Hear Hear


Sent from my iPod

On Apr 7, 2010, at 6:37 PM, George Carless <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Ken Armstrong ([log in to unmask]) wrote the following on Wed,  
> Apr 07, 2010 at 05:49:00PM -0400:
>> Nancy Gish wrote:
>>> One might add that "living a religion"--whatever that may mean for
>>> Christians, since we all know many profess and pronounce while  
>>> acting
>>> in ways that would presumably appall Jesus--is not a requirement for
>>> understanding, experiencing, or fully appreciating poetry.
>>    I don't myself know that that is true or untrue. How do you know
>> that to "fully appreciate" poetry does not require "living a  
>> religion"?
>> The circuitry of that sentence is one whose wiring I'd like to see
>> revealed. Not because I believe the opposite to be true; I don't. But
>> I'm interested to know the underpinning of such a statement, if  
>> there is
>> any. How, specifically,  can you tell when someone is fully  
>> appreciating
>> poetry?
> Isn't the point precisely that setting up ANY arbitrary condition  
> for fully appreciating poetry is a fool's
> errand? Of course, it MIGHT be the case that it IS necessary to  
> "live a religion" to "fully appreciate
> poetry"; it might equally be that it is necessary to be of German  
> descent and to have been born on a Thursday
> and to have a name that begins with "F".  But, you know, that's  
> probably not the case. And so, absent any real
> *evidence* for any claimed requirement for fully appreciating  
> poetry, it's fair to assume the invalidity of
> such a claim.
> Of course, it should be no surprise that those who believe in an  
> imaginary deity, absent all evidence to the
> contrary, also seem to believe in an imaginary standard for reading  
> Eliot... and it's probably as futile to
> argue either case.
> ;)
> George