Ah, the old empire of the empiricist.
Funny, I've never run into empiral measuements of
the readings of which you speak. What branch of scince
is it in?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carrol Cox" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: TS Eliot: The Paradox of Simplicity - Language and Sin
> Nancy Gish wrote:
> > [clip]
> > >>> Peter Montgomery
> > It could also be read as husbands, don't obey your wives.
> > If it is to be read as a male supremecist story, then the
> > male in the story sure isn't standing up for that cause,
> > so it's hard to see the grounds for that interpretation.
> Why are you playing silly games here? It's not a question of how it
> "could be read"; almost any old story or text _can_ be read by someone
> or other in 50,000 different ways. We are talking about how IT HAS IN
> FACT BEEN READ over time. Also the fact that the Adam's rib etc. has
> regularly crowded out the other version. Have you ever seen a cartoon
> grounded in the joint creation of Adam & Eve? There are scores every
> year showing Eve presenting the apple, and there is an unending stream
> of male-chauvinist or even misogynist jokes on the topic. It's a matter
> of empirical history, not of how you or I personally might read it.
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.17/1103 - Release Date:
11/1/2007 6:01 AM