Nancy

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 <[log in to unmask]>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:http://www.jstor.org/stable/675145

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]
>


<[log in to unmask]>