Absolutely, World studies is an excellent ‘characterization’ or ‘context’
for Pound’s work, and if I might say, and I say it with some trepidation,
but I must put it out there, Global studies.  Interesting how he connects
together such 'diverse' world views, and is, and I also say this
difficulty, a man who creates a way of connecting the literatures of many
(Eastern and Western) cultures, within current the circumstances and
exegesis of his time (our time? the future?); and maybe he’s gives us the
corrective for the postmodernist fallacy (see my poem “Postmodern
Syllogism” published in ‘Cultural Logic’—the Marxist Theory and Criticism
Journal—funny little poem!) The postmodern view, it seems to me, can be
directly traced to Emerson, with his sacred individualism, at the expense
of community (obviously tied to the capitalist mentality.)  The mantra of
the postmodernist is ‘think locally.’  One could argue that the larger
perspective allows for a universalization of perspectives, which then
leads to more freedom, more possibilities for actualization of self
(reasoning for such a view can be found in the work of G.H. Mead.)  This
is an issue that I have been painstakingly attempting to understand and to
put down on paper.  Emerson wanted to let go of history, whereas Pound
wanted to retain the stories, maybe because of their universality?  I have
been trying very hard to understand this disconnection that Emerson
pushed.  Jon discussed the temporal aspects of both Pound and Emerson, and
I'm stumped about why history is important to one and not the other.
Emerson leads to postmodernism, whereas Pound leads where--e.e. cummings?
Seems to me there's a missing fork, a road that needs to be traveled, one
leading from Pound, but it's not the postmodernism road.  I'll have to
think about this more.

sorry, it's late and this may make no sense.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com