Robert Archambeau's blog has a big old post re Riley slewing &c. My ass's crass thrice: (1) dunno about all the "blow landing"; (2) what's lost in all this isn't the poetry but the politics; (3) I would feel an abler big-upper of Peter, whosevibe I think closely resembles mine, if he didn't pick words which characterise John's (ish) poetics as carping, exclusive & representative of a consensus ("the only political register to be tolerated"). Oh yeah & didn't hark! But ...
I am the Human Torch er toking male of the FABULOUS FORUM mistermended Cathy Wagner / Christine Kennedy & will appear The Paper or The Jacket read through among the points made was that the dearth of critical commentary on women’s experimental writing in the UK participates in the uberdearth of critical commentary on experimental writing in the UK full stop & got to thinking, How bad is that? One reason for starting this blog & for supporting OCT through my pennail Keston Sutherland was to wield a clyster into the ambient taciturnity; but . . .
PRO. A slight impediment to the engorging ego a-go-go.
CON. It is frustrating for underdaguates trying to study contemporary poets. The insensible ones will give too much weight to whatever shabby little pile of reviews and scattered remarks they manage to shark up.
PRO. People who want to try out writing poetry can try out publishing it or reading it without fear of being torn to pieces. Meanwhile, conversations still happen.
PRO. This very tentatively. Maybe some of the work that’s being made is outstripping the available critical idioms. What do you think?
Whether we consider natural reason, which tells us, that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink, and such other things as nature affords for their subsistence: or revelation, which gives us an account of those grants God made of the world to Adam, and to Noah, and his sons, it is very clear, that God, as king David says, Psal. cxv. 16. has given the earth to the children of men; given it to mankind in common. But this being supposed, it seems to some a very great difficulty, how any one should ever come to have a property in any thing
I shall endeavour to shew, how men might come to have a property in several parts of that which God gave to mankind in common, and that without any express compact of all the commoners.
Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.
God has given us all things richly, 1 Tim. vi. 12. is the voice of reason confirmed by inspiration. But how far has he given it us? To enjoy. As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his Labour fix a property in
God, when he gave the world in common to all mankind, commanded man also to labour, and the penury of his condition required it of him.
Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough, and as good left; and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself: for he that leaves as much as another can make use of, does as good as take nothing at all.
The measure of property nature has well set by the extent of men's labour and the conveniencies of life: no man's labour could subdue, or appropriate all; nor could his enjoyment consume more than a small part; so that it was impossible for any man, this way, to intrench upon the right of another, or acquire to himself a property, to the prejudice of his neighbour, who would still have room for as good, and as large a possession (after the other had taken out his) as before it was appropriated. This measure did confine every man's possession to a very moderate proportion, and such as he might appropriate to himself, without injury to any body, in the first ages of the world, when men were more in danger to be lost, by wandering from their company, in the then vast wilderness of the earth, than to be straitened for want of room to plant in. And the same measure may be allowed still without prejudice to any body, as full as the world seems: for supposing a man, or family, in the state they were at first peopling of the world by the children of Adam, or Noah; let him plant in some inland, vacant places of America, we shall find that the possessions he could make himself, upon the measures we have given, would not be very large, nor, even to this day, prejudice the rest of mankind, or give them reason to complain, or think themselves injured by this man's incroachment, though the race of men have now spread themselves to all the corners of the world, and do infinitely exceed the small number was at the beginning. Nay, the extent of ground is of so little value, without labour, that I have heard it affirmed, that in Spain itself a man may be permitted to plough, sow and reap, without being disturbed, upon land he has no other title to, but only his making use of it. But, on the contrary, the inhabitants think themselves beholden to him, who, by his industry on neglected, and consequently waste land, has increased the stock of corn, which they wanted. But be this as it will, which I lay no stress on; this I dare boldly affirm, that the same rule of propriety, (viz.) that every man should have as much as he could make use of, would hold still in the world, without straitening any body; since there is land enough in the world to suffice double the inhabitants, had not the invention of money, and the tacit agreement of men to put a value on it, introduced (by consent) larger possessions, and a right to them; which, how it has done, I shall by and by shew more at large.
And thus, without supposing any private dominion, and property in Adam, over all the world, exclusive of all other men, which can no way be proved, nor any one's property be made out from it; but supposing the world given, as it was, to the children of men in common, we see how labour could make men distinct titles to several parcels of it, for their private uses; wherein there could be no doubt of right, no room for quarrel.
A man there man that came to confesse hym self to a gray frere & shroue him that he had layne with a yong gentilwoma ye frere than askyd hym in what place / & he said it was in a goodly chaber all nyght log in a softe warme bed / The frere heryng that shruggyd in hys clothys & sayd / now by swete seynt fraunces then wast thou verye well at ease.
[...]erpreted as implying consciousness that the world in all its normal solidity lived through in time survives death to specify its location
behind a studio table extremely limited portraits sustaining it inhabit acres of weed waiting for something to happen sunshine rarely glimpsed partly because of fashion eddying outward on its own side in quotation marks
Unfinished sequences. Currently include those about Andrew Duncan's, Emily Critchley's, & Simon Jarvis's things. Caveat on quotations. (1) The Blogger architecture collapses tabs & multiple spaces; it's possible to get around this – (& if you’re nice to him John Sparrow might tell you how?) – but it’s friction, I hardly ever bother with it. Quotations which have lost indents or other formatting are labelled “not sic” unless I’ve forgotten. (2) Stuff filed under 1999 is kinda my personal commonplace book for a POLITIX course, a.k.a. BUCKBUCK Courier Point (Hill House): 799999, so. (3) I often don’t proof what I type / paste in. Gotta dash for snax. Avant garde British poetry.Peter Philpott holds the answers.