Sorry if this comes twice. I seem to have clicked on two things. N

It seems to me not only permitted but essential. "Agency occurs" is an
oxymoron. This language does not, to me, resolve anything no matter who
says it or how often. I think two things are conflated here:
consciousness and "I." I do not doubt at all the notion of the
unconscious or subconscious. But a subconscious or unconscious
experience still is not detached from any human--or probably
animal--existent, regardless of what term you use for that. I think the
whole shift to discourse is the extreme opposite of the assumption of
the Romantic "Self," and equally open to challenge. 

>>> Jerome Walsh 01/11/10 3:57 PM >>>

But, Diana, is it not permitted to ask who thinks? And to answer, "I

Jerry Walsh, biblical lurker

From: Diana Manister 
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 2:47:26 PM
Subject: Re: Eliot's poetry: the medium & the message

Dear Nancy,

The I definitely exists, but only as a linguistic implication. Agency
occurs without the I. 

Why is it necessary to ask who thinks? As Russell said, "thoughts

Jameson's book "The Prison House of Language" notes among many other
things how language forces the identification of the agent. Without
language, verbing could verb without a subject. 

This is Heidegger's great contribution: unselfconscious agency. When
absorbed in coping, we are transparent to ourselves, as is any equipment
we use. Action occurs without the subject or the object existing in


Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:05:53 -0500
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Eliot's poetry: the medium & the message
To: [log in to unmask]

I don't disagree with any of this. But it seems to me really concerned
with what we mean by "self" or "I"--not whether some agency must exist.
I'm not addressing the meaning of "self" or the necessity of
consciousness; I am simply pointing to the fact that to discuss it all,
there must exist (note passive voice) some residue of agency, whatever
you call it, that does the discussing or challenges the definition. To
claim there is only discourse would, I presume, mean that discourse
exists. But how if no agency discourses? I don't find any of the
theories get at this, and I did, as I said, read a lot on it once. 

For example, if no "I" exists, who or what is your "you" who/that thinks
of it? That is the conundrum I am noting. And I do not think it is
simple at all--no one, in any case, seems to solve it.

>>> Diana Manister 01/11/10 2:57 PM >>>
Dear Nancy,

No doubt experiences are experienced, but does that mean some self is
experiencing them? 

Heidegger took on the philosophical tradition with his description of
Dasein as a way of being in the world as selfless agency; going through
a door unthinkingly, hammering a nail without cognition of "hammer,"
"nail" or "I", is primordial coping. A squirrel doesn't have to think of
itself as an "I" to climb a tree, a bird learns to fly without
intellection. Dasein deals or copes in that a priori manner, in
Heidegger's philosophy. He was the first philosopher to write seriously
about primordial non-intellectual agency, filling a gap in Western

No I exists until you think of it. Simple as that.

Not to stray too far from TSE, it seems to me that his poetry
problematized the self to extent that was extraordinary for Modernism.


Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:23:38 -0500
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Eliot's poetry: the medium & the message
To: [log in to unmask]

Dear Diana,

Actually, theories come and go, and I have never accepted this one. I am
really quite sure I am having them--all theorists to the contrary--I
have theory also and a no-doubt antiquated certainty that I exist. What
"I" am is another problem. 

At one point I read a great deal about this, and I never found in any
philosophical or theoretical text any explanation for a residue of
agency. I can't be specific without going back to all that, but I never
feel bound by current theories. And none were, as far as I could tell,
complete or satisfying on this. Who or what even can claim that
experiences or thoughts occur? It is an endless cycle. What is the
origin or agency or whatever you choose that produced the claim below
that experience occurs?


>>> Diana Manister 01/11/10 10:24 AM >>>
Dear Peter:

It's so outré to talk about consciousness. Neuroscience can't find it,
philosophy can't describe it, or psychology either.

David Chalmers calls finding consciousness "the hard problem."
"Impossible" is a more fitting adjective.

Postmodern criticial theory deconstructs consciousness as a function of
language. I and You are discursive only, linguistic implications.

Experiences occur, thoughts occur. That doesn't mean anyone is having


> RE: Aristotle -- the old mantra was time = the measure of motion
> but it only makes sense that he understood motion as
> change.
> The thing is, it doesn't matter how good the measurement is,
> or how independent of the observer it is, if some kind of
> result, however accurate or misperceived, doesn't get through
> to some consciousness connected to the measuring, then of
> what use or abuse is it?
> Today, given current technology, it takes about a year to get to Mars.
> Given a new Canadian invention which has a way of heating the
> rocket plasma [layman's terms] to unheard of degrees, it will take
> three months.
> Where is consciousness in relation to the result, not to mention the
> development of those technologies?
> "To be conscious is not to be in time"
> Cheers,
> Peter
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jonathan Crowther" 
> To: 
> Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 5:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Eliot's poetry: the medium & the message
> > Peter
> >
> > For Aristotle doesn't motion = change rather than only mechanical
> > locomotion?
> >
> > I understand that the quantum effects of measurement / observation
> with
> > a measuring device which is only conscious in the sense of having
> made
> > by a consciousness? So separate in one sense (physically) but not in
> > another (causally): an unseen eyebeam?
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> > Of Peter Montgomery
> > Sent: 06 January 2010 22:43
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Eliot's poetry: the medium & the message
> >
> > I think Aristotle said time is the measure of motion.
> > For me, time is the measure of change.
> >
> > Does measurement exist separate from the consciousness that does it?
> >
> > P.
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Chokh Raj" 
> > To: 
> > Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 7:07 AM
> > Subject: Re: Eliot's poetry: the medium & the message
> >
> >
> > For
> >
> > "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."
> >
> > CR
> >
> >
> > --- On Sat, 1/2/10, Chokh Raj wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I for one never cease to enjoy Eliot's "world
> > > of eye and ear",
> > > both for "what they half create, / And what
> > > perceive" --
> > > well pleased to recognise in his "language of the
> > > sense",
> > > the "anchor of my purest thoughts".

Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. 

Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now. 

Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up