Thanks again.  I haven't read your book in a while.   It is time to reread starting with Jewel Brooker.

Richard Seddon
[log in to unmask]

On Oct 7, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Jewel Brooker discusses this in her article in Cassandra's and my book on T. S. Eliot and Desire, Gender, and Sexuality (2004), and her notes, especially note # 3, list sources. As it is much more recent, it would be valuable to check it out also. The long list of sources in Gordon's T. S. Eliot: an Imperfect Life  (1999)would no doubt yield a great deal.
> Nancy
> >>> Chokh Raj 10/07/13 1:08 PM >>>
> TS Eliot: a philosophical anthropologist
> T. S. Eliot, Anthropologist and Primitive
> William Harmon
> American Anthropologist
> New Series, Vol. 78, No. 4 (Dec., 1976), pp. 797-811
> Published by: Wiley
> Article Stable URL:
> This might be of some help.
> CR
> From: Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] 
> Sent: Monday, October 7, 2013 10:47 AM
> Subject: Re: simple questions
> Rick,
> Sorry, my floundering memory won't pull up the name of the essay; maybe 
> one of the two on humanism? As I dimly recollect, Eliot's comment on 
> positivism was to the effect that it was worth exploring positivism to 
> learn that it was a dead end. Since my own thought is that positivism 
> gets off to a false start and therefore can only end wrong, I'm inclined 
> to accept the dead end pronouncement.  I'm not sure having a reading 
> list from the anthropology course would reveal Eliot's take on it, but I 
> wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't exist somewhere. I think the 
> dissertation would dissuade you on the liklihood of his taking a 
> Jungian/Freudian angle on anthropology; //I'd guess his own inclination 
> would have been more toward a philosophical anthropology.//
> Ken A
> On 10/7/2013 10:21 AM, Richard Seddon wrote:
> > Ken
> >
> > Thanks:  so it was primarily epistemological.
> >
> > But I am confused by " positivism was a dead end worth exploring"
> >
> > Also at the this time Anthropology was in its birth.  French Anthropology was and is almost an American Sociology (interpersonal relations) where American Anthropology was much more structural (how were societies built).  Of course neither excluded the other.  I am thinking that the Anthropology TSE is referring to in the 218 note is primarily a French anthropology and perhaps even more towards the Jungian/Freudian studies of myth.
> >
> > Rick Seddon
> > Portales,NM
> > [log in to unmask]
> >