Ah, when it comes to Personism, I would have figured Joshua for a partisan of some other memorable trope, Lucky Pierre, say -- now that's hedonics. However, he has a -- the -- good point: what is the social function of poets if not to imagine into existence possible worlds.

They/we do this primarily in poems. C.f. this, from the new number of Lyric, the Polish issue:

MS: Living in Krakow, are you able to become friends with the poets whose work you write about?

MS: Getting to know, yes. Being friends -- it's always risky to use this term. Poets are always closed people. That is, one never knows what they are really showing on the outside, so I wouldn't venture to say that someone is friends with poets.

--"Interview with Marian Stala"

The outside, prose, the personal.. I'm not a big fan of thinking in terms of objectivity and subjectivity (my name is not technically Monsieur Jourdain) but then neither am I psyched to choose between despair and compromise.

Neither am I opting for criticizing-disguised-as-critique.

What can we do about politics. We can talk about politics, and talking, support a demographic change in the quantity and quality of talk. Or is representative demography on the hitlist along with electoral democracy.