Carlo sent me a note, but since this deals essentially with aspects of the methodology of interpreting Pound, I think I should respond to it on the discussion list. He said, >>Wei, >> You seem to have no capacity for comprehending the kind of remarks I'm about to make but I wish you would consider them. You really do not seem to have an understanding of Ezra Pound. You have a reading, but not an understanding. >> >> What do you mean precisely by an "understanding" as opposed to a reading? Is it possible that all people who read Pound simply have different "understandings"? Also, I am not sure if it is valuable to attempt to evaluate what capacity anyone on this list has for comprehending any concept X. I may have a specific opinion about whether you can understand concept X, but I do not think it would be proper to say so, simply because I might be wrong. No one on the list can, I think, presume to make judgments about the personal capacities of others on the list. The purpose of the list (I thought) was to make comments about Pound, and to discuss Pound, not to judge each other's capabilities. If we talk about each other, we may easily stray from our purpose. >>I know children who have never heard of Ezra Pound that would have a better understanding of him because they would recognize in him a father, an uncle or grandfather. This would lead me to believe that perhaps your problem is cultural and that your extraordinary ego, which also seems to me to be somewhat a product of your own culture, is getting in the way of your de/appreciation of Pound. (I admit I don't know who you are and perhaps you could be 7th generation American, but I takes me chances.) >> This admission that you do not know who I am is, I think, the most pertinent part of this section of your message. Since you do not know what my "culture" is, however, I do not know how you can presume to say whether, and to what degree, my perspective is a product of my culture. I will simply say this much, if you think it means anything. Both my parents and their grandparents grew up speaking up in cultural surroundings where English was primary language. As did I. My own personal opinion is that this is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is whether you recognize in Pound a "grandfather or an uncle". If we were talking about Milton, and you analyzed him in a way different or contrary to another person, would it make sense to say "you do not comprehend Milton because your grandfather or your uncle was not like him"? Or is it possible that someone could misinterpret Pound or misunderstand him because he or she thought his grandfather WAS like him. That is just as likely. This is not a personal matter, necessarily. It is a matter of epistemology. Statements about Literature should be based on facts and philosophical analyses, not on conclusions drawn on the basis of suppositions about the background of the interpreter. >>Is the problem one of culture? I've known a number of people who have known Pound and knew him as products of the same culture. Many respondents on this list also inherently demonstrate a grasp of the culture that informed Pound. >> I also have talked to several people who knew Pound, some intimately, some only casually. I do not think that gives anyone a special advantage. We are talking about his work and his utterances. Those who knew Pound, or knew people who knew Pound, will all be dead one day. Does that mean knowledge of Pound -- or the TRUE understanding of Pound, which you seem to claim to have -- will soon die out? >>I'm not referring here to culture in the narrower sense of the racist and anti-semitic Quaker society of Pound's Philadelphia but am referring to the deeper century's long enculturation that I'm sure you are so familiar with in your own right. But to read Pound from your own cultural background as unreflectively as you do is frankly insulting to most people who share the targets cultural experience. >> I question some of your assumptions here. For example, I do not believe that Philadelphia's Quakers were primarily anti-semitic during the time of Pound's childhood. You would have to provide evidence to sustain that. I think research would indicate that Philadelphia Quakers were among the least anti-semitic groups of worshippers in the entire nation. That would be a point we could debate. But it should not be assumed. Also, I might ask, what "cultural experience" are we talking about here? I assume we are talking about world culture (or the "paideumas" of the world) and specifically about those cultures which Pound wrote about in the Cantos, which include the whole of European culture, American culture, and --of course-- Chinese culture. As far as my own personal cultural background is concerned, that is not at issue, nor should it be. You appear to want to deflect attention away from the arguments I am making about Pound, toward my status, for an unknown reason. It may simply be because you disagree with my argument. I cannot know, nor is it necessarily important, if you do not want to share it. The issue is Pound. For instance, you have said nothing about the issue of Pound's statement -- Hiter was Jean d'Arc, a saint. If you could just stick to the subject matter, especially, how should we interpret POUND'S WORDS, more progress could be made, I think. The Joan of Arc statement has ramifications for American culture (since Pound is an American) for German culture (Hitler), for French culture, and for European culture as a whole. When Pound says, "Hitler and Mussolini failed in that they did not follow Confucius closely enough", this has implications for both European and Chinese culture. The lines you wish to draw between peoples who have different "cultural experiences" may not be so neat as we might like them to be. (continued) ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com