\ coNTENfiEn‘PAGE 97

RESPONSE TO'RAHMAN‘:

My Dear Rohman:

But why apologize when in good faith?

And how lucky am I to have extracted such criticism! . Whence the courage for it?

Admittedly, the argument I put forth to Mr. Glass was obscure and subject to many interpretations. I shall

nattempt to alleviate this pronto.

The core of the argument I SOught to pursue was: that 'about which one knows, one cannot believe: that which is believed , cannot be known: and, since Christian— ity (or, rather, that about‘ which Christianity is con— stituted, namely, that there is a God: Christ is His one and only Son who died and was resurrected that sin may be cleansed from the- world7“and that belief in‘ ‘that doctrine makes you a Christian, which necessitates a "leap.") stands or falls ‘on the acceptance of this \ "faith" (which is religio— moral) which is expressed through belief, all know— ledge must”be pushed aside in order for the "faith" to be maintained. This con- stitutes a blatant denial of reality (which is the known world) in favor of a faith which offers deliver- ance from human reality.

It is, then, self—defeating.

Let me ask you whether or not you know of the news- paper you now hold, or do you believe it is in your hands? If you know it to be there, then what necess- itates belief that it is there? Can you believe what you know? My position

.is that you cannot. On the other hand, can you know what you believe?

Again, my answer_to this is no. To know is to have

sensual access: whereas,

to believe admits of no suc access. w_

What is known in know-« ledge? Experiential data. What is believed in belief? That about which one re- quires faith to accept since lack of sensual acCess per- mits of no knowledge. There— fore, if one begins to artic— ulate what the content of faith is, then that implies a knowledge which was hither- to not there and , since one does not require belief in knowledge, then the content Of faith ceases to require words, if Christianity (the essence of it) can be ar- ticulated, itfbecomes know— ledge and is no longer a faith. ’

'I trust you are now clear: if not, please continue the dialogue to ensure greater Clariety on the matter.

I~-Editor

Page 9‘ “ ;

v

4- . .LTHE CAnnE.:IUES~. OCT-'23: 1973 .

,‘ AT Took CANADA 24 : 10mmsz CHINA ‘

ALMOSTA YEAR 10 RECOGAIZECUBA...

\‘I wait“

AND JUST 18 DAYS 10 RECOGNIZE THE NEW. CHJLEAN GOVERNMENT.

osvnousw, our: RECORD «3 IMPROVING!

\.=

.1 ,» \w v ' '~ ‘,._. _. . ". , _ ‘ jfimfi.‘}iw 1A in», a U

In Chaotic Review of the Anti-intellect

.Seas weep and the hand moans to follow.

It cannot seize that sullen sorrow, shake from the sound purpose or crude ob- jective, so it twists from

‘ the rocks below,

where the sun weeps to

follow the hand twisting in rage.

A tall man, cruel Bohemian, with scars complete, weighs this and that disaster, computing the magnificence of varying degrees of success.

Since he has no hand, quivering chin‘throbbinq

Speak Now of the Women

Speak now of the‘women, branded, girdled by fiery chain, maimed by opression. The women, flanded by security, revealed in re— action: writhing in gnarled emotion for a summitless past.

Speak of the women, churning, turning, burning their’fears.

The women,

coping, hoping, roping \ their peers.

in some dull savagery must suffice.

Now it shakes with stutter of dust or some ringing solitude, to crush the hand bent to follow.

I am not meaht to puncture the maids' eye, kneel in silence of stealing the hearts grim silence, stealing the pain of the sould theft of spirit

from fire.

The gunner runs from the wounded, clawing merciless- ly at his face.

* * * * *r *

The women who please,

The women who freeze,

The woman who's fired,

The woman who's tired.‘

The women who've thrilled, And the women who've killed

Now notice this: lying with a lady, Who clings in anger? Who sobs in despair?

* ~k *' * *'*