Marcia Karp wrote:
> Carrol Cox wrote:
> > > > Why should ordinary lives require compassion? I would see
> > > > that as (offensively) patronizing.
> And I, in reply:
> > > [clip] I think we all need compassion. I think we are all
> > > ordinary, except in occasional ways.
> And Carrol:
> > "We" (as in "we all need compassion") is perhaps the most complex word,
> > not just in English, but in any conceivable language.
> Dear Carrol,
> I'm a good deal simpler in my _we_s than you suspect. "We [Carrol and Marcia] see the
> world differently." Perhaps I'm wrong in characterizing our views, but _we_ is thee and me.
That was not the "we" I was commenting on; as I said "'We' (as in 'we
all need compassion')." I'm sure that you did not intend to say that
only you and I need compassion? :-)
By saying "we all need compassion" you blur all distinction among
humans, while my gloss on Eliot referred specifically to his division of
the species into a number of categories. And I would argue that his
categories, though essential to the poetry (as Pound's fascism is
essential to the _Cantos_ and Milton's radical individualism essential
to _Paradise Lost_) is both wrong and offensive. If we are all ordinary
people, then that fact is trivial, as is the fact that we are all
I think I'll start over again in my next post. Clearly my terseness has
led to confusion.