Print

Print


Diana wrote:

"To be conscious is not to be in time" signifies a rejection of consciousness, because he goes on to write very positively of the experience of being in time.

Ken wrote: "Again, logic? The syllogism is

premise: to be conscious is not to be in time
premise: being in time is positive

conclusion: reject consciousness"

Ken you are deriving a premise from my statement that ignores the premise I explicitly posited. I said " because he goes on to write very positively of the experience of being in time." Eliot says

But only in time can the moment in the rose-garden,
The moment in the arbour where the rain beat,
The moment in the draughty church at smokefall
Be remembered; involved with past and future.
Only through time time is conquered.

Does that not describe being in time as a positive experience? If so, then "not to be in time" does not conquer time, and is not so positive. Diana




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's Indic Studies
Date:  Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:07:21 -0500
At 03:34 PM 12/13/2006, Diana Manister wrote:


>In this passage, time is conquered throughan experience of
>Bergsonian expanded time, a present amplified by one's personal past
>and future, a present that includes all tenses in itself. Indic
>"enlightenment," or a moment of "tat tvam asi" in which the self
>identifies with everything else partaking of the present moment with
>no relation to past and future, is not seen by Eliot as being as
>positive an experience. That would indicate that Eliot rejected the
>Indic approach that had earlier attracted him, would it not?

   I don't get the logic of this. I get the impression that moving "the Indic approach" to the center of attention in trying to appreciate these lines and drawing conclusions about it rather than the lines forces an unnecessary conclusion.


>"To be conscious is not to be in time" signifies a rejection of
>consciousness, because he goes on to write very positively of the
>experience of being in time.

   Again, logic? The syllogism is

premise: to be conscious is not to be in time
premise: being in time is positive

conclusion: reject consciousness

It doesn't work. Nor does it work to say the conclusion is "being conscious is not positive," because the premise is not "only being in time is positive."  Etc. Eliot was nothing if not exact. "How pleasant to meet Mr. Eliot."

Ken A.


Stay up-to-date with your friends through the Windows Live Spaces friends list.