Rick

No apology necessary or if one is, it's accepted with thanks.

This exchange has been GREAT for me.  It's all I could ever hope for
from the list.  I spend most of my days, weeks, and months, and have
done so for more than 15 years, conversing primarily with machines -
computers - in their languages.  You have forced me back to the texts
and to thinking through assumptions that I've held for years, and which
I reinforce to myself in a vacuum, not even sure which way in a vacuum.
 I love the poetry of many poets, but none as much as EP's.  I've always
thought of him as "daddy".

Of course a noun implies a verb and vice versa.  Analytical English
separates them; I mean, English, being analytical, separates them.
 That's why Pound's "a moment in time" is difficult, especially in
European languages, and especially in English.  It's easiest to think of
a moment in verse as a single word.  Second easiest to think of a
concrete object.  When the word, vide moment, is expanded to several
lines and includes quotations and abstractions, the idea of a moment
becomes very difficult to hold on to.  Yet, reading EP, one can
experience such moments even in lengthy passages of disparate elements.
 Maybe that, or something similar, is what you originally meant by
finding Imagist passages in Pound?

I think we largely agree except possibly on small points, points which
I've blown out of proportion.  But, for me, that's the fun.  I no longer
have any associates with whom I can discuss/argue EP.  So, if I can have
a drag out, knock down fight with an intelligent person, and have the
content of the fight be EP, I'm in paradiso.

Thanks,

Dirk

P.S.  Would you mind expanding your hint at Fenellosa?  It's been a long
time since I read him, too.... Maybe a few details would dredge up my
latent memory.  Something about movement defining the subject, maybe?
 And even if it doesn't dredge up my memory, it may send me headlong
into the texts.

Richard Seddon wrote:

>Dirk
>
>Apologies.
>
>Condensation was not intended at all.  This discussion is letting me make
>concrete a lot of nebulous thoughts.  I have valued it.
>
>For the last 4 months I have been studying Imagism fairly intensively and
>perhaps let the frustration with some authors affect my post to you.
>
>Substitution of Vorticism for Imagism is probably a very good idea given the
>contamination of Imagism.  Pound basically did this although for a different
>reason.
>
>The Image (vortex) presents an intellectual and emotional complex ( a
>thing).  The emotional complex (a thing) then becomes the subject of the
>ideogram.   This intellectual and emotional complex is initially non-verbal.
>It is a transcendence.  Each Vortex is expected to have fully presented
>itself in an intellectual and emotional complex and it is that complex that
>is layered in the ideogram.   It is not necessary for the complex to have
>been verbally expressed before it become incorporated into the ideogram.
>The ideogram then becomes an Image (Vortex) of its own.  I think Witemeyer
>sees the complex as the Image.  I separate the two since it is easier for me
>to understand.  The two are probably a mixed usage of noun/verb (I don't
>mean intransitive I mean mixed).   BTW since I am muddying nouns and verbs,
>Fenellosa has interesting things to say about the verbal origin of all words
>and this probably had some effect upon Pound's thinking of the ideogram.
>
>Again apologies.
>
>Rick Seddon
>McIntosh, NM
>
>
>