Charles Moyer wrote:

<<I agree with you that labeling is a cop out. That is why I have objected
to Wei labeling Pound a Fascist, Confucianist, antisemite, misoggynist and
leaving it at that. >>

When you say "labeling is a cop out", do you include Pound when he called
himself a fascist, when he called himself a Confucian? Also, when Pound used
such terms as "kike" and "yid" was he using "labels", (and was he copping
out)?

It appears to me that we all apply labels: you, I, and everyone on the list.
  On what basis can anyone on this list object to the use of labels?  Words
themselves are labels, and every time we use them, we are employing
abstractions to make meaningful generalizations about the reality we are
trying to describe.

<<And when we have tried to discuss Pound in any other terms or pointed out
his acts which were the antithesis of these labels, well, you have witnessed
the result . . .>>

So is it not fair to say that you have tried to substitute for my "labels",
labels of your own?  I believe you want to label Pound as "a poet who made
anti-semitic statments, and who made an error in embracing fascism, but
whose work otherwise has few problematic or questionable ideological
implications"  (Correct me if that is an inaccurate summary of your view).

It is this precise label which YOU wish to put upon Pound that I am
contesting (apart from the label which --I think-- you want to put over
Pound's Confucianism, like a bandaid, which you perhaps hope will heal,
erase or conceal those features of Pound's work which are "hierarchical" and
"anti-democratic" [two additional "labels" I apply to Pound which you
neglected to mention] ).


  <<. . . .I didn't join this list to argue, especially with someone who
approaches the study of literature like he is making a rock collection. >>

That last comment seems to bear some resemblance to a "label," I fear.

When you say you did not join this list to argue, then I wonder what you
mean by the word "argue."  You appear to me to be one of the most
"argumentative" participants on this list (and I mean this as a compliment,
since, as you know, I enjoy a good discussion).

Since some of what you wrote in your recent posts dealt with things I have
said, I have difficulty in perceiving parts of those posts as anything other
than invitations to respond.  If you do not want to argue, you need to stop
making arguments.

I think you said something which had a bearing on this before, when you
remarked, Spengler was not constructing an argument, he was merely making
observations about history and culture (or words to that effect).  But you
may recall, I said, Spenger, in attempting to make some very broad (and
controversial) points about culture, necessarily invites comment and
disputation.

<<If others wish to argue let them. I joined
this list because I have always liked Ezra Pound, warts and all.>>

The statment "I have always liked Ezra Pound, warts and all" you must
realize, invites inquiry.  It is not simply a statement that will hold still
for all time.  Using the metaphoric phrase "warts and all" might be
applicable to T.S. Eliot, whose political sympathies were reactionary, but
who did not incorporate them to a very significant degree into his poetic
works.  But with Pound we have to wonder --(and I am speaking
metaphorically, mind you, and not about Pound the person, but about the
collected works of Ezra Pound)-- we have to wonder whether we are talking
about "warts" or about cancerous tumours, infecting large parts of the body.


Yours in a friendly spirit of contentious argument,

Wei

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