Martinus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Illustrations have been included in the other
> letter collections, so I think it is a safe bet.

I am glad Hippocampus Press chose that path! (I don't have any of their Letter volumes. I was on the brink of buying the Lovecraft/Howard, but it was just too painfully expensive. And honestly, I prioritize other unread books on my shelves. Reading through the Lovecraft/Wandrei volume from Nightshade was a bit much. But the Lovecraft/Smith volume will be a must!!)

As to using art, or "weird fiction", as replacement for religious writing, I think at least Algernon Blackwood's weird fiction is worthy of consideration. It surely goes deeper than "Use the Force, Luke!". Blackwood stirs spiritual longing, and possibly helps the mind of the willing individual towards revelation; Well, perhaps not in a Christian way. But surely down the pagan path. ;) Compared to Arthur Machen, the convinced Christian, who considered Pan to be terror, Blackwood welcomed those forces as benign.

And here is an article about spontaneous spiritual transcendence of the poet and artist;
http://www.tm.org/blog/uncategorized/alfred-lord-tennyson-transcendent-wonder/

A phd in theology may be obtained either with great effort and intense scholarship in ancient linguistics, or by turning in a compendium of existing and contrasting opinions on some minor point to some evangelical bible school -
A similar comment may be made about philosophy as an academic discipline - in the classics, if you can read Greek, and perhaps old persian, you will have made a beginning - similarly, if you can decipher Occam's razor, know who Anselm was and the essence of his though, and have perhaps read Hegel's "phenomenology of Mind" in German - and commented thereupon with some measure of insight - you have made a beginning, but, as previously stated - you are not therewith protected from Hubristic and Fatuous irrelevancies -- and you may begin to call yourself a literary critic when you can prove you are able to read, say, Lewis' "Allegory of Love" which has no footnotes and assumes a basic understanding of Greek, Latin, French, Italian, and Anglo-Saxon - all of which are essential ingredients to the subject -
Plain spoken opinion honestly given by the layman is far more useful to the writer - since what the writer wants to know is, "does it work" - authority on any given subject is only earned by results, not by credentials.

I agree that to be an authority on religion will require much academic study.

It is important to make distinction between spirituality and religion. A religious person isn't necessarily spiritually enlighted. He may be, but doesn't have to be. But he likely strongly holds on to dogmatic morals, intellectually formed through his religious studies. Spirit goes deeper and beyond the intellect. Intellectual ideas may trickle down, transcend, and help develop spirituality, to some degree. Some are born with spiritual sensitivity, with wide awareness, and empathic intake of their surroundings. Some may develop it after very painful experiences and a need to transcend the manifested concrete world.

People attain knowledge in different ways, and there are different forms of knowledge. A person may gain valuable insights, and a harmonious relation to the world around him, through meditation. A painter may have profound knowledge about Life and it's workings through his observations, although it is a wordless knowledge.

My personal opinion is that atheists and satanists are of the same low breed or undeveloped character. They are too coarse and numb to have had any spiritual experiences. Or, if their function and lot in life is simply to mold and shuffle around the material matters, and that function fills a meaningful servant part, they should therefore not be belittled.

I see. So the mentally ill and indolent should rule the world, with the rest as their servants?

The wise and the enlighted, not the ill and indolent. To be a leader requires more than sensitivity of the spirit.

To be leader over a specific field, naturally also requires practical knowledge of that field.

Many of the upper level servants see themselves as rulers. That's their biggest mistake.

We are all servants, relatively, under the Great Spirit.

Don't take me too seriously. I am playing around, trying to provoke rigid perspectives. :)

But this much I am convinced of. Spirituality is not mental illnes. Or hokus pokus. It is not supernatural fantasy. Or unscientific. It is a perfectly natural process. Nothing spectacular about it really. A spiritually enlighted person, is simply a person who is able to see reality in a very wide perspective, where each individual incident is viewed in its rightful place in the much greater whole. He/she is therefore not swept along emotionally and intellectually by petty incidents, and is able to handle personal setbacks and tragedy in a much more stable way. The person retains an inner calm regardless of outer events.

I was happy to see the earlier citation from CAS - holding a candle to the universe - Clark was a deeply spiritual man, but not a dogmatist of any kind - he certainly believed in the actual existence in a literal sense of malevolent spirits - and, by extension, as in Brothers Karamazov of their benign counterparts - In many ways he was closer to Zoroastrian thought, and therefore a dualist of sorts - but he maintained no staunch position on matters which he considered ephemeral, and whose reality is experienced tangentially, but cannot be "known".
He and I were much in agreement in those days when I knew him closely - my own position has changed due to experiences of my own - nevertheless, you may be asssured Clark was never an "atheist" of any sort - nor was an animist, nor a pantheist, but from the inner workings of his mind and spirit, recognized what he called "intrusions" from beyond himself. If that may be called his "theology", so be it - it was surely, as he was in all things, "sui generis"/

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 2. Lovecraft's correspondence with CAS should be
> published next year.

Original letter from Lovecraft to CAS, for sale on Ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Original-H-P-Lovecraft-Autograph-Letter-C-A-Smith-/380218024248?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Antiquarian_Collectible&hash=item5886c2a138

Seeing spirits, or demons, as CAS believed he did on at least one occasion, is such a very personal spiritual experience, that it can't really be shared with others or used as an argument to convince. Others will not be able to relate to it, and just look askance, like you're nuts. It is a lonely load. Nevertheless, CAS shared his enigmatic encounter (The Demonian Face) with his audience, to their enriched enjoyment.

I know this is all opening up a can of worms, but as it's all quite good natured... what the hell! :)

Having met many spiritualists I fail to believe that they are any more open minded than the most ardent atheist/sceptic... they simply project what they want to see onto the world based on their assumption. They believe what they want to believe... fair enough, but don't expect me to walk the same road... I knew this Canadian pagan a few years ago who during a relatively minor earthquake (a big one for the UK) was surprised when a cup shook off the table... she told me that the first thing she thought was: 'GHOST!' She said this without even a hint of irony or even embarrassment... of course within moments she realised her mistake and knew it was an earthquake, so no harm done, but how exactly did she "see reality in a very wide perspective?" A very wrong perspective - yes! :) Sure, to some extent we all project our assumptions upon the universe, but to my mind a good sceptical mind challenges (or should try to) his own assumptions, striping away useless cultural meanings to seek a higher truth. This is something that few religionist/spiritualist are prepared to do because they know what they will find... nothing. But, no - I don't think supernatural belief denotes insanity... I wouldn't even call it irrational most of the time (no more so than falling in love anyway), but I would call it non-rational... which is fine and dandy on a personal level, but on a societal one... well, I think it deserves to be challenged at least... When I visited Mayan villages in Mexico who practice a local hybrid religion which took the worst parts of Catholicism and the worst parts of animism I was struck by the taint of paranoia in the air... their whole culture was racked by fear of evil spirits and the occasional blood sacrifice of a chicken to appease them... I'm not saying that secular society doesn't have it's share of problems, but... there was no enlightened insight on view there believe me!

I have no problem with CAS' open mind to things, while I don't believe in the supernatural I'm interested in it and frequently go to fortian/folk lore talks, and I do find the lofty attitude of Dawkins & Co a little hard to stomach at times, but I've yet to hear any significant criticism of them that doesn't reek of 'tackling the man, not the ball' - which is usually a sign of someone who knows they're on shaky ground. Similarly criticism that atheists are closed minded or lack insight reeks of name-calling. Surely it's not unreasonable to ask "where? show me?" when someone is trying to convince you of something when there is no evidence for it existing.. indeed, I'd argue that I'd be stupid not too :)

But I think we've reached a point where rationalism, scepticism, science and the objective have become very uncool, whereas the current Zeitgeist celebrates all that is subjective, hence the sudden vigour of the Dawkinsians in their attempt to re-establish a rational world view...

Quote:

I've yet to hear any significant criticism of them that doesn't reek of 'tackling the man, not the ball'

Actually, there's plenty of criticism directed at "Ditchkins" which addresses their philosophical and theological incompetence, yet without descending to ad hominem levels, and it's not too hard to find. David B. Hart's recent essay in First Things offers a good example.

As for the Zeitgeist you mention, I see exactly the opposite, at least, among the educated. For instance, who else here besides Calonlan, Knygatin, and I have anything positive to say about spirituality in some form? So, this "Zeitgeist" to which you refer clearly seems to be a matter of perspective.

Again, from my own perspective, it's not a question of "science versus religion". Rather, it's a question of neither the one nor the other as the final arbiter of any aspect of ultimate or objective reality. CAS seemed to hold that view, as well. Unfortunately, as Calonlan suggests, CAS's perspective is, if not sui generis, then rare to the point of absolute incomprehensibility, for most.