>Date:    Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:39:47 -0700
>From:    charles moyer <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: ain't no cure for the Ezra Pound blues
>
>Mr. Wei, We were talking about God and poets- infinity and
>incomprehensibily. Yousay, "Maybe we both have it turned around and list
>other possibilites summoning the help of Buddhist "fourfold logic". I
>prefer
>infinite but partly comprehensible, at least for Pound. For God, he can
>take
>care of himself. God is clever. He seems to be able to wiggle loose even
>from nonexistence. But Anselm's statement MAY as easily be applied to
>"pagan" gods as well, i.e. that their essence is necessary.

That is an extremely reasonable view, I think.


>     About Pound's definitions (syllogistic) on God it sounds like the old
>realist vs. idealist argument  to me,

Yes.  That is fair enough.


>but one should be able to see that
>Pound is distancing himself from the Judeao-Xtian God, the one Nietzsche
>called the "honor-craving Oriental in heaven" to come in closer to the more
>universal and far-reaching concept of all  "theos"- "Deus" . . .

Well, that would seem to be the case.  But how can we reconcile that with
Pound's sympathy for Confucianism.  Pound's religion reveres the
"honor-craving Oriental in heaven", not the one Nietzsche is talking about,
but those deified Emperors, Heaven (Tian) itself, various functionaries who
have undergone apotheosis, many Orientals in heaven who may be as
"honor-craving" as the God of Judaism.  In actual fact, in the Confucian
texts, it is not so much Heaven itself demands worship, but the Emperors
themselves who do, and this is ampy reflected in the Cantos.

>     You ask "Where does this fit in the history of Western rationalism?"
>You
>misunderstand what is meant here by the accepted critique on rationalism
>which is this as it is applied to the belief in an "historical Christ"
>which
>is this- that since rationalism fails to provide answers and breaks down
>then one is permitted his (Christian) belief based in his faith. In other
>words "Yours fails so you cannot deny mine ("tu quoque" - yours also).
>Pound's rationalism is something quite apart from this although it may
>suffer from the limitations  of any rationalism. His, however, is a
>recognition mostly through reading Western literature that there is a very
>large and ancient pantheon of gods and goddesses in addition  to Yaweh and
>Christ systems by the way not monotheistic but henotheistic.

Yes.  Henotheistic.  This word should have been brought up before now.  You
have said much in this post that deserves further comment which I cannot
give now.  More later.

Regards,

Wei


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