Print

Print


Cox overlooks that Eliot defined what he meant by formula, and that that 
definition was grounded in his philosophic studies, particularly as 
bodied forth by his dissertation, "Experience and the Objects of 
Knowledge in the Philosophy of F. H. Bradley." Eliot was an exceptional 
intellect who took his studies seriously and produced a dissertation to 
prove it. To intimate that he was nothing special is posturing, and 
pretending to wave a wand and dismiss his use of"formula" on a 
technicality is a pretty empty gesture.

Ken A

On 5/3/2012 10:58 AM, Chokh Raj wrote:
> The record, however, needed to be put straight.
>
> CR
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: * Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]>;
> *To: * <[log in to unmask]>;
> *Subject: * Objective Correlative
> *Sent: * Thu, May 3, 2012 2:41:38 PM
>
> The theory, not always labeled "objective correlative," presupposes that
> there _can_, in principle, be a 'formula' for a particular emotion. There
> cannot be, and the discussion of the theory is pointless from its roots.
>
> Carrol
>