the paradox of poetic 'impersonality'

So, poetry is both 'personal' and 'impersonal' ??? in that it is, or may be, rooted in personal experience, and yet it reaches out beyond the personal to touch upon realms that are impersonal, universal, absolute ???

The following lines from “TRADITION AND THE INDIVIDUAL TALENT” (1919) seem to fall into place: 

// "What happens is a continual surrender of himself as he is at the moment to something which is more valuable. The progress of an artist is a continual self.;.sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality."

"The mind of the poet is the shred of platinum. It may partly or exclusively operate upon the experience of the man himself; but, the more perfect the artist, the more completely separate in him will be the man who suffen and the mind which creates; the more perfectly will the mind digest and transmute the passions which are its material."

"But, of course, only those who have personality and emotions know what it means to want to escape from these things." //

You were silly like us; your gift survived it all:
The parish of rich women, physical decay,
Yourself. Mad Ireland hurt you into poetry.
Now Ireland has her madness and her weather still,
For poetry makes nothing happen: it survives
In the valley of its making where executives
Would never want to tamper, flows on south
From ranches of isolation and the busy griefs,
Raw towns that we believe and die in; it survives,
A way of happening, a mouth.
- W.H. Auden, 'In Memory of W.B. Yeats'


Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 

Some light, that, on Eliot's notion of 'impersonality' ??? 


Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 

the paradox of poetic experience

"And we have the right to say that the world is a construction. Not to say that it is my construction, for in that way 'I' am as much 'my' construction as the world is; but to use the word as best we can without implying any active agent: the world is a construction out of finite centres. Any particular datum can be certain only with regard to what is built upon it, not in itself: and every experience contains the principle of its own self-transcendence. Every experience is a paradox in that it means to be absolute, and yet is relative; in that it somehow always goes beyond itself and yet never escapes itself." -- TS Eliot, 'Knowledge and Experience in the Philosophy of F.H. Bradley', Chapter VII. Conclusion. p. 166.


Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]> wrote Friday, January 11, 2013 10:56 PM: 

To me the inverted commas around 'absolute' in the quotation tend to modify its (absolute's) meaning. The quotation would mean that while different readers could view a poem in different lights, it was necessary to view it in the light of the 'absolute'. 


From: Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: Dantean Aesthetics in 'The Waste Land'


"[E]ven if a poem meant different things to different readers, it was still necessary to assert its 'absolute' meaning." 
- TS Eliot (to Philip Mairet, 31 october, 1956;
    the collection of Violet Welton) 

A humble endeavor in that direction, TSE! 


Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]> wrote Friday, January 11, 2013 9:22 AM: 

Burning burning burning burning  
O Lord Thou pluckest me out  
O Lord Thou pluckest,3253,l=249085&a=248513&po=0,00.asp?p=n


Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]> wrote Friday, January 11, 2013 8:42 AM: 

O City City . . .