Print

Print


Indeed. For can we ever "bracket our biased nature" (Shargel and Dwyer's 
phrasing)?

Thank you for the reference to Pound's poem. It is most illuminating.The 
closing lines left me... well, moved. Let me bring up the Hindu "tat vam 
asi" (Thou art that) again.  It is common knowledge that TSE did some 
reading in Upanishads, and so did Pound, I would imagine (I am not quite 
familiar with the miglior fabro's background). "Tat vam asi" definitely 
implies rejection of the everyday (Cartesian,  categorising, alienating) 
mode of perception.

Would you agree that the "dismembement"  of the "They" (synecdochic 
"feet", "hands"), and the atomised world, to which the speaker in 
Preludes is awaken,  is analogous to Cartesian "mutilation" of the One 
("infinitely gentle, infinitely suffering thing")?

Just for the record:
"ontological shock" is an expression taken from Tillich's "Systematic 
Theology" (qtd. in "The literary Depiction of Ontological Shock" by E.P. 
Levy [quite an interesting analysis of the aforementioned condition in 
"East Cocker" and in Beckett's "Murphy"])

Once again, thank you for joining me and these issues.

Marcin



Peter Montgomery wrote:

>It is amazing how much of one's own perceptual conditioning
>can be found in the poem. It isalso useful to reference
>Pound's Portrait d'un Femme, which makes a fascinating companion piece.
>"Your mind and you are our sargasso sea."
>
>The poem is a spectral stone indeed.
>
>P.
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Dunja Seselja" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 2:18 PM
>Subject: Re: Identity of the speaker in 'Preludes'
>
>
>  
>
>>Very interesting idea, Peter. There are, in general, a
>>lot similarities between Preludes, Portrait of a Lady
>>and Love Song of A.J. Prufrock. 
>>Could it be that the Preludes mentioned in Portrait of
>>a Lady are a cross-reference to Eliot's own Preludes? 
>>It is also interesting that in all three poems the
>>subject is confronted with what Marcian called
>>"ontological shock" - he is overwhelmed with time and
>>his finite existence in it. Heideggerian
>>being-to-death maybe? It is fascinating how much of
>>Heidegger can be found in early Eliot... written at
>>least 10 years before Heidegger's main work was
>>published.
>>
>>Dunja
>>
>>
>>--- Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>It might be worth considering "Portarait of a
>>>Lady"'s 
>>>"You have the scene arrange itself,as it will seem
>>>to do."
>>>P.
>>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>>From: "Dunja Seselja" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 3:34 PM
>>>Subject: Re: Identity of the speaker in 'Preludes'
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Dear Marcin,
>>>>
>>>>I've been thinking of the questions you rose at
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>the
>>>      
>>>
>>>>List and here are some ideas (and further
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>questions)
>>>      
>>>
>>>>I've come up to.
>>>>The subject appearing in Eliot's Preludes seems to
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>be
>>>      
>>>
>>>>undetermined, and in so far, I guess it could be
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>even
>>>      
>>>
>>>>see as the generic one. In any case, the main
>>>>characteristic of the subject (when I say the
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>subject,
>>>      
>>>
>>>>I don't mean the subject of the speaker, but the
>>>>subject the poem speaks of, but in how far they
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>should
>>>      
>>>
>>>>be distinguished at all, I'll say something a bit
>>>>later) is his/her passivity. While in the part I
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>the
>>>      
>>>
>>>>subject is set against the world (being subjected
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>to
>>>      
>>>
>>>>its course), in the part II (s)he is set against
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>the
>>>      
>>>
>>>>time (being "condemned" to it) . (I think the
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>second
>>>      
>>>
>>>>verse of the part II shares some of the ideas
>>>>appearing in Prufrock, and I'd be glad to discuss
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>that
>>>      
>>>
>>>>issue as well). 
>>>>In the part III, we finally see the subject
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>*doing*
>>>      
>>>
>>>>something, but even that ("you tossed a blanket")
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>is
>>>      
>>>
>>>>the action of removing = replying to what has
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>already
>>>      
>>>
>>>>been there. But what this part seems to bring is
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>the
>>>      
>>>
>>>>(only?) action left to the subject - to have a
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>vision
>>>      
>>>
>>>>(in solitude). Now, in the part IV, the subject of
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>the
>>>      
>>>
>>>>speaker finally appears, but almost equivalent to
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>the
>>>      
>>>
>>>>subject (s)he is  talking about - it is again a
>>>>passive subject (i am moved... I cling...). The
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>final
>>>      
>>>
>>>>verse reveals a sort of "catharsic" discovery of
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>the
>>>      
>>>
>>>>subject (both the speaker and the one (s)he is
>>>>speaking of), similar to the relation of the
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>ancient
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Greeks towards the destiny: as the destiny is
>>>>uncontrollable even by gods themselves, why making
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>so
>>>      
>>>
>>>>much fuss about it? 
>>>>It seems to me that the status of the subject in
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>the
>>>      
>>>
>>>>poem could be compared with Heidegger's notion of
>>>>"being thrown into the world" (excuse my
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>formulation,
>>>      
>>>
>>>>I'm not sure how this expression is to be
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>translated
>>>      
>>>
>>>>in English), as well as with the "eigentlich" and
>>>>"uneigentlich" modes of "Dasein".
>>>>However, I don't see why the poem would stand in
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>the
>>>      
>>>
>>>>opposition to the classical subject-object
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>relation,
>>>      
>>>
>>>>and how would that be related to the "ontological
>>>>shock" you mentioned. If by "ontological shock"
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>you
>>>      
>>>
>>>>consider the realization of the finiteness of
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>human
>>>      
>>>
>>>>being, then this idea is definitely present in
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>both
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Preludes and the Love Song of A.J. Prufrock, but I
>>>>don't see how that could be connected with an
>>>>anti-Cartesian approach. Could you develop a bit
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>more
>>>      
>>>
>>>>on that?
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>
>>>>Dunja
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--- marcin ostrouch <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>I would like to raise the issue of identity of
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>the
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>speaker in /Preludes.
>>>>>/
>>>>>Please forgive me if you find it an open secret,
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>but
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>being a non-native 
>>>>>speaker of English, and rather a novice at
>>>>>systematic criticism, I find 
>>>>>the question problematic.
>>>>>
>>>>>At present I am attempting a reading of a couple
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>of
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>poems by TSE in the 
>>>>>light of Heideggerian concept of authentic
>>>>>existence. Therefore, I tend 
>>>>>to shun the structuralist approach which
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>pervades
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>the grey volumes of my 
>>>>>institute's library...
>>>>>
>>>>>It does seem that throughout the poem the
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>identity
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>of the speaker 
>>>>>remains indeterminate.
>>>>>
>>>>>Would you agree that the inflected pronoun "you"
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>in
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>the first stanza, 
>>>>>and the same pronoun in the third, are generic
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>ones?
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>[as I am not quite 
>>>>>informed in the use of those]
>>>>>
>>>>>What is more, the generic character of the
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>speaker
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>seems to be 
>>>>>deliberately strengthened by  references to both
>>>>>sexes.
>>>>>
>>>>>The governing consciousness, or if you like, the
>>>>>voice speaking in the 
>>>>>poem, (if there is ONE), seems to comply with
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>the
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>notion of Hindu /tat 
>>>>>vam asi /("Thou art That"), or at any rate, as
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>D.
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>Moody observes 
>>>>>"[speaker's] ordinary, egoistical self is
>>>>>suspended".
>>>>>
>>>>>Therefore the epistemic situation of the speaker
>>>>>seems to differ from 
>>>>>the traditonal Cartisian (subject-object) model.
>>>>>
>>>>>The poem read in this way would come up to one
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>of
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>the modernist 
>>>>>expressions of the epistemic trauma, or of what
>>>>>Tillich calls 
>>>>>"ontological shock".
>>>>>
>>>>>Could you please comment on those intuitions of
>>>>>mine?
>>>>>
>>>>>Is any one of you interested in hermeneutic
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>readings
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>of TSE?  Could you 
>>>>>possibly recommend some articles or sources?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>__________________________________________________
>>>>Do You Yahoo!?
>>>>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>protection around 
>>>      
>>>
>>>>http://mail.yahoo.com 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-- 
>>>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>>Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 -
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Release Date: 9/1/2006
>>>      
>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>__________________________________________________
>>Do You Yahoo!?
>>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
>>http://mail.yahoo.com 
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: 9/1/2006
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>