Allow to address points which Mr. Surette made in reply to one of my posts

I wrote:

"Mr. Surette says that it is innacurate to argue that Pound's anti-semitism
stemmed from one negative encounter with a potential sponsor who was Jewish.
I don't think I was arguing that.  Pound himself describes the incident in
his letter, and he apparently attaches some importance to it.  My only claim
is that this is just one early illustration of the larger pattern.  I don't
think Mr. Surette is denying this pattern.  I think he agrees with me that
Pound's antisemitism was ingrained and was a sort of illness."

Mr. Surette replied:

"I do deny the pattern articulated by Casillo and En Lin Wei. Pound's
anti-Semitism was the product of his political engagement and not the cause
of it.  I don't think this position excuses him in any way, but it is a
serious error, in my view, to regard the behaviour of any individual as
determined by some single factor that is present in their psyche from birth
or early childhood. I recognize that Freudians and behaviourists alike are
committed t othe latter view, and racists to the former. I am unfriendly to
both ranges of opionion."

I have never argued that Pound's anti-semitism was the cause of his
political engagement.  In fact I agree with you that it probably was not.
Nor do I subscribe to the view that "individual behavior is determined by
some single factor present in their psyche from birth or early childhood."
Like you, I am "unfriendly" toward both the behaviorist and Freudian views
of psychological development (and toward the racist view).  Was there
something I said which would lead you to attribute to me the use of either
of these psychological theories?  I hope not.

As to the view which I did express,  "that Pound's anti-semitism was a sort
of ingrained mental illness,"  I did not express any theory view regarding
its genesis in Pound's mind.  My main interest has been in the texts, in the
letters, in the speeches, in the articles, and in all public utterances of
Pound, and in their cultural implications.  As to whether Pound was mentally
ill, and if so, to what degree, you expressed the idea on this list, before
I did, the view that Pound was in some sense mentally ill, specifically the
view that his anti-semitism was a kind of mental illness.  You may or not be
committed to that view.  I am sympathetic to it, but I do not think it
especially relevant to the interpretation of Pound's work.

As to your statement:  "I do deny the pattern articulated by Casillo and En
Lin Wei,"  allow me to clarify.   You seem to be speaking about a
psychological pattern.   I believe I have been very consistent in expressing
the view that in Pound's TEXTS, there is a pattern.  His texts frequently
express fascist, anti-democratic, racist, imperialistic, and feudalist
ideological notions (in creative, imaginative, and totally original ways, I
might add, for those who think I slight Pound).   So when you speak of a
"pattern" you may be looking at something different.  You might be
performing psychoanalysis or a some other form of analysis.  I am not sure.

If you want to see the primary and secondary texts which have influenced my
interpretation you can look at the bibliography at:

http://www.geocities.com/weienlin/poundindex.html

[There is a fairly detailed article on Pound's economic theory too, which
may interest you.  As far as your more recent book is concerned, can you
give us the title again?  I have misplaced the earlier post in which you
mentioned it.  Are there any excerpts of it posted on the Web which I could
look at?  And if so, what is the web address?].

Regards,

Wei








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