Michael,
     if i may, ...
     I'd tend to see emerson-pound a study in contrast.  Pound, for all the
"make it new" virtuosity, was thoroughly a slave to Tradition, no?  An
esthete, no idealist, who read history to re-mythopoetise, ...roman-ticize,
not transcendentalise, ...after the fashion of his pre-rafaelite nostalgia,
not kant, hegel, spengler.  Emerson, otoh, was passionate to chuck It all,
...was on the way to foucault, no?

...as for the criminality/ignorance of Pound's reading the causes of WW1/2,
...seeing the role of the zionist race-state in provoking the immanent
obscenity against islam, don't there sometime arise a twinge of doubt that
the simple, "anti-semite,"  covers the matter?

yours,
bob

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Springate <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 1:18 PM
Subject: Emerson- Pound


> Charles:
>
> Stoner can decide for himself how "awful" the broadcasts are and, more to
the
> point, why they are "awful". And if they depress him, well, they have
depressed
> many who read Pound...  no less relevant for that.
>
> I think Pound - Emerson link an important locus of debate or
consideration.
> Both writers, I believe, work within the assumptions of the American
> transcendentalist movement which is, more or less, still the dominate
ethos of
> American literature. (Is that true?)
>
> Interestingly, Pound developed his idealist position in relationship to
his own
> very strong historical interests. That makes Pound approachable (or
attractive)
> on two fronts, it allows him to point to a hierarchy of knowledge and
> sensibility in which he so profoundly believed (rooting it, finally, at
the end
> of his life, in "character"), as well as being one of the few poets who
> emphatically reminds us that the world exists beyond the sensibilities of
the
> poet (there are, in Pound's world, historical forces, determining events
and
> people, and he is willing to name them). This is a potent mix.
>
> A major part of the importance of Pound, in my view, is precisely his
attempt,
> starting from cultural assumptions not much different than Emerson (is
that
> true?), to openly "come to terms" with historical forces.  Pound, I
believe,
> felt he was offering a more enduring history than that possible within a
> materialist (read Marxist) framework. Hence, the Cantos.
>
> People who like history, the epic impulse, and have a hard time imagining
a
> serious literature without it, yet are convinced of the inherent worth and
> enduring value of certain "qualities of thought", usually can find a way
to
> appreciate Pound, including the Cantos. At least, they understand the
> challenge.
>
> Those to whom sensibility is everything (and history not much more than an
> intellectually constructed nuisance), can usually appreciate Pound's
> translations and early poetry, but frequently claim the Cantos to be
> unintelligible (and hence, a poetic failure). It is frustrating, at times,
to
> discuss Pound with people of this ilk, as they always want one to point
out
> "the good parts" in the Cantos, missing the essential challenge of the
piece as
> a whole. However, if one chooses to indulge, there are "good parts" to
quote,
> and Pound's lyric voice does find register in the Cantos.
>
> Those who really do spend time studying history, and are somewhat less
> concerned with a permanent structure of idealist virtues or its lyric
> expression, find Pound's take on history periodically insightful but, over
all,
> fatiguing (at best) or criminally negligent/ignorant (at worst).  And they
need
> only point to the broadcasts to establish Pound's essential mis-reading of
much
> in his time.
>
> I think it true that Pound's associative process (the ideogrammatic
method),
> which allowed such force and freshness in his writing (as it did, too, for
the
> surrealists), also seriously undermined his approach to the epic challenge
he
> set himself. One may wish (that is to say, I wish) that Pound's
confrontation
> with Europe in the twentieth century would have led either to a more
> fundamental break with his roots in idealism or, inversely, shown up those
> roots to have been a more potent force in developing an historical
> consciousness.
>
> I am sorry that I am generalizing so broadly, but nonetheless...
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> charles moyer wrote:
>
> > Dear Stoner,
> >     Yourself is one word, and you're projecting. Also "Relavence"?
> >
> > Mr. Moyer
> >
> > p.s. Sorry about the grade, and I wouldn't read those awful broadcasts.
> > They'll just depress you more like looking at all those hairs that grew
in
> > Emerson's ears. Try that fine rather new collection of Pound's prose.
You
> > can get it at Border's or Barnes and Noble. I almost bought it tonight,
but
> > I have all the pieces in the original volumes except for those
selections
> > from "The ABC of Economics". They have the Cantos two.
> >     So why do you suppose Nietzsche admired Emerson so greatly?
> >
> > ----------
> > >From: Stoner James <[log in to unmask]>
> > >To: [log in to unmask]
> > >Subject: Re: to, too, two
> > >Date: Sat, Jan 4, 2003, 9:18 PM
> > >
> >
> > > Mr. Moyer,
> > >
> > > I sincerely was attempting to find the connection between Emerson and
> > > Pound, if any; and especially as it relates to their politics.  You
have
> > > presented your self as knowing something about both their politics and
> > > their poetics.  You actually don't know much about Pound, do you?  You
> > > seem to no far less about Emerson, and even less about writing; as
your
> > > message suggests.  You cry for substance, but focus on small
grammatical
> > > issues in writing such as, "to, too, two."  As I peruse your prior
> > > messages I find significant grammatical and careless writing errors
that
> > > go well beyond anything that I have have written.  I still read your
> > > messages for their substance.  Are you as shallow as your messages
> > > suggest?  Do you present your self as somebody who understands Pound
and
> > > Emerson, but can answer no question about them, their poetry or their
> > > politics? I mean this seriously, sir. You want to tell me to go back
and
> > > study Emerson?  I know much, but I will always restudy; always
reconsider
> > > what I've read, go back and go back again.  Tell me what I said about
> > > Emerson or Pound that requires rereading?  Do you really have any
> > > substantive feedback or ideas?  Are you merely an imitator, a guy that
> > > throws out quotes and has nothing else to offer?  Do you live only to
make
> > > this listserve your little oligarchic plutocracy? Over the last 18
months
> > > I have witness your simplistic diatribes more often than I could ever
want
> > > to (too, two, three, more times than I can count.)  You run people off
> > > this listserve.  Why do you do that?  These are simplistic question,
maybe
> > > you can answer them?
> > >
> > > I do appreciate Tom and Michael's suggestion, though.  I also hope
that
> > > others will help me, if possible.  I will look at his broadcasts.
> > >
> > > Mr Moyer, with all due respect, (and I mean this seriously) how
exactly
> > > did you gain so much clout on this listserve?  Why do so many members
> > > flock around you like you run "Bird hall?"  Maybe you can answer these
> > > less intellectual questions, to, two, too?  Maybe the members that
flock
> > > aroound you can answer as well?  I guess my initial thoughts; that is,
my
> > > more thought out observations about you are likely true?  Over the
past 16
> > > months I have witnessed you provide this group with nonsense quotes;
you
> > > also have a tendency to shut dialogue down, stop it before it flies
over
> > > your head.  I wonder about their relavence.  I wonder about your
relavence
> > > here on this list serve.  Today, Mr. Moyer, I am an elitist towards
you,
> > > to, too, two.
> > >
> > > Respectfully,
> > >
> > > Jim Stoner
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com