Though a new member of this literary forum, I feel compelled to respond to
En Lin Wei's assertion that one must "question the value of scholarship or
the study of literary works which is totally disconnected with moral or
political judgements, especially in the case of Pound". The sentiment
expressed, after all, is surely a valid one: for we are all, to a greater or
lesser extent, shaped by (and judged in relation to) the societal, moral and
political environment into which we are cast - or have thrust upon us.

Indeed, as Wei informs us, all writers, whether consciously or otherwise,
conform to this rule - Pound more so than many. Are The Cantos not, from
their first verse-paragraph until their final fragment, a bitter
condemnation of Capitalist Usura? Did Ezra Loomis not find in Western
society and economic policy a concrete illustration of the wider world's
ills? I feel I need not respond to my own rhetoric - and I will leave the
question of its "importance" for others to judge.

I cannot, however, conclude in such a fashion. Pound, lest we forget, was
first, foremost and forever a poet: much of his greatest work stems not from
the forge of right-wing politics, nor from the furnace of social criticism:
it was begotten rather in the obscure womb of the human creative impulse.
The epigraph to Lustra, for example, not to mention many other pre-Cantos
creations, seems to owe little to societal promptings, being instead an
expression of human transience as old as language itself:

        And the days are not full enough
        And the nights are not full enough
        And life slips by like a field mouse
                        Not shaking the grass.

Pound must, by definition, be a product of society and politics: he defined
himself - and was himself defined - in the terms of their world.
Nonetheless, to reduce his work to such components is surely a negative and
fruitless exercise: like any great poet, E.P. wrote verse far greater than
the sum of its syllables. Wei is right to view Pound's work in relation to
its wider "implications" - to call him a "warmonger" is clearly to lose
sight of all higher critical ideals.

James Hughes,
England.
----- Original Message -----
From: "En Lin Wei" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2000 7:53 AM
Subject: Truth (continued)


(continued from previous post)


Pound is forgiven, as far as I know, for "what he has made" by the Gods and
by those who loved him personally. That is what he asked for, and I don't
deny his sincerity in those last poetic fragments.

But what has he made? People can forgive him.  The Gods can forgive him.
But we are left with the need to respond to and evaluate the significance of
his work. That aesthetic judgment and philosophico-critical analysis has
nothing to do with forgiveness of Pound as a person, or as a spirit.

>your active
>crusade to make us all aware of what we already know, >Pound's
>shortcomings.

I am not sure if you are aware of Pound's shortcomings. You say you do not
believe that Pound is a warmonger.  When I say that Pound is a warmonger I
mean that his work, the Cantos, is built on an assumption which is favorable
to war, as a tool of building empire.  Virgil and Aeneas were warmongers in
the same sense.  But we might hope a twentieth century poet would seek to
embody in his work a higher ideal.  Naïve on my part, I know.   Still, what
may seem proper in  Virgil seems a bit archaic unattractive for our era.
Even Wagner's Siegfried seems fairly ugly, and he only kills a dragon and a
dwarf.

>As a result you see yourself as a correcting knight in literary armor who
>will serve the noble pupose of showing us all with the courage we of course
>lack "that some people are simply afraid of facing the deeper social and
>moral issues; that some are upset simply because they dislike the
>implications of certain questions".

I leave it to others to decide how they see me.  I do not see myself in the
way you describe, nor have I ever described myself as such.  The moral and
social implications of Pound's work do deserve attention.  I don't think I
need apologize for stressing that point on a list which is after all,
devoted to the discussion of Pound.  I believe I have followed the
guidelines.  I have received no admonitions from the listserv master (at
least, not yet) for straying from the stated purpose.

>Once would have been sufficient for
>this presumptuousness on your part, but then how can you say "I do not
>claim
>that my answers are correct" and still keep up a steady barrage of them for
>weeks?

You keep up fairly goodsized barrage yourself (and I do not mean that as
rebuke).  But I do not see how the quantity of my posting on the list is
inconsistent with the admission that many of my answers may be incorrect.


>And look at your next sentence. You assume that You are the only one
>who makes an attempt to answer your own questions, i.e. the only important
>ones; and you tell us don't bother with questions about the placement of
>commas or "certain obscure historical events". Only your questions have
>relevancy.

I am afraid that you misconstrue my meaning.  I simply state that I
(personally) question the value of scholarship or the study of literary
works which is totally disconnected with moral or political judgments,
especially in the case of Pound.

Any question may have relevancy to yours or to anyone's search.  I do NOT
claim priority for my own.  But there must be a search, musn't there?  A
search for something.  A search for some value, for some ideal, for some
experience of beauty, which is not a simple personal pleasure, devoid of any
meaning which has (at least in some analysis) a social meaning.  If there
were no social meaning to the experience of Pound's poetry, why would anyone
feel a need to participate on this list, which offers the social occasion to
communicate?  And to communicate about what?


>     Finally, by your closing statement that " the point of any study of
>literature and philosophy must, in my view, be the acquisition of knowledge
>and wisdom regarding the eternal virtues; justice, ethical action,
>committment to egalitarian values, a love of truth, and the pursuit of God,
>however one attempts to comprehend that absolute first source of value" -
>we
>are filled to the brim.

>I hope you have a long life in order to accomplish
>all of this.

You are fond of the German writers.  What about Goethe's belief  (or hope)
that his mind after death would be provided with a vehicle which would allow
him to continue his work?

>But let me just interject one humanist barb in the form of a
>question. Do you think it possible to do any of the above without pursuing
>"God"?

Yes.

>That is, do you think there could be eternal virtues without God?

Yes.
>Justice without God?


Yes.

>Wisdom and knowledge without God?

Yes.

>Ethical action and
>egalitarian values, love of truth without God?

Yes.


>Pound without God?
>

Pound may not have thought so.  He seemed very concerned, in some sense,
with the Gods (or that "intimate essence", which he wanted to call God).


My exhortation to seek the absolute should not be understood in the dogmatic
sense of an injunction to follow a particular sectarian approach to theology
or philosophy.  On the contrary.  I answer all your questions YES, because
approaches to all the values you cite are possible through multiple means in
my view.  As Gandhi put it, "The highest religion is truth."  This to me
signifies that there is such a thing as truth, and that it can be
apprehended, if not fully encompassed in human existence.  At my worst, when
I grapple with it, I just seem to make people angry, because my attempt to
express it or perceive it is severely limited.  Even at my best, I may only
provoke people to reject what I say so they can find something better.  So I
am quite serious when I say my ideas may be wrong (in fact, in the larger
sphere they are admittedly grossly limited and incomplete). I am also quite
serious when I suggest that you might be right. Your rightness in relation
to my wrongness (and my possible rightness, in some instances, to your
possible wrongness) constitute  part of the larger vision of truth.  I do
not mean this in a relativistic sense, but in the Hegelian sense, that the
interplay between differing concepts and development of a full IDEA, are
part of a never ending process.  And you do well to wish me a long life----
as I may very well, if you will permit me, wish you similarly a long life.
This is one of the highest blessings amongst the Chinese.

Allow me also to conclude with a Thomas Paine quote, which you may know.


I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church by the Roman
church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, nor by any Church that I
know of.  My mind is my own church.



---Wei

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