was not nor was never
written or read in the havens
but rather in the wise domes of
the familial few who put their heads
to gather each glimmering shimmering
thing their fingers tangled
Personally, I affirm two things:
the possibility of warmth & contact
in the human relationship :
as juxtaposed against the materialistic pig of a technological world,
where relationships are only ‘useful’ i.e., exploited, either
psychologically or materially.
20, the possibility of s o n g
within that world: which is like saying ‘yes’ to sunlight.
On the matter of song: I believe there must be a return toward the
musical structure of poetry, just as there must be, for certain people at
least, a return to warmth within a relationship.
However impractical that may seem in a society controlled in some of its
most intimate aspects by monstrous, which are totally irresponsible,
corporations, organized for the greatest gain of the most profit: and whose
natural growth, like that of any organism, is toward monopoly,
self-support, self-completion, self-
perpetuation,
and eventually self-competition and self-destruction.
In a world that is so quickly losing its individuals, it can only be the
individuals who persist, who can work any change of direction, i.e. control
the machines, or destroy them.
" . . . I suppose that if you subscribe to the “masterpiece theatre” view of
art, then it is a sin against nature to publish the “inferior” or
“unfinished” work of a dead poet (or of anyone). On the other hand if
you believe that art is an ongoing and ever-evolving process of
engagement with the universe at large, then certainly there will be
highs and lows in that process, and one polarity is not necessarily to
be favored over the other. Or, perhaps one falls somewhere in between
these two views? And didn’t Valery say that a poem is never done but
only abandoned? . . . "
"Compose a poetry with the meaning entirely
OCCULT -- that is
With the meaning contained not as a jewel contained in a box, but
As the inside of a box
Is contained in the box ."