If our occasional head-butting here hasn't alienated or irritated you too much, I should like to accept your offer to ask you a question regarding CAS. Mine won't come as a huge surprise, as my posts have clearly revealed my interest in this subject. The question is this:

How much continuity do you feel exists between the young CAS and the person you knew with regard to the importance the young CAS placed upon a sense of the cosmic, of humanity's terrible isolation within it, and humanity's utter lack of importance? Do you feel that he still thrilled to the extra-terrestrial and the cosmic and the non-human and the ultra-terrestrial to the same degree? To put the matter another way, how much continuity do you see between the author of the "Ode to the Abyss" and that of The Hill of Dionysus?

Kyberean wrote:

> How much continuity do you feel exists between the
> young CAS and the person you knew with regard to
> the importance the young CAS placed upon a sense
> of the cosmic, of humanity's terrible isolation
> within it, and humanity's utter lack of
> importance?

Surely consciousness is the sine qua non? If so, then human beings are important to the extent that they possess consciousness, and any one of us is infinitely more important than anything in the universe that doesn't possess it, from supernovae to the universe itself.

I have no desire to debate the subject--I had hoped simply for an answer to my question--but I will state that I completely disagree with your premises.

As do I, O my equally insignificant one!

Such a valuation is typical of the Judeao-Christian ethos of arrogance--we the rulers of the Earth, we the chosen ones, we the saved, ye the damned and infidel... henceforth a hearty bah! duple bah! and thrice-blessed bah!

*Author of Strange Gardens [www.lulu.com]


*Editor of Calenture: a Journal of Studies in Speculative Verse [calenture.fcpages.com]

*Visit my homepage: [voleboy.freewebpages.org]

voleboy wrote:

> As do I, O my equally insignificant one!
>
> Such a valuation is typical of the
> Judeao-Christian ethos of arrogance--we the rulers
> of the Earth, we the chosen ones, we the saved, ye
> the damned and infidel... henceforth a hearty bah!
> duple bah! and thrice-blessed bah!

There are more ways of being arrogant than one, and you'll find that you don't have to be Judaeo-Christian to accept what I said.

Kyberean wrote:

> I have no desire to debate the subject--I had
> hoped simply for an answer to my question--

So had I.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 27 Jul 05 | 03:33AM by hplscentury.

Quote:

There are more ways of being arrogant than one, and you'll find that you don't have to be Judaeo-Christian to accept what I said.

Again, I don't want to get deeply into this here, but you are quite right with regard to arrogance. For instance, one such species of arrogance is humanism/anthropocentrism, of which Judeo-Christianity is but a sub-species. The originality and genius of CAS's work, in my opinion, lies in its rejection of the anthropocentric. If he were a mere love poet writing incessantly about, say, the pendula of hearts, then he would be even more obscure than he is today, and rightfully so, in my view.

Kyberean wrote:

> Again, I don't want to get deeply into this here,
> but you are quite right with regard to arrogance.
> For instance, one such species of arrogance is
> humanism/anthropocentrism, of which
> Judeo-Christianity is but a sub-species. The
> originality and genius of CAS's work, in my
> opinion, lies in its rejection of the
> anthropocentric.

And of the egocentric, which can be the root of anthropocentrism and often survives when anthropocentrism and humanism are rejected. We can also use that rejection as an excuse for cruelty or indifference, which is something else CAS never did.

Quote:

And of the egocentric, which can be the root of anthropocentrism and often survives when anthropocentrism and humanism are rejected.

Agreed with regard to egocentricity, although I would not necessarily say that it "often" survives the rejection of anthropocentrism and humanism. It is a minor quibble, though, as well as a dead thread, at this point. Our dear friend isn't going to favor us with an answer, so we may as well close it.

I have hesitated to even look at this post since I have no time for head butting, or "shoot from the hip" philosophy - however, the question is indeed a good one.
Please note the second stanza of the "rubaiyat of Sayed" and the end of the "Epitaph for the Earth" as it appears from the original manuscripts in "Zagan" -

"...I myself, am but a pebble in a boundless sea." and "...He knew his own futility at last, himself an immaterial trick of Chance." Note that 'chance' is capitalized as it were a deified entity - The rubaiyat is very early CAS. I do not think of
anything in Clark's work as anthropocentric - insignificance and oblivion were fundamental to his makeup to the end. Rather than imbue him with morbidity, however, his delight in nearly every new experience (usually with people, not things) was emblematic of his willingness (not desire) to maximize each moment of consciousness, and float on the sea of the moment. A lifetime of rejection as a
social pariah (to the muggles of Auburn), found him appreciating increasingly the safety of the denizens of a working class bar (the Happy Hour), and the pleasure of conversation with the few of us who cared about him (first) and his works (second).
In this latter role, while he treated as as colleagues and equals, his gentle
near-omniscience in matters literary made him mentor and guide. The small group of which I became chiefest and closest were the nearest to disciples he ever had.

Clark at the last was neither nihilist, nor buddhist, nor Hindu -- but there is a deep consistency in himself and in his work -- the little boy with the haunted eyes in his grade school photo, remained to the end.
He still thrilled to language, and cosmic wonder, but was resigned to "wait and see."

I am sorry not to have answered before, I hope this helps, it is, nevertheless
nostalgic for me in the true sense of that word -- pain in the mind.

Quote:

I have hesitated to even look at this post since I have no time for head butting, or "shoot from the hip" philosophy

Nor do I. I had hoped that the thread's neutral title sufficed to give notice that the question involved neither. Anyway, I'm glad that you decided to have a look at the thread, and I appreciate very much your most interesting reply to my question.