charles moyer <[log in to unmask]> wrote

 >"I, one thing, as relation to one thing; Hui sees relation to ten." (Notes
for CXI)

>Wei - Don't you ever have just a little glimmer of doubt about the number
>of
>relations you see?

I am not sure why you want to turn the conversation away from the discussion
of Pound to the discussion of what relations I personally may or may not be
able to see.  But perhaps no explanation is necessary.

I am a great optimist about people's ability to see.  I think that you, or
I, or anyone, can see virtually countless relationships between things and
ideas.  There is no reason why the  development of our capacity to know and
discuss such relations should ever end.  I take very seriously that part of
Chomsky's linguistic theory which states that even the least literate person
is capable of a theoretically infinite number of utterances.  Like Chomsky,
I also hold that it is in the nature of language itself that complex ideas
(expressing complex and varied relationships) will inevitably occur in any
attempt to construct a series of sentences.  The seeming simplicity of some
sentences is a deception, based on the prejudice that certain ideas and
expressions are all the same.  However, in actuality, the subtle differences
in specific contexts (temporal, spatial, social, etc) ----and the
differences in the choices of words and sentences used----  make for a very
complex presentation of, or discussion of "relations" in even the briefest
exchange.

So the number of possible relations seen by any given person cannot be
limited.  Perhaps by your question you mean to ask me if I am humbled by the
finitude of my perspective?  In that sense, yes.  The number of relations I
can see between things is immeasurably small compared to the total number
which three or ten or twenty people may see.  It is small compared to the
number which I can see in conjunction with others.  I would say the ratio is
geometric (if that is the right term), in other words, two people can see
four times as much as the sum total which those people could see separately.
   So a TRUER knowledge of relations would come from a discussion of two or
more people than from those people merely writing or talking separately.  My
words on this list, for example, have more meaning in relation to yours; and
yours have more meaning in relation to mine.

[As regards the quote from Confucius above, which Pound quotes, you are
aware that Confucius (the speaker) is portrayed a certain way. He is meant
to be seen as one who is humble because he admits that he can only see one
relation in a given circumstance, while his particularly gifted disciple can
see ten relations. The discussion of that quote from the Analects could
spark a discussion of many "relations".  For instance, the relation between
Confucius and that disciple, between the author of the Analects and the
society in which he lived, between the codifiers of the Analects and the
rulers of the Han dynasty who promoted that text for various social
purposes, between Pound and the Confucian text, and the society that he
(Pound) sought to "reform."  All of these are worth exploring, as are many
other relations. ]

>I have been more interested in observing the comments in
>postings you have avoided than the ones you have addressed.

You might point to a very specific example, and suggest what you think I
should not avoid, or what you might like me to address.  Be fair now.  You
cannot expect me to address every point.  Any more than I can expect
everyone on this list to address everyone's points.  The infinite
theoretical potential of everyone here is limited by the actual constraints
of time and space.  If there is a specific point you want me to address, let
me know.

>The former have
>been those which would have led discussion away from your thesis (as
>someone
>called it) which has become the dominate feature and almost the only one of
>this list. Everything else gets dismissed or buried under the glut of your
>endless presentations and defenses.

Everything "gets dismissed . . . "  I don't see how this is possible.  Why
do you use the passive voice here?  Individuals dismiss things.  X may
dismiss the argument made by Y, and Y may dismiss the argument made by Z,
and so on.   But even that is subject to doubt.  If one person replies to
another person on one point, and NOT on another point, that need not
indicate the "dismissal" of an argument.

I also detect a tension (amounting almost to a contradiction) in a part of
your stance.  On the one hand you say I do not reply sufficiently to certain
unspecified points.  On the other hand you suggest I make too many replies.
Like any human being, I reply to what I choose to reply to.  So do you.

Also "volume" is not relevant on the internet.  Perhaps you could understand
the medium in a different fashion.  It is not like a radio with one channel
which must be either on or off (I don't mean to imply that you see it that
way exactly, but I merely intend to suggest an alternative perspective).

No one's post can be "buried" as you say, unless the reader(s) choose to
bury it.  One post that X makes can have one hundred times the impact than a
thousand posts made by Y.  People read or skip the posts they are interested
in reading.  No one needs read them all.  They can choose to read or not
read them based on the topic, based on the author, based on the first
sentence or any other number of factors.  This is the great glory of
internet communication.  It has many advantages over the book, the
newspaper, the magazine, the radio, and the television.   In light of these
aspects of the medium I don't see how anyone can bury anyone else.


>And don't try to construe this as
>censorship, not from this heretic.

I respect that.

>As far as your summary judgment of Pound  . . . .

There is no summary judgment of Pound.  There are a series of relationships
disclosed and discussed regarding many aesthetic, moral, political, social,
economic, linguistic, and religious aspects of Pound's work.  Each statement
is subject to a counterstatement at any time by anyone else, and subject to
modification and development.   You make incremental adjustments in your
view, and I do the same with mine, and so does anyone else on the list who
takes the time to think the issues through.  Even those who glance at the
issue now and again change their judgments by the essential modification of
perspectives which is the natural result of the passage of time.

Regarding your admonition about the opportunities that can be afforded by
communion with nature, I think you are right if you advise everyone to take
advantage of the beauties that forests, trees, and butterflies (though we
might be careful not to lapse into a physiocratic view of the natural world,
toward which Poundian thought would have us incline).

The reflections on the nature of the butterfly as a metaphor for spiritual
transformation, I think, constitute an excellent example of the positive
power of one aspect of Pound's work, when separated from his social,
political, and economic philosophies.  On this point we might very well
agree.

Friendly Regards,

Wei


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