Still on these angels. This flips perception around
There is no question of anthropomorphism. The personality of these beings is not derived from ours; ours is only a dim reflection of theirs.
I see this as a really old school way of understanding the Great Chain of Being.
Is Plato so sure that the Forms don’t have faces?
Let’s try to continue with that flipped perception though- do the Forms have faces or do OUR FACES have Forms?
This isn’t a simple cognitive operation, just throwing it out there.
Corbin believes angels are necessary in this
The personal God is… encountered at the end of a Quest (as of that for the Holy Grail).
Imagine humanity in the globe as rows of homes on a street. There’s one family in particular that we have a GRUDGE against. That is the Muslim house. We have a grudge against them unlike any other. Our grudge against the Russians is one thing. We have a unique level of spite for the Muslim house. I speculate that our grudge is both founded and unfounded.
I’ve never seen a statement like this regarding the “links” in the chain of being
You think our puny minds can grasp how they correspond? I doubt it. We can try though.
I think people have this and they’re only very vaguely aware of it
the terrors of annihilation stemming from the encounter with the Hidden God
The angels are between us and this terrifying thing. You think THEY’RE terrifying? There’s something even more terrifying.
This is probably way too abstract for many to grasp. Don’t worry, you’re not alone. Like I posted yesterday about Otto, it’s just a “feeling” I have that these concepts correspond with reality.
The slow dawning of consciousness and the transformation of the natural soul begin to reveal the Face of the Angel. Even a glimpse of the Angel can light the whole world
Similar to one of my posts on occultism, for Corbin when you recognize the angel you turn into an angel yourself. In the Old Testament angels have eyes of fire. In a lecture near the end of his life Corbin challenged his listeners to open THEIR eyes of fire.
This to me seems like a more approachable way to talk about the Forms. Giving them a face and eyes makes them more relatable. If they’re too unrelatable then no one will try to be like them. On the other hand, if they’re TOO relatable then they cease to be angels.
I was disappointed the other day when I looked for scholarship on Rilke. It seems to be really lacking. Now, I’m just looking at Corbin’s books as commentaries on the poet, based on that statement I quoted in my previous post.
Not to toot my own horn, I try to teach people about the Great Chain of Being and am hated for it, and I don’t think my perception is off that it’s mere humans that hate me, if you catch my drift. Redacted because terrifying… If you can’t deal with me you won’t be able to deal with an angel, and thus never will know God. Jews are not angels, they orchestrate the collapse of the nine spheres into this one material one. Many “people” like that because it’s EASY to be an animal distant from God. In a fallen society like ours, revealing the existence of the Great Chain of Being is perceived as the crime of crimes.
Many poets and artists live in the constant presence of the Angel. Living in the tension between the human and the transcendent can be an agony.
Is it a masochist that visits this place, is it a masochist?
What’s so bad about this?
The Angel allows us to perceive all things as suspended between Heaven and Earth in the mundus imaginalis. Rilke perceived all this with startling clarity and sensitivity.