The Candle of Vision

There are similarities between George Russell and William Blake but George Russell attempted a rational explanation of visionary inspiration. Although he seemed to be primarily a nature mystic he also described visions which appeared to exceed his imagination. He argues that these visions appear instantaneously and since no artist could possibly create anything so subtle and perfect all at once, they must be memories or visions of something beyond the self. His logic seems flawed to me. The subconscious is capable of instantly arriving at aesthetic solutions. It can meld dissimilar impressions into a satisfying whole effortlessly and with no apparent intermediate steps. Just like the idiot savant can solve a math problem instantly without doing any calculations. The imagination is capable of miraculous conceptions. To conclude from this that visions are the genuine appearance of the otherworldly because no genius could be so swift is rather doubtful.George Russell does raise an interesting question about visions that seemingly exceed the imagination. Is this the genius of imagination which requires the visionary to egotistically take credit for the sublime or should the visionary ascribe these visions to something greater and beyond himself? I would argue that the subconscious contains much that the conscious mind is utterly unfamiliar with but that this is no reason to see subconscious imagery as being beyond the self. It is merely beyond the conscious self.

Candle of Vision is not just a book that I enjoy reading. I actually forced myself to only read one chapter per night to spread the enjoyment out over a few weeks! Full of images and phrases of beauty. Thanks to AE (George William Russell)those of us who don't have second sight are finally allowed a glimpse into the many colored land of Celtic magic.