In a message dated 06/26/2000 3:17:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<<
 Filial piety is very inclusive:  it does not include
   Family squabbles over

                     land      money, etcetera
          (98/691).

  >>

so much of human suffering stems precisely from such family squabbles --
which, when practiced on a large scale, frequently obscure the fact that they
are "family" in nature -- think about this.  in fact, if you think about
family squabbles over money, every major conflict of the past century -- and
certainly longer than this -- is over money and real estate.  perhaps if you
read a little more depth into Pound's sentiment here, you'd see it, but since
it would conflict with your notion that Pound was interested in enveloping
most of us in a cultural straitjacket, you choose the most malevolent option.

<<
Now I  ask participants on this list to interpret Pound's lines, and to
interpret Pound's words regarding the Nazis?   Should one interpret the line
about filial piety and family squabbles apart from their larger social
implications?  Every citizen of China, since 1911, has known that one of the
functions of the Confucian exhortation to filial piety has been to
consolidate hierarchy.   (Most educated Chinese have known this since the
beginning of the Han dynasty).    I am not attributing to Pound anything he
has not said.   How else can the phrase "the Nazis have wiped out bad
manners," be interpreted?
>>

Pound said lots of stupid things like the quote about "bad manners" but I
don't think it's fair to reduce everything he said to such a remark, or
remarks like it.  everyone that I know who's interested in Pound concedes his
cranky stupidity.  and we can go on like this, some of us insisting that
there are values to Pound's poetry which exceed the crassness and viciousness
of his political rant, and some of us insisting that everything he said and
did in the Cantos has their origins in such a rant.  I'm in the first camp,
you're in the second.  it makes me wonder why you study such a person, why
you waste your time on it.  it must be to straighten the rest of us out about
Pound, since we're apparently unable to share in the projective nature of
your criticism.  it's true, if you want to reduce Pound to a dog, you can do
it, he certainly gave enough opportunity to do so.  of course, to do so one
must drop all pretense of evenhandedness, all pretense of objectivity.  and
at this level, it becomes a mantra -- Pound is a fascist, Pound is
anti-Semitic, Pound is a nazi, a Hitler-lover, a Confucian stooge.  so if
there are challenges to be issued, then I challenge anyone to read over your
late verbosity on this list and come to any other conclusion about the nature
and tenor of your remarks, and that they have the characteristics I've
described.

<<
 I am not very
fond of "-isms", >>

wei -- now really.....

<<but it was Pound, who when asked to leave Italy, said, "BUT
I BELIEVE IN FASCISM."   Nevertheless, I am open to new information and new
perspectives, which I invite you to provide.>>

as has been pointed out, a lot of people who should have known better
believed in FASCISM.  and I have to say, you're the least open individual
that I've personally encountered when it comes to Pound.

<<
So tell me.  Where DO the "creative dimensions" of Pound's work lead?  What
IDEAS and BELIEFS will a study of the "creative dimension" yield?   You will
enlighten many of us on this list if you can answer this type of question.
I look forward to your reply.
>>

to what end?  to provide you with yet more opportunities to repeat the same
tired bromides you keep heaving at us?  and I think "many of us" is an
arrogant assumption on your part.  enlightenment, particularly as it regards
Pound, is very painful, as has been pointed out to you, and I don't think you
have it in you to suffer through it.

jb...