Print

Print


Carrol, what you say is true only when thinking proceeds from one horn of a dilemma to other; duality can be transcended even while opposites exist on the dialectical level.
 
Frankly I am surprised that you define detachment as indifference; you ignore the non-attachment implication of the word. Just as disinterestedness is not uninterest, detachment can provide a locus from which to regard one's attachments. Isn't that what Eliot achieved in the 4 Qts?
 
Diana> Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:17:42 -0500> From: [log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Eliotists> To: [log in to unmask]> > Laura Close wrote:> > > > What do you think of "Thus the love of country begins as an attachment> > to our own field of action" > > Precisely what does this mean? Does it just assume that "attachment to> country" is a good thing; or is it in a context in which such attachment> is a bad thing? It seems quite empty of content to me.> > and "detachement from self and from things> > and from persons" ? > > > Translated into terms of human action, this seems to be a perfect excuse> to ignore massacres & other horors -- after all they are merely things > and/or persons. And "detachment from self" is merely candy wrapping on> the arrogance towards the rest of humanity.> > Carrol
_________________________________________________________________
More immediate than e-mail? Get instant access with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_instantaccess_042008