Tim Romano <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >Subject: Syncretic and eclectic > >A poet may write of the "light" that accompanies the fracture of the >Everyday, but unless the reader has actually _seen_, actually >_experienced_, >that particular brightness and clarity one will not recognize that to which >the word refers. Precision and accuracy are not for a reader who hasn't >shared Pound's experience, not for a reader who hasn't undergone "the same" >experience. Yes. Fair enough. I agree with the proposition: "unless the reader has actually _seen_, actually _experienced_, that particular brightness and clarity one will not recognize that to which the word refers." That must be true. But who is to make the judgement that one reader has had such an experience, and another has not. Each reader must judge for him or herself, don't you agree? It took over four hundred years for church scholars to conclude that Joan of Arc was a genuine Saint who merited canonization, who (in their view) had received genuine visions from God. Their judgment may or not be correct. What panel of scholars, clerics, mystics, poets, and/or neo-platonist visionaries is fit to decide the degree to which Pound's experiences were bright and clear apprehensions of the NOUS (Divine Mind, Celestial Intelligence, or Absolute)? And who is to decide which readers can or cannot claim to have undergone "the same" experience which Pound did in his most lucid and sincere moments? I claim there is no easy answer to this question. As for the assertion "Precision and accuracy are not for a reader who hasn't shared Pound's experience . . .", I would submit that precision and accuracy are for everyone. This is why we have reason. I don't know if you believe that the experience of the nous--- and the conveyance of the experience of the nous (through poetry, philosophy, or through virtuous acts)--- is inconsistent with reason. The term NOUS, which Pound uses, signifies a Divine Intelligence; I believe that such a concept (and the experience of it) is consistent with a notion of spiritual reason. It is also, I believe, not disjunctive with the higher uses of human reason. Nevertheless, there is a point on which I would concede to you entirely. Pound speaks of the "vain locus of verbal exchanges." There is some aspect (the most important aspect, in fact) of the Divine, and of the experience of the Divine, which is wholly personal, completely subjective, and therefore not very amenable to verbal analysis, philosophical discourse, or even poetic expression. On such a subject we must remain silent. However, insofar as we are prone to desire communication on this issue, we must employ the clumsy linguistic and conceptual tools we have, and reach as far up the ladder as earthly intellection, aesthetic sensibility, and moral reasoning will allow. > >To say that Pound believed in and wrote about his direct firsthand >EXPERIENCE and that he found corroborating expression of this experience in >many and various places, is to say quite a different thing than "...Pound >believed in a little bit of everything...." I see how such a statement on my part could be interpreted as reductive. I apologize if it caused you offense; I did not mean to characterize your view in this way. I agree with you that Pound "found corroborating expression of this experience in many and various places". To characterize Pound as syncretic and eclectic is, I agree, essentially on target. But I propose we go further, to understand why Pound found corroboration specifically where he did, and not in other places. Syncretism and eclecticism are methods; they tell us little or nothing about content. Unlike Charles Moyer, I cannot subscribe strongly to the thesis that the poet is infinite (unless you believe that God "speaks through" the poet in each and every word). The poet may be both infinite and finite; infinite in those moments when he touches upon and merges with the Divine Mind (and finite when he says things like Hitler and Joan of Arc were both Saints). Regards, Wei ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com