A poey may write of the "light" that accompanies the fracture of the
Everyday, but unless the reader has actually _seen_, actually _experienced_,
that particular brightness and clarity one will not recognize that to which
the word refers.  Precision and  accuracy are not for a reader who hasn't
shared Pound's experience, not for a reader who hasn't undergone "the same"
experience. For under such circumstances, there is no true _recognition_.
The same limitations would hold true if the poet had written of the scent of
the jibjub flower.  Had one never smelled the jibjub, or never smelled the
scent of a cypress swamp after a long drought, the words must remain merely
a placeholder in the mind which experience may someday fill.

And we're assuming two people can "share an experience" or undergo "the same
experience". We haven't even complicated things with subjectivity. Art may
bridge that gulf of subjectivity. But not without recognition.

To say that Pound believed in and wrote about his direct firsthand
EXPERIENCE and that he found corroborating expression of this experience in
many and various places, is to say quite a different thing than "...Pound
believed in a little bit of everything...."
Your reductive summary is a misstatement. You should be on the watch for
this tendency in yourself-- in the prosecution of your own argument to
reduce contrary opinion  to the absurd.
Tim Romano


> The issue if far more complex than some people are letting on here.  And
it
> cannot be solved by simply saying that Pound believed in a little bit of
> everything, that he was a "poet" and therefore above believing anything,
or
> that he believed in the "Cantos", that they are the expression of his
> belief, and that's that, so take it or leave it.
>
> There is much to be said on this subject.  Pound is not a demigod, as he
> admits; and his words are not holy scripture, or incomprehensible, simply
> because they are poetry.  God is infinite and incomprehensible, but
Pound's
> record of, or expression of his communion with the infinite is itself
> finite, and subject to human efforts to define it---  carefully, and
> accurately.
>
> Regards,
>
> Wei
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>