I see what you mean. For moral order-- Dante. For fiscal order-- the Malatestas et al. For civic order-- Jefferson. For aesthetic order (integrity)-- not "the god of the dollar." Etc., etc. --CP [log in to unmask] wrote: > > see what I mean? > > In a message dated 06/28/2000 1:05:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > [log in to unmask] writes: > > << > I don't know. I can appreciate the fact that you believe my approach is > not objective. Perhaps you could tell us whose approach is objective, and > give us an example of objective criticism of Pound. You should of course > feel free to criticize my method. Nevertheless, the issue of Pound's > objectivity might be more appropriate to this list than a personal > evaluation of what you might --rightly or wrongly-- consider to be a lack of > objectivity on my part. > > When I produce a Pound quote to demonstrate that Pound thought Confucianism > was the ONLY appropriate philosophy for an orderly society you might counter > with a quote from Pound, some evidence, or some analysis. You did reply to > my post, but since you do not address my assertion that Pound lacks > objectivity I have to wonder. Do you have any evidence or any analysis > which can call my conclusion into question? If you would rather talk about > me than about Pound, I have no objection. But I hope you will forgive me if > I bring the discussion around to Pound's poetry, his prose writings, his > spoken remarks, and other aspects of his life that might shed light on his > place in the history of letters. > > If you want to address my particular arguments, fine. But just to quote me > and say "see what I mean" does not seem to be a sufficient response to the > evidence I present. > >> > > In a message dated 06/27/2000 9:57:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, JBCM2 writes: > > << > one way to deflect criticism of oneself is to direct it at someone else. > while it may be interesting to discuss Pound's objectivity, why would I want > to discuss it with someone whose objectivity I've called into question. I > can certainly understand why Wei wants to turn the light on Pound, but I'm > not buying it. others can, if they choose, but since I already know that > Wei's conclusion is that Pound wasn't objective, and that he was a > Nazi/Fascist/neo-Confucinist. etc. > > i.e. > > << Take for instance, Pound's use of the phrase * * t'ai4 p'ing2 in Canto 98. > The characters and their romanized equivalents are placed next to the words > "and that the equilibrium > t'ai4 p'ing2 > of the Empire grips the earth in good manners." 98/703. [Here we are with > "good a manners" again. No reason to forget that Pound said the "Nazis had > wiped out bad manners in Germany"]. >> > > see what I mean? > > jb... >> -- ÐÏ à¡± á