gawd this is rich...!
 
well, tim, convinced yet?
 
you were expecting maybe some elementary level
of intellectual integrity?...good faith?
anyway, it gives us all a solid hermeneutical insight
into ep's use of that epithet, eh?
thanx,
bob
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan P. Gill <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, November 29, 1999 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: Getting things all mixed up
 
 
>I've been following the Morse-Romano with interest and have one thing to
>add, for now: is it possible that the broadcasts are not only in a
>different voice and medium, but in a different register, one with its own
>imperatives?  So instead of reading the same words or phrases as if they
>were regular textual evidence, we might need to consider them as what J
>and/or M calls "verbal nitroglycerin."  Or what EP elsewhere calls
>something halfway between words and action (that's the way he described
>Lenin's use of language, and, I think, Mussolini's).
>
>This approach would surely change the way we've been talking about
>culpability, since most of us assume that evil language acts (books,
>articles, private speech) can never be the equivalent of evil acts. Pace
>"free speech without free radio speech is as zero," Pound considered radio
>an exceptional medium.
>
>Finally: how about radio (and other forms of electromagnetic energy) IN
>the Cantos?  Very interesting intersection of race and radio in the figure
>of Father Divine!
>
>Jonathan Gill
>Columbia University
>
>On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, Jonathan Morse wrote:
>
>> At 01:23 PM 11/28/99 -0500, you wrote:
>> >You're almost as elliptical as Pound.
>>
>> I'm also out of dimes. But please trust me about this: two-person
>> discussions are one of the things that kill lists off. Even at their
best,
>> they give the impression that the list is a coterie. Let's let other
people
>> speak now, shall we?
>>
>> Jonathan Morse
>>