At 03:03 PM 2/26/2004 -0600, you wrote:
>George Carless wrote:
> > > The truth is NOBODY'S possession nor can it be reduced to mere symbolic
> > > arrangements of sound or print. It always has been and continues to be a
> > > mystery.
> > In other words, then, the 'truth' cannot be defined, understood,
> appreciated, dealt with in human
> > terms, or supported by logic. And lo, we're back to arbitrary
> mysticism whose only justification
> > is, by definition, itself.
>Try truth as a social relation. One can't "possess" it, but neither is
>it something transcendental that "possesses one."
You mean by your proclamation it can't be. Well, hold hard a
jiffy. Stop there. Why not? The reason can't be because you don't see how.
That isn't a reason, but your condition, and besides, we don't want one
individual deciding what can and can't be. In a social situation, the truth
is a transcendental reality that possesses us. That is not to say dully
that it controls us like puppets, but that it must be acknowledged or will
cause all kinds of problems until it is. Without it, "relations" is a
meaningless abstraction. This was the homage that TSE paid to H. James:
that he saw that reality. It is one that TSE saw and which was a guide to
his poetry, evident in it early and late.
Well! and what if she should die some afternoon,
Afternoon grey and smoky, evening yellow and rose; 115
Should die and leave me sitting pen in hand
With the smoke coming down above the housetops;
Doubtful, for a while
Not knowing what to feel or if I understand
Or whether wise or foolish, tardy or too soon 120
Would she not have the advantage, after all?
This music is successful with a dying fall
Now that we talk of dying
And should I have the right to smile?
Here the young man in Portrait of a Lady is starting to get the hang of
this very mysterious entity that is anything but humdrum. Given your
proclivities, Carrol, it is not surprising that you reject it. It is
evident in your or George's formulations that you don't understand it from
the outset. That is not a criticism, but it seems obvious that some people
are given to understanding life as happening in a context of physical
realities and others in a context of the metaphysical reality (I put it
that way because I come down on the latter), which is not, however, a
denial of the existence of the former). If we don't acknowledge the
importance of that division, our attempts at communication are simply
exercises and seemingly baseless proclamations.
>I don't see how it's a