One can always discuss something in a vacuum for academic purposes but there’s always the overlap. One can even go so far as to imagine that they truly are separate, but they ain’t. Both inform each other. Your take is way too esoteric and abstract so as to not translate back into reality.
Back in the day when one took that course in college on English Literature, there was only one book you got and it was Norton’s History of English Lit, vols.I & II. Not only did one read the writings of the time but one had to bust one’s butt with the politics and economies of the time, as well as learn to read and speak Old English; to read it in it’s original text.
Can’t have one without the other. They all act upon and influence each other at a constant though differing rate.
Does anyone think that frog they dissected in lab in any way amounted to the real thing?
All the best,
Nonoise
Back in the day when one took that course in college on English Literature, there was only one book you got and it was Norton’s History of English Lit, vols.I & II. Not only did one read the writings of the time but one had to bust one’s butt with the politics and economies of the time, as well as learn to read and speak Old English; to read it in it’s original text.
Can’t have one without the other. They all act upon and influence each other at a constant though differing rate.
Does anyone think that frog they dissected in lab in any way amounted to the real thing?
All the best,
Nonoise