I am truly puzzled by a number of recent posts. Martin Deporres <[log in to unmask]> wrote >Instead of promoting free discussion as you imply you have utterly >impeded >it. Quite honestly, I don't understand your point. As far as I recall, you have said very little about any of the issues discussed over the past several weeks. Who has impeded your desire to engage in a free discussion? Have you not been free during the entire period of your membership on the Pound List to post whatever you want, whenever want, using whatever expressions and arguments you may wish to make? I don't see how you can blame me for what must simply be your decision not to post, not to start a discussion (or a new thread) on ANY ISSUE OF YOUR CHOOSING AT ANY TIME. Charles Moyer wrote a bit about Queen Victoria which did not seem to me to have anything to do with Pound, or our current discussion. He seemed to want me to stop posting, for reasons that are not given (unless it is simply that he disagrees with my posts). But I could not say it any better than Richard Edwards, who wrote >You don't *have* to read what he has to say if you don't want >to. > Richard Edwards has given a fair hearing to my views, disagrees with a substantial part of what I have to say (and why not?), and when he does, he explains why. He observes, >I don't see why such views should >be excluded from discussion in this forum. > > I agree. No one's views should be exluded from this forum, for any reason. [log in to unmask] wrote: >you have attempted to co-op this list . . . That is impossible. A listserv cannot be co-opted unless a moderator excludes certain posts, and this has not happened. Everyone is free to say what they will here, read what they will, ignore what they will, and reply (or not reply) to what has been posted. >it's gotten to the point where almost every >message posted to this list is in response to one of your messages >attacking Pound. Are you complaining about me, or about yourself? You are one of the people who is responding to me. You are choosing to respond. How am I to blame for that? >you have subverted any attempt to speak favorably of Pound's work by >mindlessly repeating your principle theme that Pound didn't have a decent >thought or an honest purpose in anything he wrote. > Subversion? Is that such a great sin? Even if I were guilty of TRYING to subvert attempts to speak favorably of Pound, I could never succeed. People who want to speak favorably of Pound (in the sense that you mean)will do so if they like, or choose not to if they do not want to do so. It's purely a matter of making a decision and carrying it out. You grant me a power I do not have. You also attribute views to me which I have not expressed, in any case. If you have something "favorable" to say about Pound, by all means, go ahead and say it. >Pound was a fascist, and he was also >frequently a humane human being. I have never denied that he was a humane person. I don't have any issue with him on this level, really, whatever you might think. I only say that his art, insofar as it embodies certain ideological principles, needs to be explicated, and subjected to a rigourous criticism. >that you can't understand this is your >problem. > Or are you trying to make it "your problem"? Why not just relax and let it be? Don't read any more of my posts if they bother you so much. If you like, I'll promise not to read yours. > > Have you seen "Triumph of the Will", read Mein Kampf, or Mussolini's > "Fascist Institutes? Have you read Gentile and Por (or the works of any >fascist who did not kill anyone)? > >> > >so this is what you equate the Cantos with? Mein Kampf? and you want me >to >argue with you? I do not equate them. I simply ask if you have read them. You did not answer. What am I to make of that? Am I to conclude that you have read them, or have not read them? Pound read Mein Kampf, and said he fully endorsed it. If you have not read it, how can you claim to understand the way Pound thinks? Pound read tremendous amounts of Mussolini's writings and his speeches, and thought the man was superb, a hero for our age, destined to save Italy and European civilization. How much Mussolini have you read, and how can you claim to understand Pound if you have not read and studied the life and work of Mussolini? I also must ask again if you have seen the film, "Triumph of the Will." A large number of film historians say it is one of the greatest films of that era, viewed from the point of view of style, cinematography, camera angles, dramatic impact, and so on. Yet it is clearly a postive portrayal of Hitler. It is a work of art, yet it is fascist. Is it not possible that a comparison between the Cantos and "Triumph of the Will" might not yield some insight? If you have seem the film, would you agree that it is, as many claim a truly great film? kevinkkiely <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >Charles Moyer and Martin Deporres (perhaps there are others afraid to >speak >out?) >happily deplore Wei's dictatorship en liste What is there to be "afraid" of? And how can there be a dictatorship, when all are free to speak? It is a huge problem when people use words like "dictatorship" without clear attention to the meaning of the word. Mussolini was a dictator. Hitler was a dictator, and when people spoke out against them, they were jailed, killed or worse. John Adams aspired to become a dictator, by using the "Alien and Sedition Acts" to jail reporters and legislators who spoke out against him. Pound admired and supported these figures, and yet I AM ACCUSED of being a dictator, simply for expressing my view, and answering some who disagree with me. What is this? Psychological displacement? People dont' want to deal with Pound's support for dictatorship, so they attribute Pound's authoritarian ideology to me? >while Richard Edwards and those >who keep answering Wei, maintain his all too often prolix predominance, he >is, perhaps a useful contributor (though patriarchial and ultimately >puerile: what he quotes one knows . . .>> "Patriarchal"? I ask you what is patriarchal in any of my posts? What does it mean to say "what he quotes, one knows?" Correct me if I am wrong, but I would venture to suggest some people on this list might not know that Pound advocated a Mencian economic system (as proposed in his essay, "Mang Tze: the ethics of Mencius"), and some might not know that Pound said he saw the Mencian system as a forerunner of the fascist grain pool system. Some people might not know much about what Confucian and Mencian economic systems were really like. If you have already heard and read the quotes I gave about Mencius, the connection with fascism, and the nature of the feudal and pre-feudal systems favored by Confucianists, then I may owe you apology. Let me know if that is the case. I am aware that I am not getting across my points in the best way possible. But I am not the only one guilty on that score, am I? Perhaps I should think this through, and ask, what methodology, and what approach to Pound others on the list, especially those I have mentioned above, would prefer. What issues would people like to discuss, aside from those we have dealt with over the past weeks? What method of discussion do people prefer? Are there particular parts of Pound's work that people feel are being missed, and if so what are these? Are there certain aspects, of form, style, content, or poetic technique, that people would prefer to discuss, and if so, what are these? I would encourage people to suggest new topics, or new areas for discussion, and then to procede into those areas. Perhaps a movement into another area could constitute a new beginning, from which more productive and usefull discussion would be generated. Hopefully Yours, Wei ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com