But my severest critic has undoubtedly been Michael Cecil
, the one who wrote;
I must say that I am quite amazed at your ability to talk at such length about things of which you have absolutely no Knowledge
Yet, in some respects, he has a high opinion of me;
He is very,very, very, very, clever.
I fully suspect he has additional thousands ("their name is legion") of the thoughts of the "thinker" about the Revelation of John.
But does he have any Knowledge of the Revelation of John?
Of course not.
But if you want to entertain yourself with the thoughts of the "fallen" consciousness about the Revelation of John, have at it.
I was so taken by this grudging and evidently sincere endorsement that I was tempted to incorporate it into my signature.
Michael and I agree that my approach involves "thinking", and that his approach does not.
As a result, he dismisses my conclusions as nonsensical;
I would suggest that he try reciting these things in a monologue on Saturday Night Live.
I would probably be able to laugh enough for the entire audience...
Such nonsense is merely representative of the kind of nonsense that has been vomited up by the "beast of the earth" consciousness of the "thinker" for
almost 2000 years now.
He also objects that "thinking" does not produce beauty;
There is no poetry, no music, no geometry, and no beauty in your interpretation
I questioned this claim. I suggested that the concepts themselves were beautiful. Yes, indeed. Did not Keats write;
"Beauty is truth, truth Beauty; that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know".
But the appeal to Keats had no effect. I suspect that Michael has more affinity with Shelley.
But the real key to the difference between us is this question of Knowledge.
In order to understand the Revelation of John, one must have- duh- a revelation
Anyone who attempts to "interpret" or "explain" the Revelation of John is claiming to have received a revelation
I don't agree that this is necessary.
If I set out to interpret a speech in one of Shakespeare's plays, I'm not claiming to be Shakespeare, I'm not even claiming to be a playwright. I'm
just claiming to be a student of language.
Similarly, Revelation is a deliberate attempt to communicate in written language. So explaining the book involves trying to grasp what the writer
means by the words he's using. It's an exercise in understanding language.
So I made no claim to have received a "revelation" of my own.
Whereas Michael told me, at one point, that he was the "only individual in human history" qualified to speak on these matters.
There were times when he seemd to identify me as the chief opponent in his cosmic drama.
I understand your efforts at providing your "explanation" as determinedly and specifically opposed to my efforts to diminish the loss of life
that will result from people following the thoughts of the "thinker" rather than the Revelation
Hardly "specifically". I started this project long before you had arrived on the scene.
But I had no idea just how personally he was taking things, until this point was reached;
The Revelation of John has been my constant companion for almost 36 years...
It is almost as if the Revelation of John is my wife.
And Disraeli is touching my wife.
My goal here is not just to destroy this thread.
My goal is to stop Disraeli from touching my wife.
You will probably not understand what I mean by this unless you are married
This is the kind of difference that cannot be bridged easily.
Obviously I cannot accept the claim to exclusive rights on this book.
But I have carried through this project in faith and in good faith, and I believe that the work has been honourable.
edit on 21-2-2011 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)