti-romanticism and his early academic (to my mind) approach to Poetry, went through a process clearly analysed in Circle terms and committed himself to the Indefinable and un-rationalisable in the face of the disapprobation and incomprehension of critics.

*[eg, presumably, [Redbook6:41-51)][19881128:2046]{Literary Circles}[28th November 1988]ff]

**[‘a’ seems intended here]

***[No exceptionalism was or is intended here; this process is understood throughout these Journals to be in principle available to anyone]

****[ie of this Journal; unclear which ‘visions’ are referred to.]

#Pompous git! <901220>

#*[See [Redbook6:41-51)][19881128:2046]{Literary Circles}[28th November 1988]ff]

[PostedBlogger08for11072019]