Jon,
Mr. Lukas not Pound was the worthy recipient of my description of him as
"disingenuous". Others were calling him a jingoist which he was sounding
like in addition also to sounding like a paid hack. Pound, who I obviously
admire, was anything but disingenuous although I agree with you that he was
not modest either; but certainly he was not a jingoist, but a
traditionalist, not an occultist as others have claimed, but one who sought
to expose a cult of inhumane avarice which maintains a powerful stranglehold
on peoples' lives which we sense even to this day.
"A financial system wherein it is more profitable to sell guns than to
sell farm machinery, textiles or food stuff is fundamentally vicious."
IMPACT p.252
If anything Pound was a prophet, a preacher, and yes, a village
explainer, but he must have been somewhat of a democrat and a
Constitutionalist (as one who displays faith in the people).
"Civilization depends on local control of purchasing power needed for
local purposes." Ibid. p.211
We may now be on the brink of seeing whether he was prophetic or
pathetic, but then we may never know for sure. In the mean time I do not
mind taking the risk of waving his oriflamme, and I am on no one's payroll
nor am I "enjoying playing the Devil's advocate in order to stimulate
conversation", or it was some calculating words to that effect.
Finally, Pound liked cats a lot, and I like cats too. Does anyone know
more about his and Dorothy's cats, what kind, what were their names, fond
stories, etc.?
And anyone find those lines in Ovid yet? I looked but was overwhelmed
at the task.
And was the term "virgo" really made male in mediaeval latinity?
Charles
----------
>From: Jon & Anne Weidler <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: They have all answered correctly, / That is to say, each in his nature
>Date: Tue, Feb 18, 2003, 11:21 AM
>
> Well.
>
> I ought not to have brought Foucault to bear on such a petty moment. I
> understand that now, after a little reflection; I guess I just get sick
> and tired of the same vortex of naive-newbie-jingoist-smack-down that
> often happens on this list. People that know little about the ideals
> they want to defend are insulted away by otherwise intelligent people,
> and no one, I think, is right.
>
> Let me rephrase that: people on the list are absolutely right to attack
> the stupidities that are periodically broadcast through these pages,
> and the vigor of our conversations is something too valuable to
> sacrifice in the name of mollycoddling the ignorant. However, there is
> a pattern that anyone who reads this list must have noticed, one that
> does not gladly tolerate dissenting opinions.
>
> I know I should talk about Pound more, as a pretense for whatever else
> I'd like to say, or just for "his" own sake. Charles was careful to
> remind me of that, and I suppose I see his point. On the other hand,
> I'm not sure that emulations of Ezra Pound are the sine qua non of good
> critique, and I sometimes get a little uncomfortable with the
> occasional "WWPD" sentiments. "What Pound would think of the list?"
> comes up at least once a month, during these moments of minor crisis
> when a fool is flushed from the Bush where he's hiding and the list's
> sharpshooters take him out. Does it make any sense to ask this
> question? Does it matter what Pound would think? And who is in a
> position to say?
>
> I'll confess that I am not a veteran of Pound studies. Far from it. I
> joined this list to learn, not to boast, and I have learned much from
> it. In that vein, I don't feel that I am as qualified as others on the
> list to know "what Pound would think" or even to know which cantos to
> quote at just the right time. There are others, at it much longer than
> many of us, who do those duties quite well. I've learned that Pound is
> often right (whatever that means), first by reading Pound and books
> about him, and second by paying attention to these discussions. I've
> also learned however that he is susceptible to hero worship, and that
> he would not have minded hero worship in the least. He praises
> Sigismundo; we praise Pound. Pound (might) think that that is just
> fine. He was not a modest man, from what I've seen about him. (If he
> actually was modest, I trust someone will cite something to that effect
> soon enough.)
>
> Isn't this something we, or somebody, should criticize? Not because
> Pound is wrong or dangerous or fascistic, but because criticizing is
> what thinking people often do? This list has taught me, in this
> context, that a request like mine could be dangerous: the one who
> criticizes Pound criticizes Pound's admirers, and Pound's admirers will
> not stand for that for very long. (Quick: someone steal my post-bag.
> I've not doubt gone haec traditio.) So that:
>
> giving the words "order" and "brotherly deference", refusing to speak
> of "life after death", I would prefer to stop striking the rock of EP
> that it might give forth stronger and stronger epithets with which to
> scare away jingoists. Pound never subscribed to a list like this;
> asking whether or not he would have is a(nother) sign that the time is
> passing "when the historians left blanks in their writings / I mean for
> the things they didn't know".
>
> Charles- what would Pound have preferred me say in place of
> disingenuous?
>
> Regards to all-
> Jon
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2003, at 02:06 PM, charles moyer wrote:
>
>> Dismissing him as disingenuous as opposed to what Pound stood for
>> would
>> be more appropriate. Discussion on Pound is preferable.
>> Should we continue to look for "a little light, like a rushlight
>> to
>> lead back to splendour." -Canto CXVI or else anticipate that the myth
>> of
>> progress will put out all our lights in time until we find ourselves
>> living
>> in the horror of a constantly violent world of machines and evil toys?
>>
>> "a little light
>> in great darkness-" -Canto CXVI
>>
>> How about the Cantos as "palimpsest" records of Tradition that have
>> survived the historical blackout of the usurious occult and serve as
>> these
>> little rushlights to guide our way out of this teetering Inferno?
>>
>> Charles
>>
>> "A war on truth requires weapons of mass deception." -on a sign at the
>> London demonstration
>>
>>
>> ----------
>>> From: Jon & Anne Weidler <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Mea Culpa
>>> Date: Sun, Feb 16, 2003, 1:18 PM
>>>
>>
>>> the people who dismiss him as a jingo,
>>
|
