charles moyer [log in to unmask] wrote:


>
>Wei,
>     Thank you for correcting me on the question put to Gandhi and amazing
>us
>all by finding a positive statement in the Cantos.

You are welcome.  But the quote cannot be viewed as positive unless viewed
in isolation.  When viewed in proximity with the Anschluss quote, it
reflects the huge contradiction in the Cantos, which is identical to the
contradiction within fascism itself.  Professed concern for peace and bread;
in practice a commitment to war and exploitation.


>But it doesn't seem to
>matter whether the subject is Western civilization, >religion, or democracy
>. . . .

Yes, it does matter.  Every word matters, every subject matters, every
thought matters.

>the chasm between the ideal and the practice often makes the Grand Canyon
>look like a drainage ditch.

A nice image, and I agree with the sentiment expressed here.  But precisely
because of the gap, we must choose each word, each concept, and above all
EACH IDEAL very very carefully.

>     Perhaps this accounts for the desire of some for what they perceive as
>change for the better, and I stress "perceive". The call to the Germans in
>the thirties to "ERWACHE" meant this, right or wrong. And at the advent of
>the Anschluss the streets of Vienna were filled with thousands of cheering
>Austrians. At the end of the war no one could remember being there.

Why do you say, “right or wrong?”  Support for fascism occurred “right or
wrong”?  Should we not say it was wrong?   I applaud the Danes and their
monarch (Yes, monarchs can occasionally do a good thing) by refusing to wear
the yellow star, and making if virtually impossible for Hitler to accomplish
his design in Denmark.  I applaud all the individuals who  opposed Hitler.




>     I live near Akron, Ohio where the famous Goodyear Aerospace Co. is
>located. Close by there is a huge housing project built in the forties
>which
>opened up its doors to the first tenant the day before Pearl Harbor was
>attacked which would result in a war which would fill this Project with
>workers from West Virginia and other impoverished parts of the country etc.
>etc. You figure it out.
>     But if you want to tell me that Pound was a warmonger, I will not buy
>it.

Well, this is what troubles me.  Why was Pound not a warmonger?  His
language consistently advocates violence.  The praise of Malatesta’s war
making activities serves as a prelude to his support for the Italian
fascists.  As troubled as he was by the loss of  friends during the first
world war, he seems to have just decided that what the world needed was more
war, and war for the wrong reason, against the wrong people.  He said that
Italy’s war in Africa was justified (I hope they conquer “every inch” of
Abyssinia).  How many installments of the radio speeches will one have to
look at to believe that praise of all that Hitler and Mussolini did was in
every speech, including all their war efforts.  He gave his full backing to
the Japanese attempts to conquer China.  If Pound was not a warmonger, then
who was?

>     I appreciate your exhortation of the truth, but I must ask you Pilot's
>question he put to Christ, "What is truth?"

In Pilot’s case, the question rang a bit hollow, since the truth was that
Christ was innocent of any wrongdoing.  We could rewrite the story, and make
Christ out to be a subversive, whose goals were self-seeking, and make
Pilate out to be a hero who was protecting the social order. It might be a
good idea to write such a book, if only to take the wind out of the sails of
the religious right.

But there is such a thing as truth, and we are obliged to seek it out.

>You say, "Perhaps I am wrong",
>but do you mean it?

Of course I mean it.  I could be wrong about anything.  But that admission
will not prevent me from expressing my views, and saying what I BELIEVE to
be true.

>Nietzsche who seems to be too bitter for your palate . . .

Not really.   I read virtually everything Nietzsche wrote a long time ago
(even that wretched Ecce Homo, which I thought rather good at the time).
It’s my own personal reaction, after many years.  First it was Hume, the
Kant, Nietzsche, and then Zen Buddhism and Heidegger.  These were the loves
of my adolescence and early university years.  I don’t deny N’s greatness.
Just his relevance for myself at present.  Looked at in the history of
philosophy he is certainly one of the great Negative Dialecticians, who said
many things that needed to be said.

>said, "We should never ask if truth is useful or a fatality".

He also said, “Truth is an old hag,” which puts the point more succinctly
perhaps.   Frankly, when N. decided to name that late great work “The Will
to Power” he made a great error. He should have named it “The Will to
Truth”.  Or even “The Will to Beauty”, which might have been more in keeping
with his general tendency.


>This is an
>honest look into the face of philosophy, but you seem to have confused it
>with your high ideals, admirable and noble, but damnably unforgiving and
>inflexable  . . .

I would not  presume to forgive Pound. On the one hand, there is nothing to
forgive.  On the other hand, Pound himself asked,

Let the Gods forgive what I
              have made
Let those who love me try to forgive
               what I have made

(Notes for Canto CXVIII )


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