I see what you mean. For moral order-- Dante. For fiscal order-- the
Malatestas et al. For civic order-- Jefferson. For aesthetic order
(integrity)-- not "the god of the dollar." Etc., etc. --CP
[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> see what I mean?
>
> In a message dated 06/28/2000 1:05:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> <<
> I don't know. I can appreciate the fact that you believe my approach is
> not objective. Perhaps you could tell us whose approach is objective, and
> give us an example of objective criticism of Pound. You should of course
> feel free to criticize my method. Nevertheless, the issue of Pound's
> objectivity might be more appropriate to this list than a personal
> evaluation of what you might --rightly or wrongly-- consider to be a lack of
> objectivity on my part.
>
> When I produce a Pound quote to demonstrate that Pound thought Confucianism
> was the ONLY appropriate philosophy for an orderly society you might counter
> with a quote from Pound, some evidence, or some analysis. You did reply to
> my post, but since you do not address my assertion that Pound lacks
> objectivity I have to wonder. Do you have any evidence or any analysis
> which can call my conclusion into question? If you would rather talk about
> me than about Pound, I have no objection. But I hope you will forgive me if
> I bring the discussion around to Pound's poetry, his prose writings, his
> spoken remarks, and other aspects of his life that might shed light on his
> place in the history of letters.
>
> If you want to address my particular arguments, fine. But just to quote me
> and say "see what I mean" does not seem to be a sufficient response to the
> evidence I present.
> >>
>
> In a message dated 06/27/2000 9:57:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, JBCM2 writes:
>
> <<
> one way to deflect criticism of oneself is to direct it at someone else.
> while it may be interesting to discuss Pound's objectivity, why would I want
> to discuss it with someone whose objectivity I've called into question. I
> can certainly understand why Wei wants to turn the light on Pound, but I'm
> not buying it. others can, if they choose, but since I already know that
> Wei's conclusion is that Pound wasn't objective, and that he was a
> Nazi/Fascist/neo-Confucinist. etc.
>
> i.e.
>
> << Take for instance, Pound's use of the phrase * * t'ai4 p'ing2 in Canto 98.
> The characters and their romanized equivalents are placed next to the words
> "and that the equilibrium
> t'ai4 p'ing2
> of the Empire grips the earth in good manners." 98/703. [Here we are with
> "good a manners" again. No reason to forget that Pound said the "Nazis had
> wiped out bad manners in Germany"]. >>
>
> see what I mean?
>
> jb... >>
--
ÐÏ à¡± á
|