On 2/21/2016 2:24 PM, Nancy Gish wrote:
> I agree with Ken (interesting) that there is a major issue in all 
> these about how they could be implemented. And I don't think them 
> quirky either. As critiques, they are also sometimes perceptive and 
> even prescient.
> I would not wish to see them either implemented or widely accepted:

      I thought they were more than "sometimes perceptive." And as 
perceptions or observations, if they are accurate, how could you not 
want to see them more widely accepted? Either they are correct or they 
are not. Perhaps it would help if you listed the ones (apparently the 
majority?) that weren't perceptive?

> Eliot's apparent solution, at least in some cases, is the creation of 
> a uniform society (as in "Notes toward the Definition of Society" or 
> empire (as in "Virgil and the Christian World").

   Eliot was careful to call it "Notes" not "The Solution." And by the 
way, it was Notes Toward the Definition of Culture. The other book which 
seems mashed together in your title was The Idea of a Christian Society. 
I think he was using the word "idea" to indicate an unrealizable goal. 
But clearly he was trying to sound an alarm that forgetting and 
sloughing off the roots of culture was not a good thing for the future 
of that culture. Yancey's observation that EU members would smile at 
that notion is perhaps just a bit premature; there's still time for that 
bulleted Eliot point to move into the prescient column.

I'm really not sure what you mean about dividing. And my sense is that 
Eliot might come back to your position and say it is assumed from the 
temporal side only and offers no counterbalancing idea. But it is only a 
sense, since you do not define it. Throughout his points in the Yancey 
list, he seems fairly obviously to be attempting to strike a balance and 
not to be going to any extreme but to point out the dangers of doing so. 
I think he is doing it not to be diplomatic, but to be accurate. Which 
is one of the things I value in his thinking.

Ken A