Print

Print


Ken wrote 12/26/10:

> His tone was hostile? He challenged her in plain, undecorated language. 
> Go back and read it. His tone was abominable?

Ken:

I read Peter's post and Carrol's post several times before I wrote anything to the list. I know that Peter was (legitimately) asking for sources, as I directly said at the end of my post ("Peter requested first-hand evidence, unfiltered and uninterpreted by anyone else. . . the request was valid"). 

Peter's tone? Tone is not so easy to prove, is it? You call Peter's words "plain, undecorated language", language such as:

P> I can't recall that you have ever cited chapter
P> and verse to support (your claims). Isn't it about time
P> that you did? Just repeating it over and over
P> does not make it true.

To me, the phrase "isn't it about time" is a hostile way of writing, implying the author is fed up with some sort of an endless delay in getting answers to his questions. Similarly, I read hostility in the phrase "Just repeating it over and over" (with the implied accusation that the poster_never_ cites their sources).

All that aside, Carrol was calling for no response to Peter. I was asking that the tone (whatever you think it is) be overlooked in order to address the substance of Peter's post.

K> Is your response, with Nancy's and Carrol's, sort of like Viv's brother
K> saying, "Peter doesn't know the rules. You have to appease Nancy"?

I would put it, "When commenting on each other's posts, do so respectfully". No special rules are needed for anyone. 

K> And what, BTW . . . was her answer?

Her answer was that she cannot immediately recall the specific statements Eliot made about creating the mystic experience without being a mystic himself, but she is certain those statements exist in the literary record ("it is not a memory I doubt at all"). She referred us to her book on Eliot and mysticism, published in 1981. I do not have issues with someone not being able to instantly recall passages from a book they published almost 30 years ago. I'm going to read the book for myself before I comment on its contents.

Regarding Peter and Carrol, you wrote:

K> He (Peter) didn't call her an asshole and say he wanted to vomit
K> every time her name appears in his inbox. . . .To criticize 
K> Peter for an honest question plainly put and give Carrol a pass on his 
K> truly abominable behavior -- unreal.

Ken, you know I've strongly disagreed with past posts from Carrol (both content and tone) and have complained about it openly on the list. I'm hoping that no one took my lack of comments on the tone of recent Carrol's posts as any kind of agreement or acceptance -- that kind of tone fosters a terrible climate here. I wrote what I did because I was genuinely surprised when Carrol asked that Peter's post (about citing sources) go unanswered. I was also interested in seeing for myself Eliot's quotes on mysticism, and it seemed to me that Peter's way of asking, coupled with Carrol's call for "no response", would result in no forthcoming information on this interesting topic. However, I intended no endorsement, no "pass", of Carrol's use of foul language.

-- Tom --

 
> Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 11:39:38 -0500
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Love's new frontier: Eliot's mysticism
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> His tone was hostile? He challenged her in plain, undecorated language. 
> Go back and read it. His tone was abominable? He didn't call her an 
> asshole and say he wanted to vomit every time her name appears in his 
> inbox. He didn't say she was dishonest because she doesn't think the way 
> he does. He posted a simple challenge: cite your source. Is your 
> response, with Nancy's and Carrol's, sort of like Viv's brother saying, 
> "Peter doesn't know the rules. You have to appease Nancy"? And what, 
> BTW, in between all the self-serving puffery, was her answer? And what 
> list is this? Nancy's position is nothing if not questionable. What 
> really shuts down dialogue is failing to answer questions. To criticize 
> Peter for an honest question plainly put and give Carrol a pass on his 
> truly abominable behavior -- unreal.
> 
> Ken A 
> 
> Tom Colket wrote:
> 
> >
> > Peter requested first-hand evidence, unfiltered and uninterpreted by 
> > anyone else, even by a scholar with Nancy's credentials. His tone was 
> > abominable, and shuts down discussion on the list. But the request was 
> > valid.
> >
> > -- Tom --
> >
> >
> >