And so is perception the observation or the thought?

-----Original Message-----
From: Carrol Cox
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 1/17/03 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: Something on reading poems

If I understand Empson's (and/or Ricks's) meaning here, he is in part
arguing that meaning in a poem is (or can be) emergent -- not reducible
to the parts. Relations, unlike the things related, cannot be observed
but must be thought. There is no way to directly state the relationship
between two sentences (or lines) or among a number of sentences (or
lines); that relationship must be thought by the reader.

This operates at a very minute level. Hold an object, say a pen, on your
open hand. You can see the hand. You can see the pen. You can _not_ see
that the hand is holding the pen above the ground. That is a
relationship that must be thought rather than observed. (In fact, you
cannot _observe_ that the pen is one thing and the hand another: that
distinction must be thought rather than observed.)