I don't believe it's a matter of mental stability.  Rather, some  people are 
more open to ideas and intellectual emotions than others.
In a message dated 11/13/2007 4:57:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

At 11:08  AM 11/13/2007, Diana Manister wrote:
>Eliot wrote:
>"our lives are  mostly a constant evasion of ourselves"
>Dear CR: That's my  point exactly. Even when people want to change, to have 
>more fulfilled  lives, they resist even the skillful efforts of trained 
>therapists to  allow repressed desires to enter awareness.


Eliot pointed out somewhere that a neurotic person will  not respond well 
to poetry, while presumably a healthy person at least  meets that 
requirement. The people who "want to change" and are in the  company of a 
therapist are probably among the former group.

The  case of people who want to change and have no call to visit a therapist  
may be quite different. Seems to me it's no sillier to think that a  healthy 
person can profit in a human way from poetry than not to think  that the 
afflicted would be resistant especially (not "even") to "trained  therapists."

It also seems to me that brutes need not apply. To  be human is to be 
capable of greater humanity. A skilled, not necessarily  trained, creative 
teacher helps.

Ken A.

>The process  of integrating discociated desires into consciousness takes 
>years and  years, because the repressed desires are regarded as 
>threatening, and  psychic defenses are erected to keep them 
>unrecognized.  The  notion that reading a work of literature would effect 
>penetration of  these sturdy defenses is laughable.  Diana

************************************** See what's new at