Carrol Cox wrote:
>If I understand Empson's (and/or Ricks's) meaning here, he is in part
>arguing that meaning in a poem is (or can be) emergent -- not reducible
>to the parts. Relations, unlike the things related, cannot be observed
>but must be thought. There is no way to directly state the relationship
>between two sentences (or lines) or among a number of sentences (or
>lines); that relationship must be thought by the reader.
>This operates at a very minute level. Hold an object, say a pen, on your
>open hand. You can see the hand. You can see the pen. You can _not_ see
>that the hand is holding the pen above the ground. That is a
>relationship that must be thought rather than observed. (In fact, you
>cannot _observe_ that the pen is one thing and the hand another: that
>distinction must be thought rather than observed.)
Felt, too, I think, not only thought.