Carlo sent me a note, but since this deals essentially with aspects of the
methodology of interpreting Pound, I think I should respond to it on the
discussion list.  He said,

>>Wei,
>>
You seem to have no capacity for comprehending the kind of remarks I'm
about to make but I wish you would consider them. You really do not seem
to have an understanding of Ezra Pound. You have a reading, but not an
understanding.
>>
>>

What do you mean precisely by an "understanding" as opposed to a reading?
Is it possible that all people who read Pound simply have different
"understandings"?   Also, I am not sure if it is valuable to attempt to
evaluate what capacity anyone on this list has for comprehending any concept
X.  I may have a specific opinion about whether you can understand concept
X, but I do not think it would be proper to say so, simply because I might
be wrong.  No one on the list can, I think, presume to make judgments about
the personal capacities of others on the list.  The purpose of the list (I
thought) was to make comments about Pound, and to discuss Pound, not to
judge each other's capabilities.  If we talk about each other, we may easily
stray from our purpose.

>>I know children who have never heard of Ezra Pound that
would have a better understanding of him because they would recognize in
him a father, an uncle or grandfather. This would lead me to believe
that perhaps your problem is cultural and that your extraordinary ego,
which also seems to me to be somewhat a product of your own culture, is
getting in the way of your de/appreciation of Pound. (I admit I don't
know who you are and perhaps you could be 7th generation American, but I
takes me chances.)
>>

This admission that you do not know who I am is, I think, the most pertinent
part of this section of your message.  Since you do not know what my
"culture" is, however, I do not know how you can presume to say whether, and
to what degree, my perspective is a product of my culture.  I will simply
say this much, if you think it means anything.  Both my parents and their
grandparents grew up speaking up in cultural surroundings where English was
primary language.  As did I.

My own personal opinion is that this is irrelevant.

Also irrelevant is whether you recognize in Pound a "grandfather or an
uncle".  If we were talking about Milton, and you analyzed him in a way
different or contrary to another person, would it make sense to say "you do
not comprehend Milton because your grandfather or your uncle was not like
him"?  Or is it possible that someone could misinterpret Pound or
misunderstand him because he or she thought his grandfather WAS like him.
That is just as likely.

This is not a personal matter, necessarily.  It is a matter of epistemology.
Statements about Literature should be based on facts and philosophical
analyses, not on conclusions drawn on the basis of suppositions about the
background of the interpreter.

>>Is the problem one of culture? I've known a number of people who have
known Pound and knew him as products of the same culture. Many
respondents on this list also inherently demonstrate a grasp of the
culture that informed Pound. >>

I also have talked to several people who knew Pound, some intimately, some
only casually.  I do not think that gives anyone a special advantage.  We
are talking about his work and his utterances.  Those who knew Pound, or
knew people who knew Pound, will all be dead one day.  Does that mean
knowledge of Pound -- or the TRUE understanding of Pound, which you seem to
claim to have -- will soon die out?

>>I'm not referring here to culture in the narrower sense of the racist
and anti-semitic Quaker society of Pound's Philadelphia but am referring
to the deeper century's long enculturation that I'm sure you are so
familiar with in your own right. But to read Pound from your own
cultural background as unreflectively as you do is frankly insulting to
most people who share the targets cultural experience.
>>

I question some of your assumptions here.  For example, I do not believe
that Philadelphia's Quakers were primarily anti-semitic during the time of
Pound's childhood.  You would have to provide evidence to sustain that. I
think research would indicate that Philadelphia Quakers were among the least
anti-semitic groups of worshippers in the entire nation.  That would be a
point we could debate.  But it should not be assumed.

Also, I might ask, what "cultural experience" are we talking about here?  I
assume we are talking about world culture (or the "paideumas" of the world)
and specifically about those cultures which Pound wrote about in the Cantos,
which include the whole of European culture, American culture, and --of
course-- Chinese culture.

As far as my own personal cultural background is concerned, that is not at
issue, nor should it be.  You appear to want to deflect attention away from
the arguments I am making about Pound, toward my status, for an unknown
reason.  It may simply be because you disagree with my argument. I cannot
know, nor is it necessarily important, if you do not want to share it.  The
issue is Pound.  For instance, you have said nothing about the issue of
Pound's statement -- Hiter was Jean d'Arc, a saint.  If you could just stick
to the subject matter, especially, how should we interpret POUND'S WORDS,
more progress could be made, I think.

The Joan of Arc statement has ramifications for American culture (since
Pound is an American) for German culture (Hitler), for French culture, and
for European culture as a whole.  When Pound says, "Hitler and Mussolini
failed in that they did not follow Confucius closely enough", this has
implications for both European and Chinese culture.  The lines you wish to
draw between peoples who have different "cultural experiences" may not be so
neat as we might like them to be.

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