Thank you for your reply and taking the time to do so.
    We agree on seeing the phantasmagoric relations of the things of this
world. And I too am humbled by others' abilities to see more and farther
than myself. That is why I like Pound.
    On the subject of what you have not addressed, I had wished (you wanted
an example) you would have continued as you said you would, to comment on my
posting of June 20, "Ain't no cure" etc. where you left of on "henotheism".
I was hoping you would get to Empson who is apposite to this discussion.
    Your point about the physiocratic  view of the natural world is one
which deserves our attention. How much was Pound and his contemporaries
influenced by the movement of Naturalism in their time, and how did
modernism change some of these views? Is deep ecology a descendent of the
physiocratic viewpoint? What would Pound's stand be on it? I don't think he
was a Rousseauian. But he told an interviewer once that  people go crazy
when they have been peasants for so long and then their world is covered
with pavement.
    A problem we may be having is one of communicating the depth of our own
poetic sensibilities. I"m not sure this can be done outside of using poems
i.e. speaking not in prose but with poetry. I'm sure that not every ideogram
in a Chinese newspaper comes off as an imagist poem. For this reason these
discourses will remain on a prosaic level, only now and then blinking at
waxing poetical.

CM