(continued from previous post)

>>Experience e.g. having actually physically interacted with an individual
>>(think Exile's Letter) carries great weight in Western culture. Even the
>>mass murderer, Henry Kissinger, knew this and tried to build it into a
>>pseudo-philosophical justification for slaughtering millions in Southeast
>>Asia. The observations of people I knew or know who knew Pound ring true
>>culturally, that is without a word needing to be written or read, and they
>>decidedly do not conform to your conclusions.
>>

We will agree about Kissinger, I think.  But people may differ on their
interpretations of Pound. The fact that some people came to form opinions
which did not conform with my conclusions is true.  But we are here to
discuss our analyses and our conclusions, are we not? Let us discuss them,
and not each other.


>>Might your
conclusions be wrong?

Of course.  So might Pound's conclusions, or your conclusions, or anyone's.
No one is infallible.



>>
Or is the great scholar Wei above all that as he
taunts the working man about the lack of minuitiae in his responses, an
elitism that a real egalitarian would never stoop too?
>>

I don't believe I have taunted anyone.  And if I have, I apologize.  I have
tried to maintain a civil and disinterested tone, which I have hoped would
be as non-offensive as possible.  In any case, others might take offense at
anything.  That is their choice, over which only they have control.  People
on this list may have (or may not have) tried to deliberately offend others
on this list (including me).  I believe that the best responses are to
qualify most strong negative emotions as the product of misunderstandings,
and to move on, or to apologize for specific statements.

I sincerely apologize to you if anything I have said may have offended you.
If we were on a "Henry Kissinger Discussion List" or a "US Foreign Policy
Discussion List" our perspectives would be very similar, and we would
probably find ourselves agreeing on most issues.  Such, unfortunately, does
not happen to be the case here, at least for now.


>>You . . .  would do well
to find Everett Lee Lady and ask him about his memories of Pound.
>>

Whether or not one should find such and such a person may have nothing to do
with the issues at hand.  If you want to comment on Everett Lee Lady's
memories, please feel free to do so.  If such memories illustrate something
important, share them.

>>You have a mind that seems naturally to gravitate toward scholarship.
But for all of your exertions, you don't understand western poetry or
its cultural assumptions. Hasn't anyone of your professors or colleagues
pointed this out to you.
>>

I think your really might mean, "based on my observations of your analysis
of Pound, your understanding does not correspond to mine . . ." And your
statement might mean little else.  If you have a statement to make about
Western poetry, by all means, go ahead and make it.  As far as other
professors and colleagues go, the answer is no.  I have disagreed with
people, but no one has ever said that I do not understand western poetry or
its cultural assumptions.  You should feel free to say it, of course, or to
say that you disagree with what you perceive my assumptions to be.  But you
should, I think, also say why.


>>Some might say that it is interesting to have
your perspective on Pound.

I appreciate that.  Some have said so to me personally.  And I might say
that it is interesting to have your perspective on Pound, and that I would
like to see more of it.  There is room for us all.


>>
But nothing about it rings true.>>

In your opinion, of course.  I hope you do not mind if I add that
qualification.

>>Its like a
translation that is totally uninformed about the location, time and
history in which the work was originally done.>>

Very interesting point.  But you seem to stray from the main issue. The
topic is Pound.   Would you say that Pound's depiction of Chinese history
and Chinese philosophical thought is, to a large degree, "totally uninformed
about the location, time and history in which the work was originally done".
   That is a crucial question for Pound studies, I believe.



>>Ironically, it is only
the time, location and history that forms the meat of your enterprise,
the poetry being only a prop for your theory.
>>

That also seems, in part, what Pound is doing, particularly with regard to
Confucianism.  He seems to have decided to employ Chinese historical
material as a prop for his own ideology.  Of course, Pound had his ideas, I
have mine, and you have yours.  But I may be in a position to judge what
errors Pound might have made in relation to the study of the history of
large portion of humanity.  You may as well, be in a position to say what is
right about Pound's theory, or his perspectives, in any number of areas with
which I am unfamiliar.  I do not deny your power to have insight, or to
produce insight now (or in the future).  Perhaps you should not deny mine.

>>I must admit, I find your
utter failure to grasp your subject after such scholarly exertions kind
of thrilling. Its a unique form of melodrama.>>

I will take that to signify something of interest.  Should we forget that
you, in your own way, are part of the Pound discussion list, which is itself
a "unique form of melodrama"?  I find it difficult to think that anything
having to do with Pound, whether it is your or my commenting upon him, would
not have its "melodramatic" aspect.


Polite and Respectful Regards,

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