Dear List
I am sure that Professor Surette would have wanted a "not" between the
"does" and "entail" in the phrase starting "A mention of murder or
pederasty..."
Rick Seddon
McIntosh, NM
----- Original Message -----
From: "charles moyer" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 10:25 AM
Subject: FW: Cantgo ergo possum physic
> ----------
> From: "charles moyer" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: "uwo.onemeg" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Cantgo ergo possum physic
> Date: Wed, Jan 29, 2003, 10:35 PM
>
>
> Mr.Surette,
>
> I have read your book entirely. I just do not agree with you.
> Notice your post came to me not the list, but it seems to be
addressing
> the list.
>
> Charles
>
> ----------
> >From: "uwo.onemeg" <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: "charles moyer" <[log in to unmask]>
> >Subject: Re: Cantgo ergo possum physic
> >Date: Wed, Jan 29, 2003, 7:34 PM
> >
>
> > Charles Moyer wrote:
> > "I submit that neither Pound nor Weston were writing with any occult
> > purpose in mind. If occult implies something secret why would anyone
write
> > in order to explain it? This accusation which is the theme of Surette's
"The
> > Birth of Modernism: Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, W.B. Yeats and the Occult"
> > smacks of the type of pejorative one would expect of Christian witch
hunters
> > although it is never explicitly stated. In whatever way the term
"occult"
> > seems to be reduced to definition it always seems to come up meaning
nothing
> > but "non-Christian"."
> >
> > I haven't been reading the Pound list postings for some time, but I
> > notice that Rick Sedden has brought me into a discussion about Pound and
the
> > Occult.
> > I am puzzled by Charles Moyer's "submission." Are we to understand
that
> > whatever he submits must be accepted as true? On what does he base his
> > submission? I can assure you that his submission cannot be supported. I
have
> > published a book demonstrating the contrary, and incidentally explain
the
> > apparent conundrum of speaking the unspeakable as well.
> > It is clear that he has not read the book of mine to which he
refers,
> > since I make no accusations in that study. There are no crimes or
> > misdemeanours at issue, so far as I am aware -- save, of course,
> > anti-Semitism and perhaps treason, and I discuss neither in BofM, though
I
> > do discuss the former in a subsequent book.
> > I should draw to the list's attention that the passage about
relativity
> > and quantum physics from BofM cited in several posts alludes to its
> > "apparent" irrationality. Occultists exploited that feature to justify
their
> > own genuine mooniness -- just as current deconstructors use the
undeniable
> > difficulty of those branches of twentieth century physics to justify the
> > obscurity of their own pronouncements. In both cases, of course, the
> > parallel is unjustified. That it is unjustified, however, does not
discredit
> > references to the practice. A mention of murder or pederasty does entail
> > endorsement of those crimes, as some of the posts appear to assume.
> > Finally I cannot determine what the antecedent of "it" is in the
second
> > last sentence of Moyer's remark. That is unfortunate since I have been
> > accused of being guilty of "it" -- whatever it is.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Leon Surette
> > Department of English
> > The University of Western Ontario
> > London, Ont.
> > N6A 3K7
> >
> >
>
|
