Carlo says, >The Han and Ch'in (Qin) material is largely buried in earlier >unpublished work. Do you mention Qin Shihuangdi (The first Chin Emperor) in that work? I have a special interest in the First Emperor. I would be curious to know what your take is on him, and whether you follow or diverge from Pound in his treatment of Shihuangdi. ( "Shih Huang Ti" is how Pound transcribes it, I think). >I'm glad you like aspects of Deconstructing the >Demiurge. It was Pound that taught me much of the ethical conditions >under which it operates. Some of his lessons (not nearly all) were >negative ones, but given the level of the poetry in the Cantos this is >possible. I am interested in what you mean by this. In what sense did Pound teach you about “ethical conditions,” and in what contexts: in the relations between aesthetics and ethics, between poetry and politics, or between morality, economics and metaphysics? Could you provide one example to illustrate your point. If I explain a bit about my intial interest in Pound, that may clarify the issue. I was originally drawn to Pound by two main features of his work: his interest in China and his interest in economics (and in, what I-- at first-- believed might be a sincere, intellectually coherent impulse toward radical social reform). The latter interest I found attractive, and supplemented by my previous interests in the more or less radical ideas which permeated the poetry of Blake, Byron, Shelly, Swinburne, and Morris, among others. Of course, any critical analysis of poetry flows out of highly individual assumptions, tendencies, and judgments---so do not interpret my analysis as anything which would constitute a direct attack on your personal admiration of Pound. My historical and critical research into the way that Pound used his materials led me to believe the following: The more familiar people become with the Chinese historical sources the less easy it was to exonerate Pound from his most serious errors. In other words, if one looks carefully at the extent of Pound’s ideological commitment to Confucianism, and at the way in which he interprets and chooses the particular texts, one starts to see that he embraces authoritarian solutions to a degree ignored by most critics. The corollary is, of course, that the more one looks at this issue, the more hostile Pound appears to be toward democracy and the rule of law. >It is no surprise to me that people find untenable your >conflation of Pound's poetry with an unmitigated 'fascist' ideology. >Your position is untenable. I do not think I ever said Pound’s view was unmitigated. I merely state that it is extremely strong, and very troubling to see in a modern poet, who imbibed some of the ideals of democracy in his youth. As to my view being untenable, I submit, that if one looks carefully at how Pound systematically slighted Taoism (the most democratic and libertarian philosophy of all the Chinese thought systems) and how he celebrated Confucianism (at a time when virtually ALL serious Chinese intellectuals were rejecting it, in hopes of creating a more just, less authoritarian society)----one will be compelled to see Pound as one the most reactionary thinkers of his age. The position is tenable, and it only seems untenable, I believe, because most people believe Pound’s Confucianism was simply a garden variety of Confucianism. Pound, in his choice of texts, in his instincts, and in his interpretation of Confucius was an adherent of the Sung Xue (the Song, or Sung School of Confucianism) which was the most authoritarian of all the Confucian factions. The Sung School of Confucianism holds very nearly the same place in Chinese history that Ultra-Conservatism and Fascism hold in Western History, and the evidence that Pound was in full harmony with the tendencies of this school is very strong----as strong as the evidence that Pound was an supporter of Mussolini's fascsim You say, >At the very best, your argument might point >to a peculiar kind of individual fascism that Pound created out of >sources he found that suggested the kind of agrarian utopia that >permeates the Cantos. This would also account for Pound's mistaken >identification with strains of European fashion. > Well, this is precisely my point, though I would state it a bit differently. Pound did create an “idiosyncratic fascism”. But that does not mean that it was not fascism. Pound’s fascism is idiosyncratic in a number of ways, but perhaps most importantly in the sense that he felt compelled to look to historical sources far afield to justify the his views. During the 20's, 30's, and 40's he wanted to find “evidence” that fascism could work over the long term. He makes this point himself on numerous occasions: The totalitarian history of Confucian China “proved” that Hitler’s and Mussolini’s projects could be successful (and that the West’s failure was was in its being contaminated with Greek philosophy, and with Christian thought, which made a total commitment to ORDER very difficult). No doubt you recall this argument in the Guide to Kuchur, though he makes it again and again in the Confucian Essays in the Selected Prose. He also makes the point over and over (ad nauseum, in fact) in the China Cantos, and in Rock-Drill. >I also don't think that Carroll is correct in conflating Mussollini's >fascism or Hitler's National Socialism with the current kleptocracy that >emanates from the US, Europe and Japan. This kleptocracy has proven to >be much more long lived and dangerous because it has appropriated the >positivistic necessity that originated in its own sciences. The sciences >are scene as destiny. Here I agree with you to a large extent. I think that Carroll Cox is correct in his basic outline of the similarities of the two systems, but if we think dialectically, you are correct with respect to the differences you point out. He is right in showing that the elites are able to produce similar results in both systems; you correct in pointing to the differences in the methods, in the patterns of power concentration, and in the underlying epistemes. >It is not difficult to see the power this accrues >to the modern corporation and the government stooges they control. The >whole epistemology of money is now a 'scientistic' borrowing from the >hard sciences especially physics but more and more so biology as >ecological questions take root. See Shackle, Hayek, E.O. Wilson, >Horkheimer & Adorno and many others for views pro and con. Yes. I very much like your analysis here, and it is manifest in “Deconstructing the Demiurge”. I am very interested in the uses you make of references physics, cosmology, and the technical sciences in the poem. I have other questions regarding (for lack of a better word) the quasi-religio-metaphysical assumptions beneath or behind the poem, and how these are similar to or different from Pound’s “religious” ideas. But let me pose them later, after a read a bit more. Though it might appear a little suprising, I am far more sympathetic to Pound’s metaphysical, theological, or religio-philosophical view than I am toward his political, economic, social, and moral theories. More on that later perhaps. Wei http://www.geocities.com/weienlin/poundindex.html [For those who might be interested, the "Pound and China" website now contains a newly added introduction and a newly added essay on Pound’s use of, and interpretation of, the Chinese language] ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com