No, I don't recall mentioning Qin Shihuangdi in my work? It is somewhat
more generic since written in my youth. My main point was to compare and
contrast the standardization of weights and measures under the Han/Qin
to the western movement toward the quantification and mathematization of
the physical world. One image sticks: that of the wagon ruts rapidly
becoming too deep for carts to pass because of the standardization of
axel widths. Also, notions of conformity and regimentation come into
play and are compared to legalism. You can see how mindlessly conformist
and legalistic western culture is now. I attribute this largely to the
overwhelming dominance of the hard sciences. My sources for the Chinese
endeavor were many but I remember using the Oxford History of Technology
and Joseph Needham's volumes.

I've begun reading your essays and believe your analysis of the collapse
of the Cantos as Pound's disenchantment with Confucionism to be wrong.
The collapse of the Cantos is essentially tied in with the inevitable
structural failure of the form. As one who writes in the form, the
energy (and time) required to pursue such activity does require a belief
and energy for the material. But more importantly it requires the energy
to face the inflexibility and uncooperativeness of much of that material
and the willingness to accept an overwhelming set of new insights that
one faces as one works in the form. Pound faced the same problems early
on with his Ur-Cantos--his false starts. It takes a particular kind of
temperament to work in the Cantos form. There is some merit in what you
say about Pound's disillusionment of the material. But it doesn't
require a World War to evoke this disillusionment. Witness my
abandonment of the Han/Qin project. Also, you open yourself up to
writing about material so detailed and expansive that the poet cannot
possibly absorb it. Of course, this is true of Pound, Olson, me. So you
have to be pretty thick skinned and be able to suffer many insults for
this kind of poetic ambition. Then toward the end you have to face the
many gaps and errors that result from setting such an impossible set of
agendas for yourself.

You yourself admit in essay 6 that Pound embraced aspects of Taoism and
Buddhism in the later Cantos and was not entirely hostile early on.

The Taosim of Lao-tse and Chuang-tse is hard to come by. The very
anti-legalist nature of the philosophy allows for its easy corruption
into superstition. In my store most of the requests for Taoist texts is
from New Agers, a new2 form of superstition. I had an early sympathy
with Tao and this is hard for me to take. I've become quite cynical
about the matter. I write in a parody in the style of Dante's Divine
Comedy-- "The way that can be called the way, is in the way."

As for democracy, I've never seen it. A friend of mine who teaches
classics is preparing (or at least would like to prepare) a paper on
Athenian democracy in the raw. His conclusion so far is that our
historical knowledge of democracy comes from Athenian writers who
actually despised democracy. Not much has changed. The hypocrisy of the
US is most pronounced in this area. Witness the current attempt on the
part of the US to destabalize the shoulder of South America--Colombia,
Peru and Venezuala stirring up a tempest and rocking the boat with their
capital influx then denial of capital, influxes of intelligence and
materiel and then denial, subversion of elections, support for the
authoritarian Fujimori then withdrawal, all geared to force the region
to come apart at the seams.

"Quasi-religio-metaphysical assumptions" in my work? I'm afraid I don't
know what you mean.

Sorry, about the awkwardnesses of these posts. I'm trying to work at the
same time. Carlo Parcelli

  Wei wrote:
>
> Carlo says,
>
> >The Han and Ch'in (Qin) material is largely buried in earlier
> >unpublished work.
>
> Do you mention Qin Shihuangdi (The first Chin Emperor) in that work?  I have
> a special interest in the First Emperor.  I would be curious to know what
> your take is on him, and whether you follow or diverge from Pound in his
> treatment of Shihuangdi.  ( "Shih Huang Ti"  is how Pound transcribes it, I
> think).
>
> >I'm glad you like aspects of Deconstructing the
> >Demiurge. It was Pound that taught me much of the ethical conditions
> >under which it operates. Some of his lessons (not nearly all) were
> >negative ones, but given the level of the poetry in the Cantos this is
> >possible.
>
> I am interested in what you mean by this.  In what sense did Pound teach you
> about “ethical conditions,” and in what contexts:  in the relations between
> aesthetics and ethics, between poetry and politics, or between morality,
> economics and metaphysics?  Could you provide one example to illustrate your
> point.
>
> If I explain a bit about my intial interest in Pound, that may clarify the
> issue.  I was originally drawn to Pound by two main features of his work:
> his interest in China and his interest in economics (and in, what I-- at
> first-- believed might be a sincere,  intellectually coherent impulse toward
> radical social reform).  The latter interest I found attractive, and
> supplemented by my previous interests in the more or less radical ideas
> which permeated the poetry of Blake, Byron, Shelly, Swinburne, and Morris,
> among others.
>
> Of course, any critical analysis of poetry flows out of highly individual
> assumptions, tendencies, and judgments---so do not interpret my analysis as
> anything which would constitute a direct attack on your personal admiration
> of Pound.
>
> My historical and critical research into the way that Pound used his
> materials led me to believe the following: The more familiar people become
> with the Chinese historical sources the less easy it was to exonerate Pound
> from his most serious errors.  In other words, if one looks carefully at the
> extent of Pound’s ideological commitment to Confucianism, and at the way in
> which he interprets and chooses the particular texts, one starts to see that
> he embraces authoritarian solutions to a degree ignored by most critics.
> The corollary is, of course, that the more one looks at this issue, the more
> hostile Pound appears to be toward democracy and the rule of law.
>
> >It is no surprise to me that people find untenable your
> >conflation of Pound's poetry with an unmitigated 'fascist' ideology.
> >Your position is untenable.
>
> I do not think I ever said Pound’s view was unmitigated.  I merely state
> that it is extremely strong, and very troubling to see in a modern poet, who
> imbibed some of the ideals of democracy in his youth.  As to my view being
> untenable, I submit, that if one looks carefully at  how Pound
> systematically slighted Taoism  (the most democratic and libertarian
> philosophy of all the Chinese thought systems) and how he celebrated
> Confucianism (at a time when virtually ALL serious Chinese intellectuals
> were rejecting it, in hopes of creating a more just, less authoritarian
> society)----one will be compelled to see Pound as one the most reactionary
> thinkers of his age.
>
> The position is tenable, and it only seems untenable, I believe, because
> most people believe Pound’s Confucianism was simply a garden variety of
> Confucianism.  Pound, in his choice of texts, in his instincts, and in his
> interpretation of Confucius was an adherent of the Sung Xue (the Song, or
> Sung School of Confucianism) which was the most authoritarian of all the
> Confucian factions.  The Sung School of Confucianism holds very nearly the
> same place in Chinese history that Ultra-Conservatism and Fascism hold in
> Western History, and the evidence that Pound was in full harmony with the
> tendencies of this school is very strong----as strong as the evidence that
> Pound was an supporter of Mussolini's fascsim
>
> You say,
>
> >At the very best, your argument might point
> >to a peculiar kind of individual fascism that Pound created out of
> >sources he found that suggested the kind of agrarian utopia that
> >permeates the Cantos. This would also account for Pound's mistaken
> >identification with strains of European fashion.
> >
>
> Well, this is precisely my point, though I would state it a bit differently.
>   Pound did create an “idiosyncratic fascism”.  But that does not mean that
> it was not fascism.  Pound’s fascism is idiosyncratic in a number of ways,
> but perhaps most importantly in the sense that he felt compelled to look to
> historical sources far afield to justify the his views.  During the 20's,
> 30's, and 40's he wanted to find “evidence” that fascism could work over the
> long term.  He makes this point himself on numerous occasions:  The
> totalitarian history of Confucian China “proved” that Hitler’s and
> Mussolini’s projects could be successful  (and that the West’s failure was
> was in its being contaminated with Greek philosophy, and with Christian
> thought, which made a total commitment to ORDER very difficult).  No doubt
> you recall this argument in the Guide to Kuchur, though he makes it again
> and again in the Confucian Essays in the Selected Prose. He also makes the
> point over and over (ad nauseum, in fact) in the China Cantos, and in
> Rock-Drill.
>
> >I also don't think that Carroll is correct in conflating Mussollini's
> >fascism or Hitler's National Socialism with the current kleptocracy that
> >emanates from the US, Europe and Japan. This kleptocracy has proven to
> >be much more long lived and dangerous because it has appropriated the
> >positivistic necessity that originated in its own sciences. The sciences
> >are scene as destiny.
>
> Here I agree with you to a large extent.  I think that Carroll Cox is
> correct in his basic outline of the similarities of the two systems, but if
> we think dialectically, you are correct with respect to the differences you
> point out.   He is right in showing that the elites are able to produce
> similar results in both systems; you correct in pointing to the differences
> in the methods, in the patterns of power concentration, and in the
> underlying epistemes.
>
> >It is not difficult to see the power this accrues
> >to the modern corporation and the government stooges they control. The
> >whole epistemology of money is now a 'scientistic' borrowing from the
> >hard sciences especially physics but more and more so biology as
> >ecological questions take root. See Shackle, Hayek, E.O. Wilson,
> >Horkheimer & Adorno and many others for views pro and con.
>
> Yes.  I very much like your analysis here, and it is manifest in
> “Deconstructing the Demiurge”.  I am very interested in the uses you make of
> references physics, cosmology, and the technical sciences in the poem.  I
> have other questions regarding (for lack of a better word) the
> quasi-religio-metaphysical assumptions beneath or behind the poem, and how
> these are similar to  or different from Pound’s “religious” ideas.   But let
> me pose them later, after a read a bit more. Though it might appear a little
> suprising, I am far more sympathetic to Pound’s metaphysical, theological,
> or religio-philosophical view than I am toward his political, economic,
> social, and moral theories.
>
> More on that later perhaps.
>
> Wei
>
> http://www.geocities.com/weienlin/poundindex.html
>
> [For those who might be interested, the "Pound and China" website now
> contains a newly added introduction and a newly added essay on Pound’s use
> of, and interpretation of, the Chinese language]
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

--
ÐÏ à¡± á