tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760986403290352152.post8343180144985915817..comments2024-01-23T03:58:02.422-08:00Comments on oriana-poetry: DOSTOYEVSKI AND LOUISE HAYUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760986403290352152.post-11768333592891630982012-07-18T16:47:00.163-07:002012-07-18T16:47:00.163-07:00Thank you John. Yes. Love is such a wide continuum...Thank you John. Yes. Love is such a wide continuum. And actually it's not just love, come to think of it -- the fire of someone else's presence doesn't have to imply love. It's simply the interaction that's powerful, and the more open we are, the more powerful it can be.<br /><br />Just as Whitman saw himself as divine, he saw any other person as divine -- that's where he is still a complete radical, and detested by the religious right. <br /><br />I suspect that today Whitman would be a secular humanist, preaching the dignity (rather than divinity) of each person. In his days "divinity" carried a big cachet, while being "merely" human didn't really entitle you to much. Whitman's compassion for the prostitute etc also makes him similar that way to mature Dostoyevski, who saw the circumstances that make men evil/fallen, and in the end was able to see the radiant humanity even of prison inmates.orianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04209366167129773052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760986403290352152.post-87960603514690954152012-07-17T13:32:47.980-07:002012-07-17T13:32:47.980-07:00"The fire of someone else's presence"..."The fire of someone else's presence"? I think it's an idea that Whitman would have been very comfortable with. He believed in the burning power of friendship, what he called adhesiveness. I was just reading David S. Reynold's bio of Whitman and his discussion of adhesiveness presents an image of friendship that would be hard to find today when so much of our turning to others seems colored quickly with sexuality.John Guzlowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13052735138993479204noreply@blogger.com