Tim Romano <[log in to unmask]>  wrote:

>Subject: Syncretic and eclectic
>
>A poet may write of the "light" that accompanies the fracture of the
>Everyday, but unless the reader has actually _seen_, actually
>_experienced_,
>that particular brightness and clarity one will not recognize that to which
>the word refers.  Precision and  accuracy are not for a reader who hasn't
>shared Pound's experience, not for a reader who hasn't undergone "the same"
>experience.

Yes.  Fair enough. I agree with the proposition:  "unless the reader has
actually _seen_, actually _experienced_, that particular brightness and
clarity one will not recognize that to which the word refers."  That must be
true.  But who is to make the judgement that one reader has had such an
experience, and another has not.  Each reader must judge for him or herself,
don't you agree?   It took over four hundred years for church scholars to
conclude that Joan of Arc was a genuine Saint who merited canonization, who
(in their view) had received genuine visions from God.  Their judgment may
or not be correct.  What panel of scholars, clerics, mystics, poets, and/or
neo-platonist visionaries is fit to decide the degree to which Pound's
experiences were bright and clear apprehensions of the NOUS (Divine Mind,
Celestial Intelligence, or Absolute)?  And who is to decide which readers
can or cannot claim to have undergone "the same" experience which Pound did
in his most lucid and sincere moments?   I claim there is no easy answer to
this question.

As for the assertion "Precision and  accuracy are not for a reader who
hasn't shared Pound's experience . . .", I would submit that precision and
accuracy are for everyone.  This is why we have reason.  I don't know if you
believe that the experience of the nous--- and the conveyance of the
experience of the nous (through poetry, philosophy, or through virtuous
acts)--- is inconsistent with reason.  The term NOUS, which Pound uses,
signifies a Divine Intelligence; I believe that such a concept (and the
experience of it) is consistent with a notion of spiritual reason.  It is
also, I believe, not disjunctive with the higher uses of human reason.

Nevertheless, there is a point on which I would concede to you entirely.
Pound speaks of the "vain locus of verbal exchanges."  There is some aspect
(the most important aspect, in fact) of the Divine, and of the experience of
the Divine, which is wholly personal, completely subjective, and therefore
not very amenable to verbal analysis, philosophical discourse, or even
poetic expression.   On such a subject we must remain silent.

However, insofar as we are prone to desire communication on this issue, we
must employ the clumsy linguistic and conceptual tools we have, and reach as
far up the ladder as earthly intellection, aesthetic sensibility, and moral
reasoning will allow.

>
>To say that Pound believed in and wrote about his direct firsthand
>EXPERIENCE and that he found corroborating expression of this experience in
>many and various places, is to say quite a different thing than "...Pound
>believed in a little bit of everything...."

I see how such a statement on my part could be interpreted as reductive.  I
apologize if it caused you offense; I did not mean to characterize your view
in this way.  I agree with you that Pound "found corroborating expression of
this experience in many and various places".  To characterize Pound as
syncretic and eclectic is, I agree, essentially on target.  But I propose we
go further, to understand why Pound found corroboration specifically where
he did, and not in other places.  Syncretism and eclecticism are methods;
they tell us little or nothing about content.

Unlike Charles Moyer, I cannot subscribe strongly to the thesis that the
poet is infinite (unless you believe that God "speaks through" the poet in
each and every word).   The poet may be both infinite and finite; infinite
in those moments when he touches upon and merges with the Divine Mind (and
finite when he says things like Hitler and Joan of Arc were both Saints).

Regards,

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