>Date:    Sat, 17 Jun 2000 08:47:14 -0400
>From:    Tim Romano <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: "Preserve the mystery"?  (part one)
>
>Wei,
>Do you see no merit whatseover in the view that a poet, who is attracted to
>Eleusis and whose work is full of references to the otherworld and the
>underworld, might value the concept of religious mystery for reasons that
>do
>not involve control of the workers?
>

This depends on what you mean by religious mystery.  Not if it means keeping
the congregation in the dark, or trying to make people feel awe simply
through the use of an arcane language.  In sofar as God is mysterious, and
insofar as certain group religious practices can foster the realization that
God is mysterious, I find nothing wrong with the notion.  I approve of group
religious practices which do not try to put MORE barriers between God and
Man, between worshippers and the leaders of worship.  The mystery of God is
perhaps best approached through silence.


>Perhaps you were angered by my telling you, in some many words, that you
>are
>becoming predictable.

Not at all.  Though that appears a bit like an ad hominem argument.  I have
not stopped to consider whether your arguments are predictable or not.  Some
of my predictions, if I were to make them, might be right, and some might be
wrong.  You can call my arguments predictable if you like; if you feel it
will help further the discussion.  You might even try to make a few
predictions, to prove that you can predict my arguments.  That's fine.


>Even so, remember your tendency to reduce contrary
>opinion to absurdity ("preserve God's mystery like putting jam in a jar").
>If anything, Wei, translating the ritual into the vernacular might be
>regarded as an attempt to make the experience more palatable for the
>contemporary consumer congregation.
>

Well, I asked you to explain why the very notion of "preserving God's
mystery" is not an oxymoron.  God is mysterious, but I do not see how man
can do anything to "preserve" his mystery.  God is quite clever, as Charles
Moyer said.  I don't see why man should try to make him more mysterious than
he wants to be.  Maybe you could explain your view.  I think the "jam jar"
analogy should stand til you come up with another one.  Until then can we
assume "preserving" God's mystery is merely synonymous with "preserving" the
power of priesthoods.



>Look more closely at the passage you quoted from Pound:
>
>
> > > >   Mass ought to be in Latin, unless you could do it in
> > > >   Greek or Chinese.  In fact, any abracadabra that no
> > > >   bloody member of the public or a half-educated ape
> > > >   of a clargimint cd. think he understood
>
>
>That Pound is able to imagine the Mass in Chinese shows that his reasons
>for
>wanting the Mass in Latin do not stem from any notion of philological or
>historical accuracy, are not akin to the rigid opinions of certain
>musicologists who insist that pieces be played on period instruments.
>

No but it may stem from his desire for a system of linguistic expression
which keeps the "ignorant" in awe, which keeps the masses in their place.
In a previous posting I refered to a specific Confucian doctrine which
admonished the ruler to keep the subjects in awe.  I think Pound believed
the same thing.  How do you interpret the phrase "no bloody member of the
public"?  He doesn't want the public to understand; and he does not seem
interested in any process which would help them understand the ceremony.
Nor does he have any respect for the public.  That is a classist, elitist,
hierarchical, authoritarian attitude.  He might as well be an orthodox
Catholic.  What happened to his belief that relgious organizations are
constructed for the purpose of "exploitation and oppression"?  Seems to have
disappeared.


>That Pound would accept "any abracadabra" (ile. any mumbo-jumbo) as the
>language of the Mass shows that his primary criterion is that the language
>be unintelligible.
>

Yes.  But this is precisely my point.  He wants to the language to be
untelligible.  Why?  So the "masses" will be awed (and not brought into
communion with God).  Of course the more hierarchical, and the more orthodox
the "faith" the less likely that the church service (mass, or whatever) will
bring the participant into genuine communion with God, or foster a belief in
the brotherhood of man.  On the contrary, awe is fostered, and God is seen
as the guarantor of a socio-religious hierarchy.


>That Pound regarded the celebrant of the Mass as a "half-educated ape of a
>clargimint" (play on "varmint") shows that he does not regard the clergy as
>an elect class.
>
So he despises both the "bloody public" and the priest, and this in a letter
written to a priest?  What is the point of his saying that the mass should
be in Latin.  Why is he interested in the Mass at all?  If you like, I can
produce numerous Pound quotes during the period of his work for the Fascist
ministry of Culture where he praises Catholicism for its ability to order
society.

>That Pound refers to the public in less than glowing terms ("bloody member
>of the public") shows that he does make a distinction between the elect and
>everyone else.  Who are the elect? Who are the high-priests? They who have
>been initiated into the mysteries. And who are they? Artists.
>
Not all artists, clearly.  Pound sees himself as a member of the "elect".
That is axiomatic.  Perhaps it is Hubris; perhaps it is part of the
narrowness of his spiritual vision, inspite of the broadness of his
intellectual and cultural interests.  Don't you find this sort of elitism at
all disturbing?


>Why should the ritual language be unintelligible? Because it inculcates (I
>use the word advisedly) the notion that an understanding of these mysteries
>is not to be had by any Tom Dick or Harry


So the goal of the ceremony is to say "You Tom, Dick, and Harry are not up
to understanding what this religion is about.  I, the priest, on the other
hand know Latin, so I understand.  Keep your place.  Remain in awe and
ignorance"  RATHER THAN SAYING, "We are all children of the same God.  Let
us approach God together, in a spirit of brotherhood and equality.  Let us
all learn from each other, and not assume spiritual superiority simply by
virtue of our earthly station , wealth, or other endowment.  "


>of a layman or by any Father
>Michael, Father Gregorio, or Father Stanislaus of a clergyman, who has
>happened to pass the required courses at the seminary and can wave his
>doctor of divinity diploma around.

If Michael, Gegorio, or Stanislaus know Latin, then they have a
social-hierarchical advantage if the Mass is in Latin,  Pound does not seem
to oppose this.


>P.S. I have no idea whether deity is all-compassionate. That would be mere
>credo on my part.

Your credo is not unimportant in this debate.  If you suspect God is
all-compassionate, would that make you more or less sympathetic to Pound on
the issue of preserving mystery?  Or would it be irrelevant?  If you suspect
that God may not be compassionate, would this make you more or less
sympathetic to Pound?  Or would that be irrelevant.

>But I do know that men are likely, when their idea of God
>is mercy incarnate,  to prefer mercy over justice. Put this on a
>Machievellian axis. Men whose god is a god of mercy are likely to belong to
>the class of men who must pray.
>

That seems very plausible to me.



>P.P.S. Mind you -- I am explicating Pound's thought, not necessarily
>offering up my own.

I don't see what the last point has to do with Pound's thought, unless Pound
believes that God is "mercy incarnate."  Is it possible that he believed
this, and if so, where is it expressed in the Cantos?

Regards,

Wei


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