Leon Surette wrote
>
>     I can't begin to comment on the vigorous debate that En Lin Wei has
>occasioned by his provocative articles. I don't agree with his conclusions
>on the whole, but I think his position deserves more respect than it has
>always received in posts.
>

Thank you for the encouraging words.

You also say,

>     My view is that Pound was the farthest thing from an ideologue--partly
>because he was constitutionally incapable of abstract thought.--by his own
>admission, I might add.
>

Yes, in that sense, you are correct.  Pound was consitutionally, to a large
degree, incapable of abstract thought (and in this way unlike other great
poets like Milton and Coleridge).

But your comment raises for me the interesting question "what precisely is
an ideologue?"  I am not sure that I ever argue he was an ideologue; I argue
that he was a fascist (not an assertion which which needs much
substantiation really).   Your comment makes me wonder if Pound was an
ideologue, however.  If he (or anyone else) is incapable of abstract
thought, does that not make it more likely (or more possible) that he could
be an ideologue?  That is, if a person cannot rise above the inherent
contradictions in a given system (this is part of Hegel's definition of
abstract thought), then are they not MORE likely to remain "stuck" in an
ideology?

Or, if one can abstractly "reason oneself" into an ideology (as I think you
imply it is possible to do), then might not Pound, failing to do this by his
incapacity for abstract thought, simply have been a fascist by instinct?
I do not have the answers to this; it is, again, a psychological matter,
which is perhaps decided by a set of criteria which I do not have access to.


Regards,

Wei






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