Ken, I'm a bit confused as to what conclusion you are talking about.
The second sentence of the two you included with your post?
"It would appear to be for the best that the great majority of people should go on living in the place in which they were born," [Eliot] wrote, in 1943. He was evidently not looking in the mirror when he came up with that thought.
Or the ending of the article?
[Eliot] was the beneficiary of an open border, and it somehow feels appropriate that money flowing from things he was able to create is being directed toward people whose need to relocate is far more dire.
As for that "paradox", one also wonders what the summer house has to do with it.
Regards,
Rick Parker
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 10:43:52 -0400, Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> "It would appear to be for the best that the great majority of people should go on living in the place in which they were born," [Eliot] wrote, in 1943. He was evidently not looking in the mirror when he came up with that thought.
>
> A minor point: one can hope that Menand's IQ isn't so uncommonly
>low that he doesn't see the faulty logic of his conclusion. And
>supposing that it isn't, why such an indulgence? He should set the bar
>higher for himself and his readers. His grip on "paradox" is a bit weak,
>too.
>
> Ken A
|
