Your context seems to give you the talent
of discernment leading to order. Myself, being a person who
has too much order, I look for the off order angle,
if that makes any cents.
I too rejoyce, having something upon which to rejoyce.
Sort of a deja piphany, all order again.
Something tells me you are not the person to whom
I should be whimpering about having too much order.
From: Ken Armstrong [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 1:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Who's who
At 05:28 PM 10/10/2002 -0700, you wrote:
I'm with yu Ken, although I could believe you wouldn't want
Au contraire, glad y'r here. (So where are we?)
A thought on the fly: I with my context, you with your senses (and not),
Marcia pointing to so many poetric footprints she has to transmit the whole
poem to make her point---looks like we three are following--or clearly
coming from--our previously stated bent(s): interpretation, aesthetic,
If u are with me, I rejoyce, but the victor (il miglior reader), one of us
or not, is who makes the whole consort dance, or, rather, sees and does the
dance of it. But of course I state that from my p.o.v.
[Peter Montgomery] ===========================
>Perhaps from the 17th Century ov which Eliot sometimes put on, one
>culd see it in a different way:
>It is a metaphysical conceit insofar as it makes a radical leap that
>is not easily explainable by logic. On the other hand it lacks the
>immediacy of the odour of a rose, because, weirdly enough for a
>statement involving beauty, it does not involve the senses.
>Of course the world of Plationic, dvine ideas by definiion
>transcends the senses to a condition not of slow rotation
>suggestng permanence, but of actual permanence itself,
>to answer the queston how much DOES a Grecian urn?
>I'm with yu Ken, although I could believe you wouldn't want