Wei wrote:

> Well, I asked you to explain why the very notion of "preserving God's
> mystery" is not an oxymoron.  God is mysterious, but I do not see how man
> can do anything to "preserve" his mystery.  God is quite clever, as
Charles
> Moyer said.  I don't see why man should try to make him more mysterious
than
> he wants to be.  Maybe you could explain your view.  I think the "jam jar"
> analogy should stand til you come up with another one.  Until then can we
> assume "preserving" God's mystery is merely synonymous with "preserving"
the
> power of priesthoods.
>

God, as you say, is above all of this. What I meant is that Man can do
something to preserve *the idea* that God is beyond the ken of men.  If God
is unfathomable, then his Name cannot be invoked to justify any nation's or
any group's political or social agenda.

> ... What happened to his belief that relgious organizations are
> constructed for the purpose of "exploitation and oppression"?  Seems to
have
> disappeared.

Pound does not adhere perfectly to this principle that Deity is beyond the
ken of men, but I believe that at one point  in his life he understood it
clearly, and then later it slipped his mind as that mind was slipping.


>  Of course the more hierarchical, and the more orthodox
> the "faith" the less likely that the church service (mass, or whatever)
will
> bring the participant into genuine communion with God, or foster a belief
in
> the brotherhood of man.  On the contrary, awe is fostered, and God is seen
> as the guarantor of a socio-religious hierarchy.

Since you say that my own beliefs are not unimportant to this discussion:  I
believe that all men are _not_ created equally (some men are innately more
intelligent, better athletes, better singers and musicians, more immune to
dental caries, etcetera than others) but that all men have nonetheless
certain unalienable human rights.

> >That Pound regarded the celebrant of the Mass as a "half-educated ape of
a
> >clargimint" (play on "varmint") shows that he does not regard the clergy
as
> >an elect class.
> >
> So he despises both the "bloody public" and the priest, and this in a
letter
> written to a priest?

YES YES YES (see below, discussion of "clargimint")

If you cannot understand that Pound would say something like this to a
priest, you do not understand Pound's motives as well as you think you do.

> What is the point of his saying that the mass should
> be in Latin.  Why is he interested in the Mass at all?  If you like, I can
> produce numerous Pound quotes during the period of his work for the
Fascist
> ministry of Culture where he praises Catholicism for its ability to order
> society.

Do so. They are likely to support your point about oppressive hierarchies
and Pound's search for social order better than this mass-in-latin
quotation.


> Not all artists, clearly.  Pound sees himself as a member of the "elect".
> That is axiomatic.  Perhaps it is Hubris; perhaps it is part of the
> narrowness of his spiritual vision, inspite of the broadness of his
> intellectual and cultural interests.  Don't you find this sort of elitism
at
> all disturbing?

No more disturbing than a radical "levelling" egalitarianism which seeks to
eliminate the intelligentsia, or mob rule.  I prefer the center path that
recognizes varying degrees of human capability  and aptitude while
recognizing and enforcing inalienable human rights.

I wrote:
> >Why should the ritual language be unintelligible? Because it inculcates
(I
> >use the word advisedly) the notion that an understanding of these
mysteries
> >is not to be had by any Tom Dick or Harry
>

To which you replied:
> So the goal of the ceremony is to say "You Tom, Dick, and Harry are not up
> to understanding what this religion is about.  I, the priest, on the other
> hand know Latin, so I understand.

The quotation reads: "... half-educated ape of a clargimint", i.e.
half-educated ape of a clergyman.  Your English is very good, of course, but
"clargimint" might have thrown you off, since it is not going to be found in
the dictionary. It plays on a quasi-dialectal uneducated hillybilly
pronunciation of the word "clergyman" with the final syllable of "varmint"
tacked on.  This word "clargimint" evokes Pound's long-held notion that the
clergy are scoundrels. Pound lumps the clergy in with the members of the
"bloody public".

I personally believe (since you ask) in checks and balances, in both
senatorial leadership and congressional representation.

 I wrote:

> >P.S. I have no idea whether deity is all-compassionate. That would be
mere
> >credo on my part.
>

You replied:
> Your credo is not unimportant in this debate.  If you suspect God is
> all-compassionate, would that make you more or less sympathetic to Pound
on
> the issue of preserving mystery?  Or would it be irrelevant?  If you
suspect
> that God may not be compassionate, would this make you more or less
> sympathetic to Pound?  Or would that be irrelevant.

I have no suspicions, Wei, on the matter of the personality of God, and
would be inclined to take the car keys away from anyone who does.  That
troubles me far more than elitist or even aristocratic tendencies.

Tim