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.
>>> 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.