Maybe the 'scholars' on this list should try to read the Cantos
utilizing the tenets of I.A. Richards and the New Criticism. I know this
would be difficult given all of the biographical and historical
information that you have accreted, but this radical step might refocus
your understanding of the Cantos as poetry and curb some of the excesses
on this list that approach the "hatchet job[s]" (to quote Bill Freind)
of Casillo and Perelman. Your plethora of biographical and historical
datum does not seem improve your hermeneutical comprehension of the
Cantos either.  This is largely because you are interpreting the Cantos
as though they were an historical/political document. If you won't write
Cantos, maybe its a good idea to at least read them. Carlo Parcelli

P.S. Anything Chomsky writes is worth reading. He's the only Cartesian
positivist that I like and his exegesis is wonderful. Of course, he
understands taxonomies unlike many on this list.