Carlo wrote:

<<I must say your approach to discussion does make use of 'scientific
method', at least the experimental sciences.>>

Like you, I am an opponent of narrowly empirical approaches.  I do not think
there can be any such thing as a "scientific method" of discussing
literature.  I see why you might look at some of my discussion on this issue
and conclude that it uses a scientific method.  But I don't think it would
be appropriate to characterize ANY method of discovery based on such brief
acquaintance of just a few of the results.  Any discussion on a list like
this is bound to be informal, and either of our approaches might be
mischaracterized.  The real issue is not to turn toward my method of
discussion on the list or your method of discussion on the list (because I
might inadvertantly mischaracterize your method).  The real issue is Pound's
method, which I would like to invite you to characterize.

Pound says he uses the "ideogrammic method", so called.  I characterized
Pound's method as "supra-dialectical" in a recent post, making a comparison
between his method and Gentile's evolved (or de-volved) concept of Hegelian
dialectic, which was so prevalent in Italy during the 20's and 30's.  I will
post an excerpt of that again and you can respond to it, if you like.

Regards,

Wei


________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com