Carrol Cox wrote:
> Try using the term "fragmentation" instead, and not by
> itself but, for example, "fragmented experience," "fragmented responses
> to experience," etc.
Note that one could talk about a "divided response to experience" and
(probably) go on to make some sense. But it would make no sense whatever
to talk about a "divisive response to experience."
Whatever other strengths or weaknesses Eliot had, from the very
beginning of his career he emphasized precision of language -- e.g.,
"poetry should be as well written as prose." And prose should be as well
written as poetry. And that requires some feeling for the ways in which
words are used, and simply because two words have the same root does not
at all mean that the words can with any precision be used
And sloppy use of "divisive/devisiveness" can obviously be devisive on a
list -- that is, create totally unnecessary divisions on the list. I was
serious when I said that you should back up a few turns and try to start
the discussion off with some clarity. Instead we seem to have simply
more private gushings.