Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:43:16 -0500 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Guys, you're making my head hurt. Warn't that girl in the painting purty!
What was she doing with her elbow stuck out like that? Fiddling with her
ear ring?
Tim Romano
At 11:04 AM 2/5/03, Carrol Cox wrote:
>Richard Seddon wrote:
> >
> > Carrol
> >
> > Is your glass half full or half empty. Immediately prior to the quote
> > Fenollosa states that two do not really combine into a third but rather
> > establish a relationship between themselves as individuals
>
> From a Hegelian point of view (as I understand it, which is not very
>well), two "individuals" (monads) cannot establish a relationship, since
>relationships are essentially internal. "We" must exist prior to "I,"
>which emerges as the result of a contradiction (not necessarily or even
>usually antagonistic) arising within "we." Hence the third which
>Fenellosa posits would be already potential within the original unity.
>Doesn't Pound somewhere sneer at "rotten cabbages tossed on silk sofas"
>or something like that. In other words, such a combination does not form
>an image/unity because there was no unity to begin with?????
>
>I'm out of my "field" or "fields" here. I just like reading the Cantos.
>
>Carrol
> >
> > I used this quote because of the similarities to Hulme's thoughts about
> > non-verbal language and the tertiary ties to Bergson.
> >
> > Rick Seddon
> > McIntosh, NM
|
|
|