At 03:34 PM 12/13/2006, Diana Manister wrote:
>In this passage, time is conquered throughan experience of Bergsonian
>expanded time, a present amplified by one's personal past and future, a
>present that includes all tenses in itself. Indic "enlightenment," or a
>moment of "tat tvam asi" in which the self identifies with everything else
>partaking of the present moment with no relation to past and future, is
>not seen by Eliot as being as positive an experience. That would indicate
>that Eliot rejected the Indic approach that had earlier attracted him,
>would it not?
I don't get the logic of this. I get the impression that moving "the
Indic approach" to the center of attention in trying to appreciate these
lines and drawing conclusions about it rather than the lines forces an
>"To be conscious is not to be in time" signifies a rejection of
>consciousness, because he goes on to write very positively of the
>experience of being in time.
Again, logic? The syllogism is
premise: to be conscious is not to be in time
premise: being in time is positive
conclusion: reject consciousness
It doesn't work. Nor does it work to say the conclusion is "being conscious
is not positive," because the premise is not "only being in time is
positive." Etc. Eliot was nothing if not exact. "How pleasant to meet Mr.