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:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
The record, however, needed to be put straight.


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.