charles moyer [log in to unmask] wrote: > >Wei, > Thank you for correcting me on the question put to Gandhi and amazing >us >all by finding a positive statement in the Cantos. You are welcome. But the quote cannot be viewed as positive unless viewed in isolation. When viewed in proximity with the Anschluss quote, it reflects the huge contradiction in the Cantos, which is identical to the contradiction within fascism itself. Professed concern for peace and bread; in practice a commitment to war and exploitation. >But it doesn't seem to >matter whether the subject is Western civilization, >religion, or democracy >. . . . Yes, it does matter. Every word matters, every subject matters, every thought matters. >the chasm between the ideal and the practice often makes the Grand Canyon >look like a drainage ditch. A nice image, and I agree with the sentiment expressed here. But precisely because of the gap, we must choose each word, each concept, and above all EACH IDEAL very very carefully. > Perhaps this accounts for the desire of some for what they perceive as >change for the better, and I stress "perceive". The call to the Germans in >the thirties to "ERWACHE" meant this, right or wrong. And at the advent of >the Anschluss the streets of Vienna were filled with thousands of cheering >Austrians. At the end of the war no one could remember being there. Why do you say, “right or wrong?” Support for fascism occurred “right or wrong”? Should we not say it was wrong? I applaud the Danes and their monarch (Yes, monarchs can occasionally do a good thing) by refusing to wear the yellow star, and making if virtually impossible for Hitler to accomplish his design in Denmark. I applaud all the individuals who opposed Hitler. > I live near Akron, Ohio where the famous Goodyear Aerospace Co. is >located. Close by there is a huge housing project built in the forties >which >opened up its doors to the first tenant the day before Pearl Harbor was >attacked which would result in a war which would fill this Project with >workers from West Virginia and other impoverished parts of the country etc. >etc. You figure it out. > But if you want to tell me that Pound was a warmonger, I will not buy >it. Well, this is what troubles me. Why was Pound not a warmonger? His language consistently advocates violence. The praise of Malatesta’s war making activities serves as a prelude to his support for the Italian fascists. As troubled as he was by the loss of friends during the first world war, he seems to have just decided that what the world needed was more war, and war for the wrong reason, against the wrong people. He said that Italy’s war in Africa was justified (I hope they conquer “every inch” of Abyssinia). How many installments of the radio speeches will one have to look at to believe that praise of all that Hitler and Mussolini did was in every speech, including all their war efforts. He gave his full backing to the Japanese attempts to conquer China. If Pound was not a warmonger, then who was? > I appreciate your exhortation of the truth, but I must ask you Pilot's >question he put to Christ, "What is truth?" In Pilot’s case, the question rang a bit hollow, since the truth was that Christ was innocent of any wrongdoing. We could rewrite the story, and make Christ out to be a subversive, whose goals were self-seeking, and make Pilate out to be a hero who was protecting the social order. It might be a good idea to write such a book, if only to take the wind out of the sails of the religious right. But there is such a thing as truth, and we are obliged to seek it out. >You say, "Perhaps I am wrong", >but do you mean it? Of course I mean it. I could be wrong about anything. But that admission will not prevent me from expressing my views, and saying what I BELIEVE to be true. >Nietzsche who seems to be too bitter for your palate . . . Not really. I read virtually everything Nietzsche wrote a long time ago (even that wretched Ecce Homo, which I thought rather good at the time). It’s my own personal reaction, after many years. First it was Hume, the Kant, Nietzsche, and then Zen Buddhism and Heidegger. These were the loves of my adolescence and early university years. I don’t deny N’s greatness. Just his relevance for myself at present. Looked at in the history of philosophy he is certainly one of the great Negative Dialecticians, who said many things that needed to be said. >said, "We should never ask if truth is useful or a fatality". He also said, “Truth is an old hag,” which puts the point more succinctly perhaps. Frankly, when N. decided to name that late great work “The Will to Power” he made a great error. He should have named it “The Will to Truth”. Or even “The Will to Beauty”, which might have been more in keeping with his general tendency. >This is an >honest look into the face of philosophy, but you seem to have confused it >with your high ideals, admirable and noble, but damnably unforgiving and >inflexable . . . I would not presume to forgive Pound. On the one hand, there is nothing to forgive. On the other hand, Pound himself asked, Let the Gods forgive what I have made Let those who love me try to forgive what I have made (Notes for Canto CXVIII ) ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com