cannon, The

The role of poetry in society is a secret doctrine

One is the visitor, yet the man reading first takes up most of the time. At a reception following the reading, a student engaging one, says "It seems 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 merely human nature. [Reading of] someone dying of AIDS!" he scoffs. "Her writing is human nature,ot the human mind," he instructs the student.

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

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

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

One feels 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. Yet someone else thinks that maintaining the dichotomy hierarchical is existing-for them.

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

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

When one of the two men arises-an outsider, strong, frisky, who has arms, also drunk, rises voluble and is dragged from the room and thrown into the street-he returns with a huge lionish cat in his arms and says "Look at this big cat" and is hurled 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 one did not exist -as if only their existing occurred then.

He is no more responsible for that occurrence than oneself, although he was one regarded as in charge of that context in which one was an outsider. One as the outsider sees oneself as observing actively and at the same time being inactive in the past event and the insider as active yet unobservant there. The event itself occurs 'between' these.

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

There's no relation between events and events. Any. They are separate. Events that occur-[regardless of their interpretation-]. [But also that they are at once only their interpretation and only 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 reply when confronted.

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

The dichotomy is impermanence / separation; a distinction made, for example, by 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 per 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 bolsters the same view of reality but 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 events. The personal, the confessional, is an "expression" of an inherent self as if that were the cause [of events, 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 merely duplicate that categorization.