> >this is very funny -- the conclusion, I mean. apparently, because you >think >this, then Pound must have thought it -- even though you immediately turn >to >someone else (Yang Jung-kuo) as a way of saying again what Pound never >said. > >jb... On the contrary. If you read certain words of Pound carefully, you might discover that the quote says what I suggest it does. I argued that FILIAL PIETY, in the Confucian sense, was conceived by Pound as a means of reinforcing hierarchy and a stable society. There will be no squabbles if everyone practices FILIAL PIETY. How do you interpret the quote? Filial piety is very inclusive: it does not include Family squabbles over land money, etcetera (98/691). I produced the Yang Jung-kuo quote to show you that the Confucianist exhortation to "filial piety" has very often been used to convince people that they should always agree with authority, and accept the dictates of society's rulers. That Pound thought in the same way is demonstrated in the following quote, taken from his radio speeches. Here he is speaking of the elimination of "bad manners", and the elimination of "class conflict" in Hitler's Germany. Well, I was talkin' to a friend of mine, and she was born with a name sacr'd to every man who cares for poetry written in English, Rossetti. And she said, "The worst manners come from people trying to be nasty to people whom they consider inferior. Matter of class. And the Nazis have wiped out that feeling, and wiped out bad manners in Germany" (Doob, 32). Nazi "good manners" in practice meant "wiping out" class antagonisms by force; and so it was in Confucian society, where injunctions to "filial piety" were often put forward by the rulers primarily for the purpose of suppressing the rebellious lower classes and maintaining their positions of economic privilege. Allow me to reproduce part of what I wrote in the last post, including the Pound quote, and Jang Jung-kuo's quote, so people can better judge the implications of his analysis, in light of Pound's assertions concerning the Nazis having "wiped out bad manners in Germany." Then permit me to ask a question. I say again, in the Cantos, Pound refers to Confucian ethical notions such as "filial piety" in contexts where the implications are clearly economic as well as moral. For instance, in Canto 98, employing the ideograms for land and money, he writes, Filial piety is very inclusive: it does not include Family squabbles over land money, etcetera (98/691). [See the source for the actual ideograms, ideograms meaning "land" and "money") I insist, such moral injunctions must be viewed in their historical contexts. They are not to be interpreted merely as friendly admonishments to brotherly love; rather, like Nazi injunctions to duty, discipline and order, they are designed to uphold the economic interests of a particular socio-political formation. The Chinese historian Yang Jung-kuo points out, Confucius concluded that filial piety and brotherly duty were the fundamentals of benevolence. Why? This was because under a slave system ancient society was ruled by the clan aristocracy. The slave owners as a ruling class belonged to the same clan and had the same ancestors. Confucius thought that the sharp contradictions and strife among the slave owners would lead to the collapse of their rule. Therefore he pointed out that so long as they showed filial respect to their ancestors and parents, the slave owners would be united vertically. By brotherly duty he meant mutual affection and love among slave- owners horizontally. With the slave-owners united both vertically and horizontally, there would be no insubordination and rebellion and the rule of the clan slave-owning aristocracy would be made secure. (Yang, 12-13. In Criticizing Lin Piao and Confucius). I would add that Pound's use in Canto 98 of the ideograms for "land" and "money," serves two functions: it shows that "filial piety" has economic repercussions, and it also reinforces the "natural" or feudal view of the essence of money and wealth. 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? >you don't bother to . . . see where the creative dimensions of Pound could >lead, since you're convinced >that they lead to nothing but the various isms -- that is, the IDEAS & >BELIEFS merely confirm what you already know. Don't forget that it was POUND, and not I, who said his "Economics and Poetry were NOT separable". It was POUND who sent the China Cantos to Mussolini and called them "a testament to his fascist faith". I am not very fond of "-isms", 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. 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. Regards, Wei ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com