Confucianism nevertheless was an almost exclusively patriarchal system of thought and social order, dependent on filial piety. And it was tyrranical. When the Chinese annexed Tibet in the 17th, the first necessary step towards assimilating the matriarchal Naxi tribe was to break the back of the matriarchy. Rock, Goullart, and others mention this, and so Pound knew this too. It may figure in both his changing attitute towards the female principle, and towards Confucianism, in the later Cantos. 
 
'Consider, Sir, answered Sancho, 'that those which appear yonder, 
are not giants, but windmills.'
'It is clear,' answered Don Quixote, 'that you are not versed in the business of adventures....'
                                                     from Don Quixote, chapter 8
 
Robert E. Kibler, PhD
English and Humanities
Valley City State University
[log in to unmask]
 
>>> Peter Bi <[log in to unmask]> 12/07 11:45 PM >>>
Lee:
 
in your previous email you mentioned that someone said: "The fact that
Confucianism is worthless is proved by the way the Chinese have treated women.".
But I could not find the shit in all the posts I received. This is not a personal
attack, it is even worse than that.
 
I am a Chinese and my wife can surely tell that Chinese is as good as all other
nations when treating their women. The continuation of the 5000 years of Chinese
history is attributed partly to the harmony between the men and the women, and
between the Confucianism and the Nature, of course.
 
If anyone in the mailing list is interested in ancient Chinese sexual life, I
would like to recommend a book written by a Holland scholar. Sorry, I can only
recall that his last name starts with "van ..." --- I will be glad to call a
friend to get the detail if anyone requests.
 
Finally, I think we are still far away from making final call as which social
system is the best or which economical model is the best. Whatever we are doing
today will become history, definitely. So, in principle, it is nonsense in logic
to use the current economical models or academic theories to disapprove Pound's
(or any such) idea. The failure of the WTO meeting in Seattle is probably such a
lession.
 
I like your posts very much, especially, those toward "academic" :-). I was in
the universities for about 20 years. I quitted it only recently.
 
Peter Bi
http://www.card4you.com 
 
 
Everett Lee Lady wrote:
 
>
> I'm very glad that you found Professor Morse's seminar valuable.  I know
> that he took his teaching of it very seriously.  And undoubtedly I would
> have learned some valuable things myself if I had sat in on it.
>
> I want to take the opportunity of acknowledging that in my initial
> exchange of email with Professor Morse, at the time when I was
> considering sitting in on his seminar, he frequently provided me with
> very worthwhile information about Pound.  In particular, it was from
> him that I first learned about the Agresti letters.
>
> I thoroughly immersed myself in Pound's works and thoughts forty years
> ago, when I used to be a very frequent visitor to Pound at St.
> Elizabeths.  But in the intervening years, until recently, I did not
> try to keep au courant at all and studiously avoided reading Paideuma
> and books on Pound.  Consequently there is a great deal I do not know.
>
> Although I can acknowledge that Professor Morse's expertise is in many
> ways greater than my own, it still dismays me that he makes such facile
> judgements and seems to have no interest in understanding Pound in
> the context of his own time and his own world.  And it dismays me even
> more that I cannot trust the information he gives, because he makes
> statements as if giving objective factual reports but which in fact
> represent his own "deep interpretations" of what, in his opinion, Pound
> really meant between the lines.
>
> In a lot of ways, I agree with many of Professor Morse's judgements.  I
> do not think that the ideas on economics Pound championed have proved to
> have value, and in fact I don't think anyone today would have any
> interest in them except for their connection with a famous poet.
>
> As to the writings of Confucius, they apparently also have only minor
> value for those of us in today's world.  (I have to admit that I don't
> feel very sure of myself on this issue, since it's been a long time since
> I looked at them.)  But I don't think that one can reject the works of
> Confucius simply because of the way the Mandarin civil service system
> functioned in China or the way women have been treated in China any
> more than one get reject the Bible merely because of the Inquisition.
>
> Ideas should be examined on their merits, not merely on the basis of the
> way particular people have implemented them.
>
> In any case, it dismays me that someone seriously investigating Pound's
> biography would not familiarize himself with the books that Pound
> considered so overwhelmingly important and would not look at the ideas
> Pound promoted in the usual serious manner by which most ideas are
> studied.
>
> I think that the Agresti letters are like a valuable archeological site
> from which one can learn a great deal about what things Pound considered
> important.  In these letters, I recognize very well the Pound I knew at
> St. Elizabeths.  Those who read the Agresti letters looking only for the
> anti-semitic references are, in my opinion, just as foolish as those
> who attempt to sweep the anti-semitic references under the rug.
>
> Finally, I want to acknowledge here that I am very prejudiced, inasmuch
> as I very much dislike academics.  I have spent a great deal of my life
> being an academic myself, and to some extent I am still one (or at
> least get paid for being one), and I don't like that part of myself.  I
> don't like the fact that I spent so much of my life devoting my mind,
> and in fact devoting my life as a whole, to pursuits that I believe
> have very little value to the world.
>
> But, as someone has reminded us, the issue is Pound, not myself and not
> any other contributor to the mailing list.