Print

Print


Thanks, Tom. I probably don't have enough intelligence, of the data 
sort, to put together any finished or even draft ideas on what you 
presented. I understand what you are vis-a-vis Coleman calling layering, 
but how it occurs in actual brains now today (ditto for Eliot)  in 
relation to what TSE described I don't know. I would suspect that, as 
Carrol says, the testing of lighted brain areas is still in nascent 
stages.  Might be worthwhile to see if Coleman has an opinion he'd 
share?  Freud seems even less clear to me, as I don't see Eliot's 
description of objective correlative being in essence one thing standing 
for another, but rather the explicit drawing out in art of the 
circumstances, in their relational dynamics, that would indicate or end 
in the emotion intended. In that sense they are the visible or 
infer-able signs of the emotion such that without their presence the 
emotion would not exist.

Certainly something to chew on. I'll feel better about Coleman & co. 
when psychosis and art have been disentangled. As it stands I'm inclined 
to think that the difference is not rational and non-rational but 
scientific and non-scientific. Getting them in better perspective IMHO 
would entail seeing that rational covers significantly more 
thought-process ground than scientific.

Ken A