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