Garrick Davis says,

>Finally, I put myself on the side of the angels, which means alongside Mr.
>David Moody. I agree with the sum and substance of his email (5/31/00),
>which
>criticized the positions of En Lin Wei.

How can you presume that you are on the side of the angels?  How do you
know, for instance the angels do not favor my approach to the issues under
discussion?  Perhaps the angels are neutral.   Or perhaps some angels are on
one side and some are on the other?  Does your conception of angels exclude
the possibility that they may have intellectual disagreements, even as
humans do?   I would be very troubled if I were compelled to believe that
all benificent spiritual beings thought exactly as Mr. Moody did on all
literary critical issues (inspite of my respect for his opinion).

>Mr. Wei, it seems to me, is doing
>Robert Casillo's work all over again, this time through an anti-Confucian
>lens.

What is wrong with an anti-Confucian lens?   It was Pound who claimed to be
a Confucian, so his Confucianism merits attention.  If you oppose my method,
then does that mean you support Confucius, and if so, on what basis? If you
are going to champion Pound, then don't you have an obligation to
investigate his belief system?  As I see it, you may have two choices:
either to lend support and justification for Pound's use of Confucian
materials, OR, you can criticize what I perceive to be Pound's misuse of
Chinese historical materials for narrow political purposes and dubious
artistic purposes.   There may be a middle ground.  Perhaps we can find it.


>Such an essentially political approach is bound to be fruitless, I
>maintain.

Pound's poetry is full of politics.  It is fruitful, in my view to explore
aspects of Pound's politics to understand the implications for his work, and
for culture in general.

>Mr. Moody shall have the last word, "In general, poets do seem
>to have a better sense of how to read them [The Cantos] than critics.  But
>then critics seem all too often not to have their eye on the poetry."
>
Come, come.  As long as there are human beings in this universe, no one will
have the last word, neither you, nor I , nor Mr. Moody, nor the descendants
of this generation to the nth millenium.  Do you sincerely believe that one
class of people are better able to interpret the Cantos than another?  That
seems presumptive to me.  You are entitled to your interpretation, of
course.  But let's hear your interpretation.  You have said little or
nothing on the issue of Pound's Confucianism.  How do you evaluate it?  Is
it a form of moralism?  Does it have ethical implications?  Does it have any
political implications?  I don't think it is appropriate to say that all
interpretations which are not made by poets are ipso facto invalid, and thus
avoid the issue.  I will not prejudice my reaction to any view on the
grounds that the speaker is or is not a critic or a poet.  I will judge and
respond to interpretatons on the basis of the logic used and the evidence
presented.  To judge an argument on the basis of the perceived background of
the presenter of the argument is to fall into a fallacy (the fallacy of the
ad hominem argument).  Let us avoid such tactics and rise to the challenge
of looking at the most essential cultural questions.  Among these is the
question: what are the implication of Pound's work for the relationship
between art and economics, aesthetics and ideology, poetry and political
opinions, creativity and its attendant cultural manifestations ?


---Wei

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