Print

Print


On 26/02/2013, at 9:19 PM, Peter Dillane wrote:

Hey Ken,

I don't see a lot that separates newborn humans from fetuses. I do know babies are powerful they get a hell of a lot organised for themselves. 
I haven't read Eliot's intro to Nightwood if he is saying that attributing failure to the person or to society are the same argument   what is he offering in contradistinction - revelation or grace or similar?
Thank you for introducing Nightwood it is a book I have never finished after a number of starts. I will try again.

Pete


>  
>  
> From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Armstrong
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013 11:59 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: The " abstract - isolated - human individual" was Can less be more?
>  
> On 2/25/2013 4:30 PM, Peter Dillane wrote:
> Thanks Carrol will have a proper look later. In Paediatrics it is often said
> "there is no such thing as a baby" which suggests at least one industry
> recognises this.
> 
>     Pete,
> 
>     I'm not entirely unsure what "this" refers to (I'm tempted to say I'd be more impressed if pediatrics said there was no such thing as a foetus), but the exchange put me in mind of Eliot's intro to Nightwood. He says of Puritan society past that, "Failure was due to some weakness or perversity peculiar to the individual; but the decent man need have no nightmares. It is now rather more common to assume that all individual misery is the fault of 'society,' and is remediable by alterations from without. Fundamentally the two philosophies, however different they may appear in operation, are the same." I can't help wondering if in trying to sniff out what is abstract and what is more real in terms of individuals and society, this isn't the principle at work. For Eliot, at any rate, the proper tension between real and abstract is indicated in the observation that "so far as we attach ourselves to created objects and surrender our wills to temporal ends, [we] are eaten by the same worm."
> 
> Ken A
> 
>  
> 
>  
>  
> Pete
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Carrol Cox
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013 7:45 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: The " abstract - isolated - human individual" was Can less be more?
>  
> (Comment  at end) 
>  
> Peter Dillane wrote: in the Milton essay you say: 
>  
> 'As Arthos notes Adam and Eve are separated from any historical context, any
> web of social relations, [ he]  presumably sees this as reflecting a basic
> reality, corresponding to the human condition or the permanent (ahistorical)
> nature of man, rather than a powerful and necessary illusion grounded in
> historically determinate social relations. This latter assumption, however,
> would have the advantage of freeing the critic from either engaging in
> ideological quarrels with Milton or from attempting to defend Milton or any
> other poet for his moral or political profundity,'