I find now that I've thoroughly gotten free of certain puerile influences - no longer shall I be "hummed in" by the narrowness, crassness of "sublunary thought" - I now feel that I am ready to take "rest" in my affections.
Dolores and I went down to Washington Sq. Park - when we came to sit on a bench she pointed out to me which trees were maples, which elms (thou shalt distinguish them by the shape of their leaves?) - then the virtues of our eyes went out over the grass to a path lined by benches "mystically quiet", yet not so when we took into sight the groups of young girls and men sprawled "inadvertently" on the grass between us and the "strollers" passing by the "mystically quiet". Despite this, I am enthraled by light and grass, and the "phenomenal isolation" of a park amidst skyscrapers.
It is just this: light and sound - eyes and ears - a man in a room - a window - the walls: it shall be so! Even in a field the "relations" must be enacted - the ancients. I guess tried to empty themselves - what are the impediments? is it tralatitious to say: the body's a cage, the soul's a bird? We all remember what Plato said concerning those "innocent light-headed men" who'd come back as birds.
I shall not speak of love directly to day - It is enough as always to say, "acknowledge" that in the being set free love is directly the cause.
Again where will these sentences direct me? - they seem to be moved by the objects and their particular arrangement in a day - but then again granted the "arts in the reason" reason does propose its object to the will.
From the above latter paragraph I don't think that I could accept Olson's "Figure of Outward" anyway, I think his "stance" is puerile.
Courtesy, The Fales Library, Special Collections, New York University.