charles moyer <[log in to unmask]> wrote >"I, one thing, as relation to one thing; Hui sees relation to ten." (Notes for CXI) >Wei - Don't you ever have just a little glimmer of doubt about the number >of >relations you see? I am not sure why you want to turn the conversation away from the discussion of Pound to the discussion of what relations I personally may or may not be able to see. But perhaps no explanation is necessary. I am a great optimist about people's ability to see. I think that you, or I, or anyone, can see virtually countless relationships between things and ideas. There is no reason why the development of our capacity to know and discuss such relations should ever end. I take very seriously that part of Chomsky's linguistic theory which states that even the least literate person is capable of a theoretically infinite number of utterances. Like Chomsky, I also hold that it is in the nature of language itself that complex ideas (expressing complex and varied relationships) will inevitably occur in any attempt to construct a series of sentences. The seeming simplicity of some sentences is a deception, based on the prejudice that certain ideas and expressions are all the same. However, in actuality, the subtle differences in specific contexts (temporal, spatial, social, etc) ----and the differences in the choices of words and sentences used---- make for a very complex presentation of, or discussion of "relations" in even the briefest exchange. So the number of possible relations seen by any given person cannot be limited. Perhaps by your question you mean to ask me if I am humbled by the finitude of my perspective? In that sense, yes. The number of relations I can see between things is immeasurably small compared to the total number which three or ten or twenty people may see. It is small compared to the number which I can see in conjunction with others. I would say the ratio is geometric (if that is the right term), in other words, two people can see four times as much as the sum total which those people could see separately. So a TRUER knowledge of relations would come from a discussion of two or more people than from those people merely writing or talking separately. My words on this list, for example, have more meaning in relation to yours; and yours have more meaning in relation to mine. [As regards the quote from Confucius above, which Pound quotes, you are aware that Confucius (the speaker) is portrayed a certain way. He is meant to be seen as one who is humble because he admits that he can only see one relation in a given circumstance, while his particularly gifted disciple can see ten relations. The discussion of that quote from the Analects could spark a discussion of many "relations". For instance, the relation between Confucius and that disciple, between the author of the Analects and the society in which he lived, between the codifiers of the Analects and the rulers of the Han dynasty who promoted that text for various social purposes, between Pound and the Confucian text, and the society that he (Pound) sought to "reform." All of these are worth exploring, as are many other relations. ] >I have been more interested in observing the comments in >postings you have avoided than the ones you have addressed. You might point to a very specific example, and suggest what you think I should not avoid, or what you might like me to address. Be fair now. You cannot expect me to address every point. Any more than I can expect everyone on this list to address everyone's points. The infinite theoretical potential of everyone here is limited by the actual constraints of time and space. If there is a specific point you want me to address, let me know. >The former have >been those which would have led discussion away from your thesis (as >someone >called it) which has become the dominate feature and almost the only one of >this list. Everything else gets dismissed or buried under the glut of your >endless presentations and defenses. Everything "gets dismissed . . . " I don't see how this is possible. Why do you use the passive voice here? Individuals dismiss things. X may dismiss the argument made by Y, and Y may dismiss the argument made by Z, and so on. But even that is subject to doubt. If one person replies to another person on one point, and NOT on another point, that need not indicate the "dismissal" of an argument. I also detect a tension (amounting almost to a contradiction) in a part of your stance. On the one hand you say I do not reply sufficiently to certain unspecified points. On the other hand you suggest I make too many replies. Like any human being, I reply to what I choose to reply to. So do you. Also "volume" is not relevant on the internet. Perhaps you could understand the medium in a different fashion. It is not like a radio with one channel which must be either on or off (I don't mean to imply that you see it that way exactly, but I merely intend to suggest an alternative perspective). No one's post can be "buried" as you say, unless the reader(s) choose to bury it. One post that X makes can have one hundred times the impact than a thousand posts made by Y. People read or skip the posts they are interested in reading. No one needs read them all. They can choose to read or not read them based on the topic, based on the author, based on the first sentence or any other number of factors. This is the great glory of internet communication. It has many advantages over the book, the newspaper, the magazine, the radio, and the television. In light of these aspects of the medium I don't see how anyone can bury anyone else. >And don't try to construe this as >censorship, not from this heretic. I respect that. >As far as your summary judgment of Pound . . . . There is no summary judgment of Pound. There are a series of relationships disclosed and discussed regarding many aesthetic, moral, political, social, economic, linguistic, and religious aspects of Pound's work. Each statement is subject to a counterstatement at any time by anyone else, and subject to modification and development. You make incremental adjustments in your view, and I do the same with mine, and so does anyone else on the list who takes the time to think the issues through. Even those who glance at the issue now and again change their judgments by the essential modification of perspectives which is the natural result of the passage of time. Regarding your admonition about the opportunities that can be afforded by communion with nature, I think you are right if you advise everyone to take advantage of the beauties that forests, trees, and butterflies (though we might be careful not to lapse into a physiocratic view of the natural world, toward which Poundian thought would have us incline). The reflections on the nature of the butterfly as a metaphor for spiritual transformation, I think, constitute an excellent example of the positive power of one aspect of Pound's work, when separated from his social, political, and economic philosophies. On this point we might very well agree. Friendly Regards, Wei ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com