Ken apparently you missed Rick's post in which he said he found the  
notion of Pound psychoanalyzing Eliot amusing. He wrote that in  
response to my claim that Pound took TWL on its own terms as the  
expression of a dissociated personality and did not try to have Eliot   
"unify" it.

That's what Rick wrote, and prompting me to waste my time to correct  
your false statement is irresponsible on your part.

Sent from my iPod

On May 6, 2010, at 10:40 PM, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> In fact, it is a commonly recognized psychological term used by many  
> psychologists/philosophers (not, when Eliot was at Harvard, clearly  
> separate) with a specific meaning.  Eliot had read and commented on  
> some of them (for example, William James), and he knew the  
> meanings.  He uses them explicitly in many of his writings-- 
> especially many not collected.
> What someone now just thinks it means without any of that context is  
> really not an answer to Diana.
> Nancy
> >>> Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> 05/06/10 10:10 PM >>>
> DIana Manister wrote:
> > Nonetheless, I agreed with Nancy's opinion that dissociation is a
> > misleading term.
> No one ever said there is either association or dissociation, black
> and white. It's a relative term, which way I suspect most people  
> take it
> and Eliot meant it in talking about sensibility. I see no problem  
> using
> it this way.
> > My post in no way indicated that Pound was psychoanalyzing Eliot.
> > That's a ridiculous interpretation of my comment.
> But it must be entirely your own, as no one else, recently at least,
> made any such statement.
> Ken A