thanks, Michael,
sorry to be so long about it.
Please take mine below as the tentative thots of amateur,...and feel free to
blast away.


> Bob:
>
> I take your contrast of Emerson-Pound seriously. You may well be right,
> although I hadn't seen it that way. Also, I am challenged by your thought
that
> Emerson was on the way to Foucault. I wish it were so. Can you add a bit
on
> that, in due time?

Michael,
     Mostly Emerson (looking at The Am Scholar) is boiler-plate (ie.
however, in the van of his day)  enlightenment discourse, no?  However, for
us,  it's futural germ can be seen to have been present in the dictum,
sapere aude, and acceptance of the impossibility of aprioristic truth.  Both
theses he takes for gospel.  Certainly there's early enlightenment bouyancy,
but, not naivete, as nihilism is present virtually in the local
gotterdammerung of the dissolution of the "puritan mind".   He admonishes
Harvard (the American Mind) to cheerfully not look back,  embrace the
freedom of autonomus individualism and  the great "metaphysical flux,"  the
revolution of enlighenment humanism, ...as well as, disdain "great men"
(authority/subordination), state (bureaucratism) and commerce (capitalism)
for the revolutionary "enterprise...of the upbuilding of man" thru the
"gradual domestication of the idea of Culture."  Fully articulated (the
inexorable sequellae, darwin, freud, hiroshima, ...genome chart,  globalized
merkan consumerist Empire)  thru the ensuing 150 yrs this programme arives
to (1)a methodology, (2) nihilism, and (3)supremely refined sensibility...?
dr. hannibal lecter, american foucault, relishing taboos (meaning occurring
only at the margins), uninhibited by law or morality (ideal discourses
perverted to subjectification, instruments of state control), sacrificing
everything (even physical freedom) for freedom of mind and spirit to pursue,
cultivate, win & fecundate,... the last forelorn inkling (clarice) of
truth/beauty/goodness in these final moments of the decline of the west.
....pretty easy to mistake such formlation: "Man Thinking must not be
subdued by his instruments." for pomo, heid, adorno,...and especially
foucault (substitute s&m for wordsworthian nature), no?


>
> I agree with your clever adjectives for Pound, rooted in myth, romance and
> cultural nostalgia, and you are right, certainly, that he does not share
the
> idealistic structures of Kant, Hegel and Spengler. However, I think it a
> mistake not to take the idealist/materialist dichotomy seriously in
twentieth
> century thought (especially European thought). On the ground, that was how
the
> popular political struggle was framed, and Pound knew which side he was
> fighting on, and who he was fighting against. Might you agree that Pound
saw
> his Cantos not only as informed by Dante, but as an antidote to Das
Capital -
> i.e.: that Pound felt he knew the "real" principles of history better than
> anyone alive, and he would prove it, by gathering from human history those
> elements that would best define hell, purgatory and heaven?
>
> And, this is the important point, sequence in history didn't much interest
> him, association of like to like did.
>
> I remember reading Pound's correspondence to Santayana, and I remember
feeling
> then that he was trying out "the ideogrammatic method" as an idealist
> structure of genuine philosophical importance. Santayana didn't bite. Nor
> would I.
>
> Pound's idealism was pretty raw, and not as subtle or powerful (not as
> labored?) as Kant and Hegel, but idealist all the same.  But EP, unlike
most
> idealists, was passionate about the relation of cultural assumptions to
> economic structure. Generally, he condemns Judaism (and Buddhism, which
always
> seems to go unmentioned) as necessarily leading to a bad economic system.
This
> is false.

EP's contempt for bourgeois, and belief in aristocratic, culture is clear,
...along with his own sense of self, membership in the latter.
...As I understand the political struggle of the times, forces ranged behind
(1)ancien regime whiggery (monopoly and imperialist capitalism), (2) the
nouveau bourgeoisie,  industrial and finance capital, and (3)populism (the
spectrum of socialism, from fascism to leninism to anarchism).  The
shibboleth of whiggery was Tradition; of bourgeoisie, Nation; and populism,
the spectrum of Humanisms.  The first was effete and easily removed from the
board with WW1.  The second was devastated by the Great Depression and
weakened to the pt where the organized force of reactionary populism
(basically a military populism) was able to take power.  And presumably,
since the latter's reactionism harked back principally to military ethos,
Pound was irresistably drawn.  The intermural battle with communism, except
for Spain, was never in doubt as the numbers are always overwhelming on the
side of reaction.
     I have never thot of this period in terms of pop notions of idealism vs
materialism; nor, of the Cantos as contra-Kapital.  But would be  interested
to hear the case made.  Certainly Pound was contemporary with the most
dramatic and apocalytpically violent period of western history since the
dark ages.  Certainly History is his cardinal theme; and his persona was
afflicted  with manic conviction of his own insight (a la OT prophet or
Puritan divine) into its hierophantic significance.


> The most effective terrorism of our time may, in fact, turn out to be the
> assassination of Rabin, the Israeli architect of the Oslo accords. It was
a
> death supported by the right in Israel, who have controlled the anti-peace
> agenda ever since. No-one, at the time, expected the United States to
support
> the Israeli turn to the extreme right (it was thought that a line had been
> crossed and America would work to make its influence even more
moderating),
> but this did not happen. In fact, America has never more vigorously
supported
> the Israeli anti-peace parties.
>
> There are historical causes for that American support. Reading the bible,
old
> testament or new, won't help you understand what those reasons are, no
matter
> what the religious affiliations of the people involved.
>
> There is a symbiotic relationship between Tel Aviv and Washington, and it
is
> dangerous for Americans, Israelis and Muslims (not in that order).
>
> There are devout Jews who fought, and continue to fight, this turn for the
> worse, there are devout Jews working for economic justice in Palestine,
Israel
> and elsewhere. I shouldn't have to say that, but it seems necessary.
>
> Unfortunately, the peace movement in Israel is losing the battle, not
least
> because of the massive support from "Christian" America for its bitter
> opponents.
>
> The point is, there are historical reasons, developed through sequences of
> actions, which led us to our current situation. There is not a simple
> one-to-one relationship between ancient text (the Torah, for instance) and
our
> society (however much the fundamentalists want us to believe that). Nor is
> there a simple one-to-one between following any given religion and moral
or
> immoral behavior (as defined by the Geneva conventions, for example).
Pound
> got caught in these simplistic, crude, and dangerous simplifications. (I
think
> even Charles agrees to that, but wants to cordon it off as only in the
> "pathetic" broadcasts.)
>
> Which is hardly to say that Pound was alone.
>
> Unfortunately, the "ideogrammatic" approach is exceedingly dominant in
public
> discourse.
>
> It is to be found in the  approach of the American and British governments
in
> their dealing with the Mid-East. The public is intentionally kept ignorant
of
> history, that is, kept ignorant of the determining forces in the region.
In
> effect, cause and effect history is replaced by their own "ideogrammatic"
> history tailored to their nefarious ends: Arabs, jihad, terrorists,
madness,
> mass destruction.
>
> It is a kind of "like to like" litany of "evils". Not historically
justified
> (or justifiable), but of proven "associative" worth.
>
> One of the most attractive features of Pound is his continued insistence
that
> history is important. However, the dominant principle upon which he
> constructed his writing of history in his major work is ahistorical.
>
> So, to answer your question, no, I don't have that twinge of doubt.
>

...know-nothingism has, at least since Independence, been essential to
Merkan subjectivity,... its success at wholesale pillage/murder the while
unshakeable in conviction of absolute rectitude/benignity.  And it is as
operative today vis a vis accepted understanding of 9/11 and the Zionist
race-state, as of  WW 1/2, Fascism,  Communism, and Capitalism.

yours,
bob



> To answer Charles, yes, monetary literacy is related to freedom, and the
> selling of arms is a cause of war, and Pound is rightly adamant on both
these
> points. And he brings that into his poetry, and it does belong in "great "
> poetry.
>
> That makes him aware, courageous, and of some moral weight.
>
> But seriously, I hope you are not reading Pound to understand monetary
> history,  or to give you pertinent information on the workings of the arms
> industry, either past or present, or, for that matter, reading Pound to
> understand the Mid-East.
>
> He has strengths, he has limits, he has weaknesses. It's good to keep in
mind
> which is which.
>
>
> Michael