Print

Print


Dear Nancy,

I will sure look forward to it.

I don’t have any psychological or psychiatric
explanations for what I look at it (as related to
T.S.Eliot), at least in the 'academic' sense of those
terms.  I think that Literature is a comprehensive
experience of all the faculties in the artist, many of
which could be those we do not normally associate for
perception.  It is in proportion to what one does
justice to a wholesome experience of an individual, I
believe, one’s works have any importance.  Eliot’s
major works, I have found, are those when he is not
under the sway of his conscious conceptions of art,
such as the one found in the passage I made a note of
earlier.   And his dramas are examples of their
influence on him.   Not his dramas alone, but some of
his criticism too, particularly his liking for a
writer like James Joyce.  I think I touched on it
briefly earlier with Leavis’s remarks on Flaubert.  I
am planning to work on this subject and any related
material as you seem to have written would be most
welcome to me.

Thank You.

Regards,
vishvesh





--- Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Vishvesh,
>
>
> I should be direct and say that I do not at all
> agree about
> dissociation, and I have studied it for 17
> years--and known people
> who experience it.  I think there is nothing
> <bold>essentially</bold> pathological
> about multiplicity, though of course some people do
> feel they
> disintegrate.  But some people think they are
> unified--and they are
> pathological--but no one finds a causal relation.
>
>
> I asked the question, however, out of a genuine
> interest in why you
> think otherwise, and how much it is based in
> psychiatric or
> psychoanalytic assumptions.
>
>
> I've written on this, and when it comes out, I hope
> you will look at it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nancy
>
>
>
> Date sent:
> <color><param>0000,0000,8000</param>Mon, 15 Sep 2003
> 07:20:19 -0700
>
> </color>Send reply to:
> <color><param>0000,0000,8000</param>"T. S. Eliot
> Discussion forum." <<[log in to unmask]>
>
> </color>From:
> <color><param>0000,0000,8000</param>Vishvesh Obla
> <<[log in to unmask]>
>
> <bold></color>Subject:
> <color><param>0000,0000,8000</param>Re: Unified
> Sensibilty,
>
> </color>
> <color><param>0000,0000,8000</param>dissociation of
> sensibility etc (was: Auden's limerick about Eliot)
>
> </bold></color>To:
>
<color><param>0000,0000,8000</param>[log in to unmask]
>
>
> </color>Dear Nancy,
>
>
> I wish I had the time and resources to reply to that
>
> question of yours.  The issue that I raised has
> always
>
> been a burning question in me in my understanding of
>
> what literature essentially is and should be.  I
> will
>
> try to answer it before long.  Please do not think
>
> that I ignored a question I gave rise to.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> vishvesh
>
>
> --- Nancy Gish - Women's Studies
> <<[log in to unmask]>
>
> wrote:
>
> <color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> I responded to
> this earlier when I was about to rush
>
> > to class.  But I
>
> > am curious about your conception of unity and
>
> > dissociation--
>
> > particularly as I have been writing on the
> subject.
>
> > Why do you
>
> > identify "dissociation" with "torn up
> personality"?
>
> > What do you
>
> > think Eliot does mean by that and why is there
> some
>
> > ideal value to
>
> > "unified sensibility"?  And why does any of this
>
> > constitute a
>
> > "defect"?  This is not meant to be challenging:  I
>
> > am interested in
>
> > why these words seem to assume truths and values
> you
>
> > do not
>
> > explain.
>
> > Nancy
>
> >
>
> > On 2 Sep 2003, at 16:09, Nancy Gish - Women's
>
> > Studies <<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > The issue is the same as that in the Clark
>
> > lectures:  they develop
>
> > > and extend the ideas of that essay.
>
> > > Nancy
>
> > >
>
> > > On 2 Sep 2003, at 12:07, Vishvesh Obla
>
> > <<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > > I am reminded of a related issue after reading
> a
>
> > few
>
> > > > of these postings:
>
> > > >
>
> > > > “The mind of the poet is the shred of
> platinum.
>
> > It may
>
> > > > partly or exclusively operate upon the
>
> > experience of
>
> > > > the man himself; but, the more perfect the
>
> > artist, the
>
> > > > more completely separate in him will be the
> man
>
> > who
>
> > > > suffers and the mind which creates; the more
>
> > perfectly
>
> > > > will the mind digest and transmute the
> passions
>
> > which
>
> > > > are its material…”
>
> > > >
>
> > > > The above passage (from his famous essay
>
> > ‘Tradition
>
> > > > and Individual talent’) appears to me as
>
> > paradoxical
>
> > > > whenever I think of Eliot’s phrases, ‘unified
>
> > > > sensibility’, and ‘dissociation of
> sensibility’.
>
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com