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