I see what you mean. For moral order-- Dante. For fiscal order-- the
Malatestas et al. For civic order-- Jefferson. For aesthetic order
(integrity)-- not "the god of the dollar." Etc., etc. --CP

 [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> see what I mean?
>
> In a message dated 06/28/2000 1:05:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> <<
>  I don't know.   I can appreciate the fact that you believe my approach is
>  not objective.  Perhaps you could tell us whose approach is objective, and
>  give us an example of objective criticism of Pound.  You should of course
>  feel free to criticize my method.  Nevertheless, the issue of Pound's
>  objectivity might be more appropriate to this list than a personal
>  evaluation of what you might --rightly or wrongly-- consider to be a lack of
>  objectivity on my part.
>
>  When I produce a Pound quote to demonstrate that Pound thought Confucianism
>  was the ONLY appropriate philosophy for an orderly society you might counter
>  with a quote from Pound, some evidence, or some analysis.  You did reply to
>  my post, but since you do not address my assertion that Pound lacks
>  objectivity I have to wonder.  Do you have any evidence or any analysis
>  which can call my conclusion into question?  If you would rather talk about
>  me than about Pound, I have no objection.  But I hope you will forgive me if
>  I bring the discussion around to Pound's poetry, his prose writings, his
>  spoken remarks, and other aspects of his life that might shed light on his
>  place in the history of letters.
>
>  If you want to address my particular arguments, fine.  But just to quote me
>  and say "see what I mean" does not seem to be a sufficient response to the
>  evidence I present.
>   >>
>
> In a message dated 06/27/2000 9:57:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, JBCM2 writes:
>
> <<
>  one way to deflect criticism of oneself is to direct it at someone else.
> while it may be interesting to discuss Pound's objectivity, why would I want
> to discuss it with someone whose objectivity I've called into question.  I
> can certainly understand why Wei wants to turn the light on Pound, but I'm
> not buying it.  others can, if they choose, but since I already know that
> Wei's conclusion is that Pound wasn't objective, and that he was a
> Nazi/Fascist/neo-Confucinist. etc.
>
>  i.e.
>
>  << Take for instance, Pound's use of the phrase * * t'ai4 p'ing2 in Canto 98.
>  The characters and their romanized equivalents are placed next to the words
>  "and that the equilibrium
>                          t'ai4 p'ing2
>  of the Empire grips the earth in good manners."  98/703.  [Here we are with
>  "good a manners" again.  No reason to forget that Pound said the "Nazis had
>  wiped out bad manners in Germany"]. >>
>
>  see what I mean?
>
>  jb... >>

--
ÐÏ à¡± á