>>> Ken Armstrong [log in to unmask]> 05/08/10 7:40 PM >>
 
Are you never aware how condescending and arrogant this is?  You say things like this regularly.  No one on this list is that dumb or needs such an attutude.
 When you read it, did you understand it?

Nancy Gish wrote:
> What makes you think I didn't read it--indeed, have to read it? I
> don't think it is that useful, but I admit I read it--and lots of
> criticism based in philosophy--quite a long while ago, but I never
> found it as revealing as, for example, /The Varieties of Metaphysical
> Poetry/ and the many articles he wrote well after the dissertation.
> And I think I already agreed that it was also about culture, not only
> individual.
Again, Carrol and CR both posted on different uses of the word.
> On the other hand, there is no "the" context: there are contexts.
I didn't say there was. You're really hung up on that, aren't you? How
do you know there is no "the" context?

Ken A