>From: charles moyer <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Pound's "religion" > >Mr. Wei has written that "God is infinite and incomprehensible, but Pound's >record of, or expression of his communion with the infinite is itself >finite, and subject to human efforts to define it --- carefully and >accurately." > I think Mr. Wei has it turned around. It is, on the contrary, Pound >and >all poets who are "infinite and incomprehensible", and God who is finite >and >subject to deconstruction . . . . Maybe I do have it turned around. Maybe we both have it turned around. Perhaps, if we apply the Buddhist fourfold logic we will discover that Pound and all poets are: 1) simultaneously infinite and incomprehensible; 2) finite and comprehensible; 3) neither "infinite and incomprehensible", nor "finite and comprehensible"; AND 4) both infinite and incomprehensible, and finite and comprehensible AT THE SAME TIME. Of course there are other possibilities. And we could say the same thing(s) about God, or the gods. >because as Stendhal observed "God's only excuse >is that he doesn't exist". "Only excuse" ? Even the poorest god imagineable could come up with more than ONE excuse. And as the Ur-Anselm once said, "Even the God which does not exist, can prove that his essence is necessary and not contingent . . . ." Not to mention the fact that if he did EXIST, he could not BE in the eternal sense (because all existence is contingent). >Fortunately then for him his system can always >be saved by continuously redefining as protestantism has done by the use of >the accepted critique on rationalism,and the "tu quoque" argument. > What about Pound's definitions: (1) The intimate essence of the universe is not of the same nature as our own consciousness. (2) Our own consciousness is incapable of having produced the universe. (3) God, therefore, exists. That is to say, there is no reason for not applying the term God, Theos, to the intimate essence (S.P., 49). Where does this fit in the history of Western rationalism? >The point of western literature, at least where the Calliopean is >concerned, is precisely Indo-European "pagan" mythic i.e. the myth of the >eternal return Even as far as the Calliopean is concerned, I would venture to suggest that there is more than one "point" to Western literature. And if we are going to talk of Indo-European traditions, the Hindu and Buddhist myths contain so many variants, and so many philosophical exegeses of these, that the "eternal return" is only one among many, and has about as much value in the history of thought as the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears (not a bad story, or an uninteresting one, just insignificant). >is based on what once was known to have existed and has >returned, and more specifically, the harrowing of hell by the hero on whom >the goddess has bestowed the golden bough, the key (kelthron) to making >the >passage. This is why Spengler wrote, and we can apply this to Pound with >certainty, that "Every high creator in Western history has in reality >aimed, >from first to last, at something which only the few could comprehend." Not >"democratic" . . . As often was the case, Spengler was wrong. On the contrary, every high creator in Western history has aimed at expressing what EVERYONE could comprehend . . . but aimed at expressing it in the most beautiful way. This is true of Homer's Iliad, the outstanding Greek tragedians, and of Shakespeare; in India it is true of the Mahabharata, and in China, it is true of the great semi-comic epic, Travels to the West. Part of Pound's problem may be that he THINKS he is aiming at what only the few can comprehend. But the mere assumption--- that one can aim at and strike what only the few can comprehend--- might, in itself, prove to defeat any effort at comprehension. It is, arguably, a rather banal brand of hubris. >If Heidegger is your philosopher then you should remember that he wrote . . >. I said that in my study of philosophy, Heidegger was my first love. Not the same thing as to say he is "my philosopher . . . " >"myth is something older than faith" Yes. That is an historical fact. >and if this is the case, and I am >inclined to agree, the question of Pound's religion is a simple one of >pantheism. Pound explicitly rejects pantheism on several occasions. Similarly the tone of many observations he makes regarding religion is inconsistent with pantheism, which is an extremely democratic and tolerant metaphysic. Re European belief: Neither mass nor communion are of Jew origin. Nowt to do with that nasty old maniac JHV [Jehovah] and are basis of Xtn. religion. Mass ought to be in Latin, unless you could do it in Greek or Chinese. In fact, any abracadabra that no bloody member of the public or a half-educated ape of a clargimint cd. think he understood (Letter to Rev. Henry Swabey, Mar. 1940). Does it make sense for a pantheist (someone who believes that God is in all things, in all places, and in all persons) to speak this way? Regards, Wei http://www.geocities.com/weienlin/poundindex.html ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com