As it happens, that is not what "negative capability is about." Nor is
Eliot's theory of impersonality, though I fail to see how it is combined
with "control." But as you seem to be completely in agreement with
Tabitha and me and contradicting Peter since you focus on the "liberty"
with language of "a man" who "knows" it, why are you praising his
commitment to not "knowing" any particular "language" that is
consistent? "Taking liberties" with something already there is, of
course, the point, minus the assumption of language being a male
>>> [log in to unmask] 04/08/06 9:18 AM >>>
I'm also reminded of Keats' "Negative Capability"
in the context of Shakespeare. It's not a case of
one's being a turncoat, a scarecrow that turns with
every wind. Only a man who knows his language
can take liberties with the language.
cr mittal <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
Thanks, Peter, for your superb elucidation of
"mind-forged manacles" vis-a-vis spellings.
Your closing observation
Is there a fear of loss of power through loss of control here?
Dare we let ordinary people take back the language for themselves?
Guess what? It doesn't matter. They're doing it anyway.
reminds me of TSE's concept of Impersonality/Control.