You were insisting only on Confucious. I gave you some alternatives. Now
you scurry to embrace your original noun, "order" as though the
inconsistency of your argument before when exposed demonstrates some
hidden strength you had secretly anticipated all along. And man, do you
oversimplify Catholicism, Dante etc. Lucky, your not around my Aunt
Josie. She'd put one upside your head mostly cause she quite rightly
wouldn't know what the hell your talking about.
Where does the disorder in the Cantos come from? How do the many orders
contribute to the disorder? How do the stylisic approach of citing
materials from many sources contribute to the disorder?
Have you read Dan Pearlman's book, the Barb of Time? How do you feel
about his emphasis on a unity in the Cantos embodied on page 42: "One of
the most important metaphysical principles of Confucianism, the
philosophy that informs the Cantos from beginning to end (as we shall
see), is just this holistic principle expressed by the sage and rendered
thus in Pound's translation

     The celestial and earthly process can be defined in a single
   phrase; its actions and its creations have no dulaity.

on page 43 Pearlman adds "In the Cantos Kung stands for the principle of
order, the force of reason, intelligence, human-heartedness, whereas
Eleusis stands for Dionysian energy, the life-force itself."

Dr. Pearlman believes in a unified structure for the Cantos that is
achieved in large part by his more benign and consistent (with Pound)
view of Confucious. Do you think Dr. Pearlman is wrong? Is his
interpretation of Confucious influence too soft-headed for a confirmed
hard head as yourself? Are we being too easy on the commies? What the
hell IS going on here? Come clean, Wei. Your hiding something.  CP

En Lin Wei wrote:
>
> Would this be an equally acceptable list for the author of the Cantos:
>
> For moral order-- Confucius. For fiscal order-- the fascist economist Odon
> Por (translated by Pound) For civic order-- Mussolini and Hitler. For
> aesthetic order (integrity)-- the "god of the lira", as administered by
> Italian Ministry of Finance 1922-1943. Etc., etc.
>
> Carlo wrote:
>
> <<  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>>
>
> Why the emphasis on Order?  Why not emphasize the following:
>
> Moral Freedom
> Fiscal Freedom
> Civic Freedom
> Aesthetic Freedom
>
> Does anyone know if Pound ever uses the word "freedom", and if so where?
>
> Lest someone misconstrue my remarks as  negative, I invite all list
> participants to create their own list.  Here is mine:
>
> For moral freedom-- Christ, Buddha, Lao Tze, Gandhi (not the moral
> straightjacket of Dante's Catholicism);
> For fiscal freedom-- The Revolution of the Spanish Republic --1936(  not the
> aristocratic misadventures of the Malatestas);
> For civic freedom-- The French Declaration of Human Rights, and the UN
> Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Bill of Rights, and the
> Declaration of Independence
> (not the Jefferson depicted in Jefferson and/or Mussolini);
> For aesthetic freedom (integrity)-- not "the god of the dollar" (we can
> agree here. . . ).
>
> Regards,
>
> Wei
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com