>From:    charles moyer <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Pound's "religion"
>
>Mr. Wei has written that "God is infinite and incomprehensible, but Pound's
>record of, or expression of his communion with the infinite is itself
>finite, and subject to human efforts to define it --- carefully and
>accurately."
>     I think Mr. Wei has it turned around. It is, on the contrary, Pound
>and
>all poets who are "infinite and incomprehensible", and God who is finite
>and
>subject to deconstruction . . . .

Maybe I do have it turned around.  Maybe we both have it turned around.
Perhaps, if we apply the Buddhist fourfold logic we will discover that Pound
and all poets are: 1) simultaneously infinite and incomprehensible; 2)
finite and comprehensible; 3)  neither "infinite and incomprehensible", nor
"finite and comprehensible"; AND 4)  both infinite and incomprehensible, and
finite and comprehensible  AT THE SAME TIME.  Of course there are other
possibilities.  And we could say the same thing(s) about God, or the gods.

>because as Stendhal  observed "God's only excuse
>is that he doesn't exist".

"Only excuse"  ?  Even the poorest god imagineable could come up with more
than ONE excuse.

And as the Ur-Anselm once said, "Even the God which does not exist, can
prove that his essence is necessary and not contingent . . . ."  Not to
mention the fact that if he did EXIST, he could not BE in the eternal sense
(because all existence is contingent).

>Fortunately then for him his system can always
>be saved by continuously redefining as protestantism has done by the use of
>the accepted critique on rationalism,and the "tu quoque" argument.
>

What about Pound's definitions:

   (1)  The intimate essence of the universe is not of the
  same nature as our own consciousness.
  (2)  Our own consciousness is incapable of having produced
  the universe.
  (3)  God, therefore, exists.  That is to say, there is no
  reason for not applying the term God, Theos, to the
  intimate essence
    (S.P., 49).

Where does this fit in the history of Western rationalism?

>The point of western literature, at least where the Calliopean is
>concerned, is precisely Indo-European "pagan" mythic i.e. the myth of the
>eternal return

Even as far as the Calliopean is concerned, I would venture to suggest that
there is more than one "point" to Western literature.   And if we are going
to talk of Indo-European traditions, the Hindu and Buddhist myths contain so
many variants, and so many philosophical exegeses of these, that the
"eternal return" is only one among many, and has about as much value in the
history of thought as the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears  (not a
bad story, or an uninteresting one, just insignificant).

>is based on what once was known to have existed and has
>returned, and more specifically, the harrowing of hell by the hero on whom
>the goddess has bestowed the golden bough, the  key (kelthron) to making
>the
>passage. This is why Spengler wrote, and we can apply this to Pound with
>certainty, that "Every high creator in Western history has in reality
>aimed,
>from first to last, at something which only the few could comprehend." Not
>"democratic" . . .

As often was the case, Spengler was wrong.  On the contrary, every high
creator in Western history has aimed at expressing what EVERYONE could
comprehend . . . but aimed at expressing it in the most beautiful way.  This
is true of Homer's Iliad, the outstanding Greek tragedians, and of
Shakespeare; in India it is true of the Mahabharata, and in China, it is
true of the great semi-comic epic, Travels to the West.  Part of Pound's
problem may be that he THINKS he is aiming at what only the few can
comprehend.  But the mere assumption--- that one can aim at and strike what
only the few can comprehend--- might, in itself, prove to defeat any effort
at comprehension.  It is, arguably, a rather banal brand of hubris.

>If Heidegger is your philosopher then you should remember that he wrote . .
>.

I said that in my study of philosophy, Heidegger was my first love. Not the
same thing as to say he is "my philosopher . . .  "

>"myth is something older than faith"

Yes.  That is an historical fact.

>and if this is the case, and I am
>inclined to agree, the question of Pound's religion is a simple one of
>pantheism.

Pound explicitly rejects pantheism on several occasions.   Similarly the
tone of many observations he makes regarding religion is inconsistent with
pantheism, which is an extremely democratic and tolerant metaphysic.

   Re European belief:  Neither mass nor communion
  are of Jew origin.  Nowt to do with that nasty old
  maniac JHV [Jehovah] and are basis of Xtn. religion.
  Mass ought to be in Latin, unless you could do it in
  Greek or Chinese.  In fact, any abracadabra that no
  bloody member of the public or a half-educated ape
  of a clargimint cd. think he understood
   (Letter to Rev. Henry Swabey, Mar. 1940).


Does it make sense for a pantheist (someone who believes that God is in all
things, in all places, and in all persons) to speak this way?

Regards,

Wei

http://www.geocities.com/weienlin/poundindex.html



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