cannon, The

The part of poetry in society is a shrouded doctrine

One is the visitor, nevertheless the man reading first takes up greatest in quantity of the time. At a reception following the reading, a learner engaging one, says "It have the appearances to me your work is like Gertrude Stein." The man one's reading partner immediately inserts himself and says "Gertrude Stein. Certainly not! Gertrude Stein is the human mind-she [oneself is simply human nature. [Reading of] someone dying of AIDS!" he scoff ats "Her writing is human nature,ot the human mind," he instructs the pupil

At a reading with him a small in number days later he says he will go on first and "read for a ery drawn out time!" He's insisting on doing it again.

Any interpretation or regard to this instance is barely experience, it is of human nature-therefore impermanent.

"As, single example, Godard's `The immediate is chance. At the same time it is definitive. What I want is the definitive by means of chance.'"' the man's death-from being sick at a young age-as not a senseles point-not toby desire-reach like a thing in that way2

One perceive s a sense of despair-trying to unravel a dichotomy that is despair. It's impossible to undo it because it is similar to the conventions that exist.

I have to unravel it as that is [one's] existing at all-interior instruction. at the same time someone else thinks that maintaining the dichotomy hierarchical is existing-for them.

Seated in the audience, plenteous of which is volatile-two men are to arise -yet a destitute man is lying upon the floor [he's come in because it's chilled outside], he's stinking, only a hardly any teeth, drunk raving, lying he has no arms drunken he can't hear their asking him to be quiet.

The armless is dragged raving from the compass by a crowd of men and deposit outside on the street. A young woman in the herd comments that some people, disturbed, are voicing ""sentimentality."

When single of the two men arises-an outsider, able-bodied frisky, who has arms, also in liquor rises voluble and is dragged from the swing and thrown into the street-he turn backs with a huge lionish cat in his arms and says "Look at this big cat" and is pitched through the door again-one of these men later says to oneself `And to think that you noticed this-there at a time" [one had written it-he hears it being read]: as if individual did not exist -as if single their existing occurred then.

He is no more responsible for that accident than oneself, although he was individual regarded as in charge of that words immediately preceding [i]or[/i] following in which one was an outsider. single as the outsider sees oneself as observing actively and at the same time being inactive in the past occurrence and the insider as active notwithstanding unobservant there. The event itself arises 'between' these.

(My) intention-in poetry-is to procure complete observing at the same instant [space] as it being the action.

There's no relation between facts and events. Any. They are separate. occurrences that occur-[regardless of their interpretation-]. [But also that they are at one time only their interpretation and solitary their occurrence.]

Radicals in the sixties and seventies used to speak at the same time when authorities were speaking to change what they were saying. The authorities were simply giving double-think in order not to answer when confronted.

Outside-[events] is bounc to be affair itself. Paul Celan was described (I can't remember the source of this interpretation) as being essentially conflicted [just in written-or in parole word also?] in his have language, German being the language of the nation (his own) which had exterminated his tribe [His written language was] articulation within the language which is seen to be oppression / to be separation from that which individual loves.

The dichotomy is impermanence / separation; a distinction made, for example, through Bob Perelman, between writing which is based in the "experiential" (thus without authority or as the 'authority' of the bogus self only)and writing which is articulation of / and as doctrine overtly (the writing of which is then regarded as not being "narrative"-the word used as if that were anecdotal by means of se).

Distinction as 'doctrine' and 'experience' is the conventional social separation; that is, it is the way our experience is culturally described. The other side of this coin supporting cushions the same view of reality on the contrary with an opposing allegiance: that is, the 'opposite' view [opposite from: ideology as basis] is that emotion / narrative / experience are aspects of "self" which being viewed 'inherently' appear not to be the same as (appear not to have any relation to) outside facts The personal, the confessional, is an "expression" of an inherent self as if that were the cause [of occurrences of cognition], thus (in my opinion, and that also of Perelman presumably) mistaking the nature of self in reality.

Yet either causal agent (self-scrutinizing 'conceptualization' or `concept of personal self') are inaccurate as revelation of events-events' nature and relation to each other. "Stillness of that order, perhaps a node peculiar to the mind alone."3 They are aspects of hierarchical categorization which purely duplicate that categorization.