>
>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.
>
>jb...

On the contrary.  If you read certain words of Pound carefully, you might
discover that the quote says what I suggest it does.  I argued that FILIAL
PIETY, in the Confucian sense, was conceived by Pound as a means of
reinforcing hierarchy and a stable society.  There will be no squabbles if
everyone practices FILIAL PIETY.  How do you interpret the quote?

Filial piety is very inclusive:  it does not include
  Family squabbles over

                    land      money, etcetera
         (98/691).


I produced the Yang Jung-kuo quote to show you that the Confucianist
exhortation to "filial piety" has very often been used to convince people
that they should always agree with authority, and accept the dictates of
society's rulers.  That Pound thought in the same way is demonstrated in the
following quote, taken from his radio speeches.   Here he is speaking of the
elimination of "bad manners", and the elimination of "class conflict" in
Hitler's Germany.


  Well, I was talkin' to a friend of mine, and she
  was born with a name sacr'd to every man who cares
  for poetry written in English, Rossetti.  And she said,
  "The worst manners come from people trying to be
  nasty to people whom they consider inferior.  Matter
  of class.  And the Nazis have wiped out that feeling,
  and wiped out bad manners in Germany"
        (Doob, 32).

Nazi "good manners" in practice meant
"wiping out" class antagonisms by force;  and so it was in Confucian
society, where injunctions to "filial
piety" were often put forward by the rulers primarily for the purpose of
suppressing the rebellious lower
classes and maintaining their positions of economic privilege.

Allow me to reproduce part of what I wrote in the last post, including the
Pound quote, and Jang Jung-kuo's quote, so people can better judge the
implications of his analysis, in light of Pound's assertions concerning the
Nazis having "wiped out bad manners in Germany."  Then permit me to ask a
question.

I say again, in the Cantos, Pound refers to Confucian ethical notions such
as "filial piety" in contexts where the
implications are clearly economic as well as moral.  For instance, in Canto
98, employing the ideograms for
land and money,  he writes,

  Filial piety is very inclusive:  it does not include
  Family squabbles over

                    land      money, etcetera
         (98/691).

[See the source for the actual ideograms, ideograms meaning "land" and
"money")

I insist, such moral injunctions must be viewed in their historical
contexts.  They are not to be interpreted merely as friendly admonishments
to brotherly love; rather, like Nazi injunctions to duty, discipline and
order, they are designed to uphold the economic interests of a particular
socio-political formation.  The Chinese historian Yang Jung-kuo points out,


  Confucius concluded that filial piety and brotherly
  duty were the fundamentals of benevolence.
  Why?  This was because under a slave system
  ancient society was ruled by the clan aristocracy.  The
  slave owners as a ruling class belonged to the same
  clan and had the same ancestors.  Confucius thought
  that the sharp contradictions and strife among the
  slave owners would lead to the collapse of their rule.
  Therefore he pointed out that so long as they showed
  filial respect to their ancestors and parents, the
  slave owners would be united vertically.  By brotherly
  duty he meant mutual affection and love among slave-
  owners horizontally.  With the slave-owners united
  both vertically and horizontally, there would be no
  insubordination and rebellion and the rule of the clan
  slave-owning aristocracy would be made secure.
    (Yang, 12-13.  In Criticizing
    Lin Piao and Confucius).

I would add that Pound's use in Canto 98 of the ideograms for "land" and
"money," serves two functions:  it shows that "filial piety" has economic
repercussions, and it also reinforces the "natural"  or feudal view of the
essence of money and wealth.

Now I  ask participants on this list to interpret Pound's lines, and to
interpret Pound's words regarding the Nazis?   Should one interpret the line
about filial piety and family squabbles apart from their larger social
implications?  Every citizen of China, since 1911, has known that one of the
functions of the Confucian exhortation to filial piety has been to
consolidate hierarchy.   (Most educated Chinese have known this since the
beginning of the Han dynasty).    I am not attributing to Pound anything he
has not said.   How else can the phrase "the Nazis have wiped out bad
manners," be interpreted?

>you don't bother 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.

Don't forget that it was POUND, and not I, who said his "Economics and
Poetry were NOT separable".  It was POUND who sent the China Cantos to
Mussolini and called them "a testament to his fascist faith".  I am not very
fond of "-isms", but it was Pound, who when asked to leave Italy, said, "BUT
I BELIEVE IN FASCISM."   Nevertheless, I am open to new information and new
perspectives, which I invite you to provide.

So tell me.  Where DO the "creative dimensions" of Pound's work lead?  What
IDEAS and BELIEFS will a study of the "creative dimension" yield?   You will
enlighten many of us on this list if you can answer this type of question.
I look forward to your reply.

Regards,

Wei





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