Carrol Cox wrote:
>I didn't say that. I will add now that it really doesn't make any
>difference what kind of a "mind" TSE or Einstein or Nelson Eddy or or
>Clara Bow had. They're all dead and can't appreciate the compliment (if
>it is a compliment). The topic of whether or not Q has a "great maind"
>or not is simply boring. Why do you want to discuss what kind of a mind
>Eliot (or Einstein) had?
Well, okay. For someone who doesn't think the idea worth persuing, you
seem to have a lot to say about it.
Let us do this in baby steps, since that is what you seem to need.
"we are _not_ dealing with an 'extra-ordinary mind'".
That is the point with which I took issue.
Not an extraorinary mind = ordinary mind = common mind = YAWN!
If you find it too much of a stretch to equate extra-ordinary mind with
great mind, well, half a yawn. Big deal. I'm rather curious if you ever
had contact with any extra-ordinary minds, so as to be able to judge
one from another.
So, can you point to any other ORDINARY minds in the 20th Century
(or previously, for that matter) which created works of a degree
to those of THE WASTE LAND or FOUR QUARTETS. Or are you
going to be jesuitical and distinguish mind from imagination?
say something about Coleridge looking at him from the shadows? And
of course I'm sure you will say Coleridge had an absolutely pathetic
It was your point. I disagreed. Stand up for it or let it go.
I hope that is simplistic enough for you.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.17/85 - Release Date: 8/30/2005