A number of mysteries:  1) the supernatural or inexplicable, effected
(or not) by human will;  2) myths of the past, what they mean and how
they connect;  3) shadowy origins of hegemonic social structures, like
banks, currency, fraternal organizations, etc.;  4) the uniqueness or
commonness of consciousness and its variety of subjective tricks, such
as the power of imagination to recast, or even produce, experience, or
to misestimate time span; 5) the ultimate incommunicability of
experience, and the mediating distortions of language.

All of these "mysteries" (that is, phenomena not easily explained or
phenomena too subjective to attract undeniable consensus) in one way or
another profoundly influenced modernist poets and other artists.  In
that they are mysterious, it does seem that there are connections to be
drawn between them.

However, it seems to me that to use "occult" to denote the first, the
second and the third items on my makeshift list places the term in
danger of sliding to cover the fourth and the fifth.  And I hesitate to
believe that 1) and 3) could be unproblematically yoked as "occult".
Someone offered a plea for a dictionary definition: this is entirely
justified, as far as our list should be careful about the terms of our
consensus, but it seems to me that the tendency for "occult" to slip
down a chain of potential signifieds is not simply incidental.  The
hiddenness of mysteries, the difficulty we encounter narrating the
mysterious, is what "occult" signifies at a very general level.

I haven't read Surrette's work, though I thank the list for bringing it
to my attention.  With that said, I suppose my question is, on what
basis is the occult in the Yeatsian sense comparable with the occult in
a more Poundian sense?  Is it simply that both were interested in
topics generally outside of the common ken?  Speculating, even
vociferously, about masons seem to me one thing , and using masonic
rituals to call forth servant spirits a quite different other.  Also,
the political intent of Poundian "occult" is quite clear, while in
Yeats's case, such political intent is much more murky.  As for Eliot,
I don't see how what he did with myth (or, for these purposes,
"occult") was much different from what other, later critics of the
structuralist variety accomplished, that is, digging for and
representing somehow the points of linkage between apparently quite
distant instances of mythic narrative.

I know I've simplified the conversation somewhat, but I hope my
question inspires a little more precision in our debate.

Regards to all,
Jon

(PS- I can't keep up with you people!  The posts have come fast and
furious, and I think we have about three threads going.  It's quite
enjoyable, and I hope everyone continues this invigorating pace.  I
have just acquired the correspondence of Cummings and Pound, and will
have something of substance to report soon.  Until then, take care,
all.)