I think you may have missed my point when I objected to your including
texts, especially those of the Corporate State, under the term 'utterance'.
Though corporate texts are indeed human productions in the sense that they
are not the product of space aliens or chimps, but of homo sapiens, they
are typically *not* the spoken word of "AN embodied subject" but of
disembodied subjects, in the plural -- administrations, committees,
anonymous PR departments, parties, newsrooms, cabinets, editorial
departments, and so forth.  I want, as I said, to distinguish radically
between the spoken word of the individual and the written signage of the
State.  Only the individual in his spoken word is capable of
_sincerity_.  The subject of sincerity (and the sincerity of the subject)
is of paramount importance to Pound, wouldn't you agree? It is the bedrock
on which his philosophy and aesthetics are founded: idea into action, the
hard word with clean edges, the solid man.
Tim Romano

At 01:55 PM 5/9/03, Antony Adolf wrote:
>However, in response to M. Romano's comment on my broad use of the word
>'utterance': if you can explain to me how either a treaty put forth by a
>State, corporate or not, a billboard, or rock'n'roll lyrics were put
>together without an emodied subject producing them, I'd be grateful.