I don’t know the original posts that Dispatch #30 responds to, and I’m not sure how much alignment there is in our thinking, but I loved that response and would chime in that even the notion of a “Romantic I” is simplistic if not sloppy, and it certainly doesn’t apply–in any simple way–to John Keats (whose Poetical character “has no self”), to Shelley, or to Rimbaud (“It is wrong to say: I think. One should say: I am thought.”). Further, there is good reason to challenge the odd locution that: “I is nothing other than the instance [of] saying I: language knows a ‘subject’ not a ‘person.'” The question of what a language “knows” or can know aside, the use of “I” is typically an act of pronominal reference to the person speaking, referred to as the first person singular subject. The notion of a Romantic “I” would seem to owe more to movie stars than to actual writers.
A passage from Williams’s Paterson (18) also comes to mind:
Certainly I am not a robin nor erudite,
no Erasmus nor bird that returns to the same
ground year by year. Or if I am . .
the ground has undergone
a subtle transformation, its identity altered.
What even speak of “I,” he dreams, which
interests me almost not at all?
is as it may prove : asleep, unrecognized–
Anyway, Dispatches, I enjoyed the writing and the references and am heartened that the argument, as you say, is “to be continued.”