Print

Print


You are good at finding the damage in others, Carroll, despite Nancy's request that we not get personal.
Wherein lies your own damage that prompts this need to be personal?
P. M.

Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> This is from his dissertation in 1915. The quotation in which he said he
>may
>> be contradicting himself or only had had an adolescent sense of the
>concept
>> before is from 1940. So which notion? My point was that he did not say the
>> same thing at all times, and on this in particular he explicitly
>questioned his
>> own earlier ideas by 1940. Moreover, he said somewhere later in his life
>that
>> he did not even understand his dissertation anymore. (from memory) That
>> may have been joking or simply dismissive, but he did not maintain
>whatever
>> he thought as a graduate student throughout his life. No doubt at the time
>he
>> wrote this he understood what he was intending and believed it, but there
>is
>> no single notion of impersonality that he never changed.
>> N
>
>Anyone who still believes everything in his/her dissertation 20 years later
>must be brain-damaged. Perhaps that is cr's assumption: that Eliot is
>brain-damaged.
>
>As far as I can see, cr & friends resemble very much those who believe HIV
>does not cause AIDS, that the CIA assassinated Kennedy, that Bush planned
>911, and that there were no death camps in Germany. Conspiricism is a
>disease that apparently infects literary discourse as it does political
>discourse. It is impossible to carry on a rational discussion with cr et al
>as it is with 911 conspiracists. One always comes back to the same thing: in
>this case the assumption that there are no contradictions in the thought of
>X (anyone), but here Eliot. 
>
>Carrol