Yes, Lawrence,

I think that those couple of words I wrote before were what I actually
wanted to say, and might depict a little the way I know you and you are
thereby confirming it in this message. I was very touched yesterday by a
message I received by Deborah Humphrey whom I have just featured on the
Poets' Corner. She quoted the words of the founder of her order St. Vincent
de Paul who once said: "It is for your love alone that the poor will forgive
you the bread that you bring them." Her attitude towards daily routine is
different from yours, in the sense that she goes out (from the little that I
know) into the poor neighborhoods and acts there directly. While from what I
know of myself and of you, we have white-collar jobs. Which is anyhow the
same. It's not what you do, but the way you do it, I guess.
Those Celtic stones are most fascinating, especially if you visit them in
the winter without a crowd around. And I think you are privileged in this
case. History has anyhow become legend because of the love - those who
transmitted it had towards the heroes of the stories. For example, I
remember when I was small my father with other men helped rebuild a small
chapel. He was down to his average daily performances, in need of food,
sweating, tired, but in the idea and in the records (since it was a
voluntary labor), he turns out to be a benefactor (not only for this, as a
matter of fact he has given much to History, as a man).

What am I trying to say? I am trying to see the misery of Man, and on the
other side the greatness of his accomplishment in history. I cannot compete
with spirituality, there are people who are specialized out there and have
dedicated their lives to this topic. Besides this, I have also changed, in
the sense that I have regressed to Animism, which anyhow was praised by
Saint Frances, one of our dearest saints.

A good Sunday to you, Anny

From: "Lawrence Upton" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 2:00 AM


> Hi Anny
>
> I refined that note a little
>
> I was finding out what I wanted to say as I wrote it
>
> And then I had saved the half-finished note and to go looking on the web
for
> a local website; but I hadn't closed the file so it got sent. Silly.
>
> The datum I was after is the *precision with which the circles were built.
> One, boscawen-un, still has its central stone - 19 around and one in the
> middle. The middle one looks as though it's falling over; but, when it was
> excavated, they found that it had been erected and fixed that way,
precisely
> that way, and for once everything was put back as it had been
>
> I dont think anyone has yet tracked back to what the stone might have been
> pointing to; but it and its kin are clearly more than stone cut flower
> holders and NOTHING to do with celts or druids
>
> I'm not quite sure of your tone towards my unfinished note (email's fault
> not yours or I think mine) so I'll add a bit
>
> That these circles and standing stones are not always that easy to get to;
> and a bit of a pain in winter when buses are only every few hours, the
> roads empty but dangerous and the paths muddy; so you have to want to go
to
> them. And I do. I am knocked out by the effort put in by their builders;
> and, studying a little, I am more knocked out by the precision. It
> fascinates me. And I expect I shall go on visiting them as long as I am
> able - I still have a few I havent visited because I need to get
permission
>
> *Why would they do it? (the circle builders) might have occurred to me but
> hasn't really. Why would I spend so much time writing with so few reading?
> But I do. Beliefs of different kinds.
>
> What I meant about the smokescreen - and it may well be you understood me
> well - is that it isn't good enough in my eyes to just call everything
> celtic or anything else *and co-opt it. Actually it's bullshit
>
> There *is a lot unknown but there is also a lot very well known. A lot of
> people have spent a lot of time researching; and anyone _quoting_ the
> ancient sites has a responsibility to make the effort to find out what is
in
> the library. One can argue with it, but not just ignore it. That's my
> belief. Otherwise I think of this kind of _belief_ as believing in nothing
>
> On the rest, I don't think it was pessimistic. You want pessimistic?!
>
> I know you don't. I'm fairly pessimistic, generally, yes; but I keep doing
> things which pessimists might not be expected to do
>
> But d.i.y. religion won't make me optimistic. Indeed it reminds me of a
post
> around the start of the Iraq war where - whoever it was and maybe not even
> this list - said we ( i.e. Greater USA) must act on our beliefs and if
that
> doesn't work then we change our beliefs
>
> and that kind of thinking of adjusting belief systems to match temporary
> objectives scares the hell out of me - pessimism isn't in it
>
> looking at my *completed message, rather than the one I'd have preferred
to
> be ignored, I'm criticising fake spirituality and bogus / lazy argument
>
> and i am getting excited that within relatively few generations there were
> people dancing at what are traditionally called _dance stones_ and long
> before anyone would have dared to try new age religion - in the museum
here
> there are the wooden stocks last used in 1927 for breaking the sabbath!
it's
> a heavy place. so if they were dancing at lamorna in 1850 they always had
> been and the objection was a Blairite "Modernise!" objection to get more
> still out of atrociously treated workers
>
> but they were dancing on a site which may well have been danced on more or
> less continuously for - make up a figure - 5000 years!
>
> gimme that old time religion
>
>
> L
>