Carlo recent asked,

>Evidence for what?  That Pound wrote beautiful poetry?

No, I do not question that.  I don't affirm or deny it.  What is or is not
"beautiful poetry" is a matter of personal taste, or subjective aesthetic
evaluations.

I was asking you to provide evidence to back up the statement made by
Pearlman:

>"In the Cantos Kung stands for the principle of
>order, the force of reason, intelligence, human-heartedness . . . .

What kind of ORDER?

Force of Reason?  Is it "Reason" or is it simply "Force" that he supports,
as in the fascist use of force?

Intelligence?  That's a bit vague.  Intelligence for what; intelligence to
do what?  Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Mussolini, Gandhi
---- they were all for intelligence.  So was Machiavelli.  I don't think
that distinguishes Confucius from any other well-known political
philosopher, moralist, or relgious thinker.

Human heartedness?   Were Confucius and his Confucian followers any more
human hearted than their contemporaries?   Evidence needs to be provided for
that.  Is human heartedness a central value embodied in the Cantos?  That
needs substantiation.

Peter Bi said one needs intelligence and an open heart to appreciate Pound.
With all due respect to Peter Bi, I invite him to demonstrate his
appreciation of Pound a bit more fully, and explain--- with an open heart--
how he can reconcile his appreciation with the serious misreadings and
distortions Pound commits in his presentations of Chinese social history.

One needs an open heart and intelligence for life itself, and if Pound was
both exemplary, in some ways, and deficient in others, in giving us an
open-hearted and intelligent poetry--- a poetry which looks at people of all
classes and races in their common humanity--- then we should be fully aware
of both the positive and negative qualities in his work.

A. David Moody said,


>As for your commentary on my note re the difference between art and action,
>you make it perfectly clear that for you there is no difference between
>Pound's poetry and his prose propaganda.

I think you might not have interpreted my remarks in their true spirit.  I
was saying that POUND sees a strong connection between what he does in his
art and what he does in his prose and radio broadcasts, especially as
regards social issues.  Perhaps you missed the Pound quote:  "New Masses
Magazine is correct when they say there is no separation between my poetry
and my economics."   You might also have missed one of the quotes from the
radio speeches.  Pound says the collected speeches were the best preparation
for young minds.   He said he didn't know where else "the young men of
England and America could get material to build their souls, or at least
their mind for tomorrow. . . except from my broadcasts."

If you want to prove that Pound thought his artistic work was separable from
his political work, you need evidence, not assertions.

I accept that the difference between art and activity is more sharply
defined with different artists.  Nor do I believe that there is an exact
equivalence between the art and the radio broadcasts.  However, the
underlying cultural, social, moral, and political values are in close
harmony.  If you have evidence for the contrary view, I would be pleased to
hear it.

Sincere regards,

Wei







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