Dear Nancy,

I wish I had the time and resources to reply to that
question of yours.  The issue that I raised has always
been a burning question in me in my understanding of
what literature essentially is and should be.  I will
try to answer it before long.  Please do not think
that I ignored a question I gave rise to.

Regards,
vishvesh

--- Nancy Gish - Women's Studies <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> I responded to this earlier when I was about to rush
> to class.  But I
> am curious about your conception of unity and
> dissociation--
> particularly as I have been writing on the subject.
> Why do you
> identify "dissociation" with "torn up personality"?
> What do you
> think Eliot does mean by that and why is there some
> ideal value to
> "unified sensibility"?  And why does any of this
> constitute a
> "defect"?  This is not meant to be challenging:  I
> am interested in
> why these words seem to assume truths and values you
> do not
> explain.
> Nancy
>
> On 2 Sep 2003, at 16:09, Nancy Gish - Women's
> Studies <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > The issue is the same as that in the Clark
> lectures:  they develop
> > and extend the ideas of that essay.
> > Nancy
> >
> > On 2 Sep 2003, at 12:07, Vishvesh Obla
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > I am reminded of a related issue after reading a
> few
> > > of these postings:
> > >
> > > “The mind of the poet is the shred of platinum.
> It may
> > > partly or exclusively operate upon the
> experience of
> > > the man himself; but, the more perfect the
> artist, the
> > > more completely separate in him will be the man
> who
> > > suffers and the mind which creates; the more
> perfectly
> > > will the mind digest and transmute the passions
> which
> > > are its material…”
> > >
> > > The above passage (from his famous essay
> ‘Tradition
> > > and Individual talent’) appears to me as
> paradoxical
> > > whenever I think of Eliot’s phrases, ‘unified
> > > sensibility’, and ‘dissociation of sensibility’.
> > > Sensibility is not something cerebral.  Being
> > > ‘impersonal’ is one thing, but being two
> different
> > > beings at once is another.    I have always felt
> > > Eliot’s dramas are such fractured experiences of
> a
> > > torn up personality.  Probably his conscious
> > > conception of art had its inherent defect as
> displayed
> > > by the above passage and that was one reason he
> could
> > > never look with a straight eye at the works of
> > > D.H.Lawrence.  Probably, this made Lawrence
> himself
> > > sneer with disgust at the ‘bunkum of classiocity
> by
> > > the Eliots, Goughs…’
> > >
> > > --- Nancy Gish - Women's Studies
> <[log in to unmask]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > The Clark and Turnbull lectures explore this
> issue
> > > > at great length in
> > > > terms of the "dissociation of sensibility."
> > > > (The are published under the title Varieties
> of
> > > > Metaphysical Poetry,
> > > > ed. Ronald Schuchard)
> > > > Nancy
> > > >
> > > > On 2 Sep 2003, at 10:27, Ken Armstrong
> > > > <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > At 05:36 AM 9/1/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> > > > > >This may not be entirely germane but modern
> brain
> > > > > >theory links congnition and feelings (or
> emotion)
> > > > > >extremely closely.
> > > > >
> > > > >   So does Eliot, which surprisingly no one
> has
> > > > remarked. At least, he saw
> > > > > thinking and feeling as distinguishable but
> not
> > > > separate in his dissertation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ken A.
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site
> design software
> > > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com