Print

Print


At 07:03 PM 9/26/2006, you wrote:

>Ken may I repeat for the umpteenth time that I am quoting sources, rather 
>than presenting an invention of my own?

   As often as suits you. But I wasn't asking about inventions, yours or 
anyone else's; just where the sage/devotee division came from. Sorry, I'm 
not as well read as I am articulate.

>  The primary source is within double quotes, and a source being quoted 
> within that quote has single quotes. That is standard practice in citing 
> sources is it not?

   It is, but that isn't what you did. Take a look. Hence my genuine 
question. Simple, I thought.


>What else do you require to get the sources straight?

  Just a tad more transparency and I'm pretty sure I'll get it. My other 
questions stand, I think.

Thanks for your patience,
Ken A.


>
>From:  Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To:  "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
>To:  [log in to unmask]
>Subject:  Re: Eliot and Divisions
>Date:  Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:02:58 -0400
>At 03:07 PM 9/26/2006, you wrote:
>
> >CR I cannot agree, nor does More, with the view that Christian
> >aspiration is the same as that found in the Vedas and Upanishads.
>
>    Wasn't it More who claimed that Eliot the poet was somewhat 
> incompatible with Eliot the critic, as Vishvesh recently alluded to (and 
> in response to which I was thinking of More, not Vishvesh)?
>
> > It can even be argued...that Eliot's conversion itself was based on his 
> recognition of himself as a Devotee rather than as a Sage and >that he 
> accepted an exoteric world of myth, allegory, devotion, and religious 
> observance instead of that (inner) recognition." Reilly, in    >The 
> Cocktail Party, describes what amounts to these two paths to Celia."
>
>First, the Sage/Devotee dualism is attached to what view, and in whose 
>view? Second, I can't quite figure out whether something is being quoted 
>above and where it ends or starts.
>
>My impression is that you have chosen one view to use as a standard 
>against which to find the other wanting. That's ok if you know that that 
>is what you are doing , but simply assuming a standard seems a bit arbitrary.
>
>Ken A