In a message dated 06/25/2000 10:11:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< I understand that the basic procedure for defining a term or phrase
 necessitates using words other than those contained in the term or phrase
 under discussion.  So, to say that the "production of wealth" involves the
 "production of wealth" seems to me somewhat tautological.
  >>

it would....

<< You and I might agree on the basic premises and may simply be using the
 terms differently.  I think your remarks are directed at the DISTRIBUTION of
 wealth while I am talking about the PRODUCTION of wealth
  >>

your naivete is that you see a difference -- a difference that exists only at
the level of theoretical (& here I'm being generous) jawing -- at the level
of the real, there is no tangible difference.  of course the wealthy like to
make such nice distinctions, and no doubt they appreciate your
contribution.....

<<
I am talking about the IDEAS and BELIEFS which infuse the Cantos and much of
Pound's written work.  Isn't it more or less of a reduction of Pound to
simply say his work is "an expanding and creative act"?  You could say that
about the work of any poet from Homer to Shakespear to Byron.  Are you
reluctant to CHARACTERIZE this act, to interpret it, other than to say it is
"creative" and "expansive".  Other than this, I am not clear on what you
think about what Pound did.
>>

no, you're not really talking about the IDEAS & BELIEFS, at least not at a
level that I recognize.  the monotony of your criticism is to reduce
everything in the Cantos to the level of whatever nastiness you can find --
or create- in Pound's other writings -- but what you don't bother to do is to
see where the creative dimensions of Pound could lead, since you're convinced
that they lead to nothing but the various isms -- that is, the IDEAS &
BELIEFS merely confirm what you already know.


<<
Not inspite of these things.  But in relation to these things (and in
relation to many other things).
>>


no, in spite of them.

<<  Do you want to separate the aesthetic aspects of Pounds
 work COMPLETELY from any relationship within the world in which it exists or
 from the world it depicts? >>

on occasion, emphatically yes.  but then I don't agree with the intensity
with which you insist on the primacy of the relationships with direct the
nature of your relationship.

<<  Such moral injunctions must be viewed in their historical contexts.  They
are not to be interpreted merely as friendly admonishments to brotherly
love;  they are designed to uphold the economic interests of a particular
socio-political formation. >>

this is very funny -- the conclusion, I mean.  apparently, because you think
this, then Pound must have thought it -- even though you immediately turn to
someone else (Yang Jung-kuo) as a way of saying again what Pound never said.
as I say, very funny.

jb...