Several people on the list are very interested in the question of Pound's
method.  As to what is meant by "Pound's method," I am sure that everyone
will have a very different opinion.  Pound called it the Ideogrammic method;
so it may be the case that we must have a good an understanding of the
nature and structure of the Ideogram (as good as did Pound did) to
comprehend it.  We can talk about this later if people wish.

What interests me at the moment is whether, and to what degree, Pound might
have imbibed some of the philosophical method of the Italian philosopher
Gentile, and whether it influenced, or in part confirmed, Pound in his
method. There are certain similarities in Pound's poetic method and
Gentile's epistemology.  Pound said the poets are the "antennae of the
race".  So it would have been odd if he did not assimilate some of Gentile's
philosophy, at least indirectly.

For instance, I believe Pound and Gentile shared certain beliefs about
epistemology, especially in relation to history.   This quote from Gentile
is particularly interesting in that regard:

  There are  . . .  two modes of conceiving history.
  One is that of those who see nothing but the
  historical fact in its multiplicity  . . . . The
  other mode is ours, rendered possible by the
  concept of the spatialization of the One, which
  posits the fact as act, and thereby, being
  posited in time, leaves nothing at all
  effectively behind itself.  The chronicler's
  history is history hypostaticized and deprived
  of its dialectic; for dialecticity consists
  precisely in the actuality of the multiplicity as
  unity  . . .
    (Gentile, Theory of Mind, 208).

Do some here think that Pound would have been critical of the "chronicler's
history" precisely because it is "hypostaticised" ?  Would Pound agree with
the thrust of Gentile's remark (while putting it very differently, of
course?


Another interesting Gentile quote:


  When we say "historical process" we must not
  represent the stages of this process as a spatial
  and temporal series in the usual way in which,
  abstractly, we represent space and time as a
  line  . . .

Does not Gentile's admonition suggest the premises of Pound's poetic method
in the Cantos, particularly with regard to history?

Those who are especially interested in method, and in Pound's use of
history: do you see a similarity here, as I do, between what Gentile is
getting at, and what Pound means by the ideogrammic method, as a principle
of selecting and displaying source materials in the Cantos?

The question of method is an interesting one.  For those who are critical of
my approach, because I allegedly ignore the question of method, I wish to
say, I have worked out some approaches to it.  I just posted some material
on the issue today, if anyone is interested.

Regards,

Wei

http://www.geocities.com/weienlin/supradialectic.html





________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com