i: n; 1. the subject is its own limit, an expression of its own impossibility. i then is ultimately a negation. 2. you don't have to ask permission to be free. 3. “ when a word is properly defined it loses its capital letter and can no longer serve as either as a banner or as a hostile slogan”. – Simone Weil. 4. if you look closely at the letter i, very closely, as closely as is possible, you will notice that it is split, that instead of a single vertical being it is two. moreover, if you were to climb into the letter i you would find a chasm at its heart. language has the ability to join what is truly separate, to give the appearance of unity, of truth, to what is disparate and inconceivable. i being the smallest noun (yet the central word for every living sentient being) achieves this task as though it is its only task. but remember, it is only an appearance, a mark. in our haste to write and to speak, and with the clumsy, imperfect tools we have to say and write i we occlude the truth of this simplest of letters and the most deceptive of words.

idea: n; 1. an idea is evidence of an angel's presence, like a footprint or an unmade bed. 2. the three greatest ideas are (in no particular order): woman, house and book. 3. the idea is often represented as an object which occupies the space of our mind. i think the truth is the complete opposite, namely, an idea is a space created by the object(s) of our mind. an idea is a space where certain things are possible, allowed, expected, and where other things are improbable, unexpected, impossible. these things (which are either possible or impossible etc. in an idea) are thought processes and the products of thought (other ideas, images, etc.) see Geometry of Perception. 4. analogous to an optical illusion. the example i am thinking of is the triangle which one perceives as being present when only the outline of its vertices are actually present. the idea is something which we perceive from partial data. 5. fences. 6. an idea is shorthand for a (mental) activity. 7. instead of thinking of ideas as spheres, perhaps they are better represented by a folded piece of paper, an origami sculpture for instance. in a certain orientation some surfaces would be adjacent to certain others and some would be excluded from proximity. as well, the sheet of paper represents well the dialectic nature of mental constructions; one face of the paper implies the verso side. as well, there exists all that is not the paper, that is, all that transcends mental representations and constructions. 8. an idea, like a fiction, is a specific distance we keep from something annihilative, something which our existence demands we remain in partial knowledge of.

ideal: n; 1. i was born with a piece of clothing inside me. i fashioned it into a woman's dress. now it stands on its own, like a madonna, waiting for someone to step inside it. 2. if life is a net then science and art are forms of participation in this life. science is concerned with what has become trapped in the net, science is the rope. art on the other hand is the holes, the space. it is concerned with those things which escape, those things which might touch the net but wriggle free of it. 3. ideality is synonymous (ontologically) with success / repeatability. 4. the difference between the ideal and an instance of this ideal as it actually exists is on a scale that is smaller than our ability to measure. we must accept it as ideal even though it may not be.

identity: n; 1. the identity of most houses is generally unstable and undergoes a very rapid transformation to a state at which its identity exists as an unseen tenant who at all times of its existence is everyone else and this infinite otherness is sadly the only identity it can maintain. 2. a denial of the forces opposed to it (Saint Just).

ideology: n; 1. a lie which expresses itself / is lived as truth. 2. a shelter, in the sense of my poem cycle. 3. for an ideology to claim itself as the sole master, it must demonstrate that it can function effectively even when it is made transparent. that is, for an ideology to claim total victory it must demonstrate that the stupidity of its subjects has reached a critical level (and possibly a point of no return). 4. the idea that a person can be a-political, is the epitome of a political idea. 5. ideology presents itself when it is insisted that the name for a concept or theory is necessary for the functioning/success of that particular concept or theory. natural selection as a theory could be called anything. it could be called the theory of sympathetic death for instance without the theory suffering one bit. however, the theory of natural selection functions ideologically by being named as it is; changing its name would alter its ideological efficacy.

ignorance: n; 1. ignorance assumes that all that is not understood must be in error. 2. compassion is the lover of awe; their child is knowledge. ridicule lives with terror incestuously; their child is ignorance. 3. four forms of ignorance (from an article in The Scientist):

i) we think we know but we do not know

ii) we know we do not know

iii) we do not know we do not know

iv) we think we do not know but we know

illness: n; 1. it is always a bridge. whether this bridge leads to heaven or to hell, whether it is a possibility for release or is an imprisonment depends on the nature of the home which you are forced from and the possibilities of living which you must remain a stranger to. 2. sickness and health (normality) are context dependent. the variability of human physiology and psychology is health. yet, many see in variation only deviation and illness. illness is difficult to define. one could loosely say that it is a condition which makes living, in a given context, unbearable. and though there may be conditions for which it may seem impossible to imagine a context in which they would not be deleterious such conditions can still not claim to be universally disadvantageous. it is important to remember that a body stricken with illness is not sick in the sense of being abnormal— in fact, such a body cannot be other than as it is. and whether the person in question, the patient, considers their condition to be one of illness is something which cannot be assumed for them. 3. illness, as a possibility, arises only within freedom. when something is as it must be and as it can only be then there is nothing abnormal about it. it is only when something can be otherwise that illness can be possible.

image: n; 1. where the image is promiscuous and often worse, a whore, the metaphor is a maiden who waits for her lover, it is the courtship, the marriage, the fidelity and perfect union. 2. the degree of reality an image possesses is totally dependent upon the object of which it is an image. the power of the surrealistic image is due to some overwhelming primal nature of the object (a specific psychological/neurological configuration) of which it is an image. e.g. the soft watches are a reference to something basic in our psychology, something which is closer to us in a manner of speaking than say a simple picture of a normal watch. in this way the surrealist image functions as a supernormal stimulus and therefore enables us to go beyond what everyday experience would normally allow us. 3. one's entire life, or any moment in it may function as an image; inherent in an image is often an intention or a potential for action. an image may be metaphorical or descriptive, poetic or historical. given this then, if my life is an image, its inherent intention is precisely the ground of my being, my catalytic essence of which i cannot know, of which i can have no relationship to, only an identity with. furthermore, if i am an image then i have been experienced, i have been remembered. my only wish is that this memory which is my life is expressive, that it is a vision and is metaphorical and not merely descriptive, historical or anecdotal. 4. in a predominantly illiterate society the image wields all the power. from this one might say that the more powerful images are in general the higher is the illiteracy (ignorance) in general. the more powerful a specific image the higher is the illiteracy (ignorance) regarding the area with which that image is concerned. the search for always more and more powerful images would then be a search for vulnerability in those towards whom the image(s) is/are directed.

imagination: n; 1. if mythology is a product of the human imagination and if a healthy functioning culture necessarily must have a healthy functioning mythology and if a healthy functioning mythology can only come from the human imagination then culture needs to cultivate and listen to its own imaginative processes and individuals. a culture that does not do this is a sick culture; a culture that is unable to do this is a dead culture. 2. stories which are deeply and skillfully imagined are always the saddest stories. in them one sees exactly how things are not (paradoxically, by revealing how things are not, one is revealing how things are similar to the imagination by their shared property of dissimilarity). acting as a negative example such a story forces us to reflect upon the real world. in its presence the real world can not appear to be anything but impoverished and horrible. 3. a) the following is an analytical exercise for children:

Imagination is a process of thought, which most simply defined is a re-arrangement of reality (see GoP) .

b) This process involves, as its name implies, images. images need not be only visual. They can be composed of sound, of emotion, of ideas and abstractions and perhaps more. All these products of the process are called existants . In the same way there are existants in the living space. All that can be said to exist might be referred to as existants. (Note: it is here, at the level of definition of existants where the complications arise. This is because effects result from interactions of existants and in order to determine whether the imaginative space for example can influence the living space one would have to observe interactions between an imaginative space existant(s) and a living space existant(s). Therefore, if one can't be certain whether something is a living space existant or an imaginative space existant, one will never be sure whether the imaginative space can influence the living space or vice versa).

c) This process occurs in a space which I will call imaginative space (IS). (Where space is defined as that which is required to be in order for there to be existants/beings/processes; it is the possibility of being). This space may be all or may only be a part of the space one might refer to as the space of mind, or mind-space.

d) There are a limited number of possibilities of existence for imaginative space with respect to living space (LS), that is, the space of our lives, our actions, what others in the past refer to as physical reality or the world of appearances. (Note: IS and LS could be idealized to represent the dialectic in general, where one is thesis and the other antithesis. modes and configurations are then examples of synthesis.). The only possible relationships are as follows:

- living space is equivalent to imaginative space; LS=IS. in other words, the possibilities of living and the possibilities of imagination are co-incident.

- living space is not equivalent to imaginative space; LS <> IS. in other words, the possibilities of living and the possibilities of imagination are separate.

Note: the case LS <> IS is an extension of the case LS = IS. LS = IS assumes a single space and the possibilities with respect to beings in that space. the case LS <> IS represents two spaces (and so any number of spaces in total) and the relationships of their beings.

the case LS <> IS.: (either / or)

If the imaginative space is not equivalent to the living space then there are two possible relationships between LS and IS.

i) LS and IS are penetrant (LS/IS)p

ii) LS and RS are not penetrant (LS/RS)np

By penetrant I mean that the imaginative space has the ability to influence the living space, and vice versa. It is a functional definition and does not require any definition of space only a definition of influence. By influence here I mean that one space and its existants can become involved manifestly or on some existential level with another space and/or its existants.

therefore the cases i) and ii) above can be subdivided

iv) LS can penetrate IS; IS can penetrate LS (LS/IS)p

v) LS can penetrate IS; IS unable to penetrate LS LSp/ISnp

vi) LS unable to penetrate IS; IS able to penetrate LS LSnp/ISp

vii) LS unable to penetrate IS; IS unable to penetrate LS (LS/IS)np

e) There is a question as to whether the living space is unique to an existant (or a set of existants) or if the space is shared/universal. The same question can also be asked of imaginative spaces. In effect I am asking, are there many spaces or just a single space? Spaces could then be referred to as being either:

i) uniquely penetrant, that is, able to penetrate only their own unique space. this implies there is more than one space

ii) all penetrant, that is, able to penetrate all spaces, which is functionally equivalent to saying there is only one space.

iii) there is a third category which is more complicated. here, there are a number of spaces but only certain kinds of spaces are penetrable with certain others. this is close to being the same functionally as category i)

Therefore, there are two sets of relationships, the first between LS and IS

the second set are within IS and LS.

We can therefore have the following notations:

LSup ; LSunp

LSsp ; LSsnp

ISup ; ISunp

ISsp ; ISsnp

LS represents the living space and, IS represents the imaginative space .

The superscripts are either u or s and are relationships within either LS or IS. u represents a unique relationship, which means that there are more than one living/imaginative spaces in existence. these spaces must be separate in order for there to be more than one. this requires that the spaces do not penetrate each other (mutual penetration implies a common or shared space). a unique space can be either relaxed (it has more than one individual within it) or it can be strict (only one individual is within it). s represents a shared relationship which means that there is only a single living/imaginative space.

The subscripts are either p or np and are relationships between LS and IS. p represents penetrance and means that the specified space is able to influence the space which it is displayed with. np represents a lack of penetrance and means that the specified space is unable to influence the space is displayed with.

We can also use a binary code for the above parameters. for instance 1111: where the first or most left position and the last and most right position represent penetrance (an external parameter between spaces). 1 = p; 0 = np. The internal two positions represent relationships within spaces, that is, whether a space is unique or shared. 1 = u ; 0 = s.

A mode is the relationship between possible spaces.

using the above notations, the following are the 16 possible modes for the condition LS <> RS:

i) (LSu / ISu)p what is imagined [1111]

ii) (LSu / ISs)p affects what is lived [1101]

iii) (LSs / ISu)p what is lived [1011]

iv) (LSs / ISs)p affects what is imagined [1001]

v) LSunp / ISup what is imagined [0111]

vi) LSunp / ISsp affects what is lived [0101]

vii) LSsnp / ISup what is lived does not [0011]

viii) LSsnp / ISsp affect what is imagined [0001]

ix) LSup / ISunp what is imagined does not [1110]

x) LSup / ISsnp affect what is lived [1100]

xi) LSsp / ISunp what is lived [1010]

xii) LSsp / ISsnp affects what is imagined [1000]

xiii) (LSu / ISu)np what is imagined does not [0110]

xiv) (LSu / ISs)np affect what is lived [0100]

xv) (LSs / ISu)np what is lived does not [0010]

xvi) (LSs / ISs)np affect what is imagined [0000]

Configurations are the logical co-existences of modes. Certain modes must exist at the exclusion of all other modes whereas certain other modes can exist in the presence of certain other modes.

(note: a configuration i find corresponds with the 'Open' of Heidegger, which he defines as "the clearing of the paths of the essential guiding directions with which all decision complies.")

the following are the 7 possible configurations for the condition

LS <> IS:

config. co-existant mode(s) common element

I i, v, ix, xiii 11 (u/u)

II ii, vi, x, xiv 10 (u/s)

III iii, vii, xi, xv 01 (s/u)

IV iv

V viii 00 (s/s)

VI xii

VII xvi

the condition LS = IS (both / and)

if LS=IS then the resultant space I will call a co-existant space (CS). in the language of J. Caputo, if LS <> IS, then you are out of the truth you are in; if LS=IS, then your are in the truth you are in. you can never be out of the truth your are out of or in the truth you are out of. existentially you are always in the truth, the truth is you(r be-ing).

using the notation and reasoning from above, there can be two types of co-existant spaces:

CSu : unique co-existant space.

CSs : shared co-existant space.

as well, one could say that within the co-existant space, there are imaginative existants and lived existants. these existants are either penetrant p or impenetrant np with respect to each other.

We can also adapt the binary notation used above for this case. for instance, 11: where the left position represents penetrance. 1 = p; 0 = np. The right position represents relationships within spaces, that is, whether a space is unique or shared. 1 = u ; 0 = s.

there are then four possible modes for the condition LS=IS

xvii) CSup : unique co-existant space, penetrant [11]

xviii) CSunp : unique co-existant space, [10]

impenetrant

xix) CSsp : shared co-existant space, penetrant [01]

xx) CSsnp : shared co-existant space, [00]

impenetrant

the following are the three possible configurations of the above four modes for the condition LS=IS.

config. co-existant mode(s) common element

VIII xvii, xviii 1 in left position

(mode xvii is identical to mode i ;

mode xviii is identical to mode xiii;

both of which are possible modes of configuration I)

IX xix 01

(this configuration is identical to mode iv)

X xx 00

(this configuration is identical to mode xvi, which is configuration VII)

there are therefore 20 possible modes and 10 possible configurations.

The cosmos or universe can only be one of the ten configurations as they are all exclusive.

As well, in the configurations I,II,III, and VIII there can be any number of the co-existant modes. Therefore the variety within a configuration is infinite.

Note that II and III (and IX) are critical configurations, that is, should one of the internal switches change 1 -> 0 then all the other spaces that can co-exist must be annihilated, the configuration abruptly becomes one of the configurations IV -- VII (or X) which I will term nascent configurations.

The four modes xvii-xx are special cases in which there is a single dimension for the imagination and for living. for arguments sake, i will assume there are two dimensions (spaces) and so will focus on modes i -- xvi (configurations I -- VII).

when moving from the case LS = IS to LS <> IS by introducing the condition of another space, the following expansion of modes occurs:

xvii ->i xviii ->v xix ->iii xx ->vii

ii vi iv viii

ix xiii xi xv

x xiv xii xvi

and the following possibility of Configurations occurs:

VIII -> Iz IX -> IVz X -> VIIz

II III III

VI V

this expansion is made possible by the introduction of the possibility of an other.

z non-annihilative. the introduction of the other can be absorbed in the marked configuration without any annihilative effects.

The following are brief attempts to describe what would be possible and impossible in each configuration. in order to do this i will make the condition that the existants of our living space are what one may refer to as the real sensible world, as an example i will use my job as a lab technician. the existants of the imaginative space i will consider dreams and fantasies.

a) configurations with co-existant modes: (at least two modes required)

I: there are at least two imaginative spaces and at least two living spaces. this means that the space of my life might not be shared with another (but it also may be shared); as well, the space of my imaginings might not be shared by another.

the possibilities to select from are the following: my dreams can influence my job and my job can influence my dreams; my dreams can influence my job but my job cannot influence my dreams; my dreams cannot influence my job but my job can influence my dreams; my dreams cannot influence my job and my job cannot influence my dreams.

II: there are at least two living spaces but only one imaginative space. this means that the space of my life might not be shared with another; however the space of my imaginings is the same as that of everyone(/thing) else.

the possibilities to select from are the following: my dreams and the dreams of others can influence my job and my job can influence my dreams and the dreams of others; my dreams and the dreams of others can influence my job but my job cannot influence my dreams or the dreams of others; my dreams and the dreams of others cannot influence my job but my job can influence my dreams and the dreams of others; my dreams and the dreams of others cannot influence my job and my job cannot influence my dreams and the dreams of others.

III: there are at least two imaginative spaces but only one living space. this means that the space of my imaginings might not be shared with another; however the space of my life is the same as that of everyone(/thing) else.

the possibilities to select from are the following: my job and the jobs of others can influence my dreams and my dreams can influence my job and the jobs of others; my job and the jobs of others can influence my dreams but my dreams cannot influence my job or the jobs of others; my job and the jobs of others cannot influence my dreams but my dreams can influence my job and the jobs of others; my job and the jobs of others cannot influence my dreams and my dreams cannot influence my job and the jobs of others.

VIII: there are at least two co-existent spaces. this means that the space of my life and dreams might not be shared with another (but it also may be shared).

the possibilities to select from are the following: my dreams can influence my job and my job can influence my dreams; my dreams cannot influence my job and my job cannot influence my dreams. since this is a co-existant space, this configuration is functionally inert when the existants are impenetrant.

b) single mode configurations:

in the following configurations (IV-VII) there is only one living space and only one imaginative space. this means that the space of my life is the space of every other life and the space of my imagination is the space of every other imagination. in the following configurations (IX,X) there is a single co-existent space which also means that the space of my life is the space of every other life and the space of my imagination is the space of every other imagination.

IV: in this configuration the dreams of everyone can influence the jobs of everyone and the jobs of everyone can influence the dreams of everyone .

V: in this configuration the dreams of everyone can influence the jobs of everyone but the jobs of everyone cannot influence my dreams or the dreams of anyone.

VI: in this configuration my dreams or the dreams of anyone cannot influence my job or the jobs of others but my job or the job of anyone can influence the dreams of everyone.

VII: in this configuration my dreams or the dreams of anyone cannot influence the jobs of anyone and my job or the jobs of anyone cannot influence the dreams of anyone.

IX: in this configuration the dreams of everyone can influence the jobs of everyone and the jobs of everyone can influence the dreams of everyone

X: in this configuration the dreams of everyone cannot influence the jobs of anyone and the dreams of everyone cannot influence the jobs of anyone. since this is a co-existant space, this configuration is functionally inert (the existants are impenetrant).

I believed that the conditions that exist are: my dreams can affect my life but not the life of others, my life and the life of others can affect my dreams. this possibility (mode of being) is not represented in the above outline. But the above outline is the list of all possible modes of being. Therefore this belief of mine is incomplete (as I will show, it contains possibilities which I haven't acknowledged). If I believe that my dreams (imaginings) and the dreams of no others can influence me and me only, then my living space must be unique (LSu) and my imaginative space must be unique (ISu). however, if in my belief I include the condition that my life and the lives of others can influence my dreams, then there must be either: a single living space which is penetrant with my unique imaginative space (LSsp/ISu) [and possible modes would be iii and xi]; a single living space which is penetrant with a single imaginative space (LSsp/ISs) [and possible modes would be iv and xii]; unique living spaces all penetrant with respect to a single imaginative space (LSup/ISs) [and possible modes would be ii and x. One solution to this dilemma comes in restating my above belief more fully as follows: my dreams can affect my life but not the lives of (most) others, my life and the lives of (some) others can affect my dreams. This reformulation is mode i) (a relaxed version). What this implies is that I am not alone in my living space, there are others. And the lives of these others can effect my imaginations while at the same time their lives remain vulnerable to my imaginations. My life then must effect their imaginations and their imaginations must effect my living. This is very strange but it is what is necessarily involved in the above belief according to this particular solution.

Other solutions to the dilemma are as follows:

a) my dreams can affect my life and the lives of others, my life and the lives of others can affect my dreams. This is a generalized version of the above solution. This represents a mode iii).

b) my dreams can affect my life but not the lives of others, my life and not the lives of others can affect my dreams. this is mode i) (in its strictest sense, not relaxed as above).

c) my dreams and the dreams of others can affect my life only, my life and not the lives of others can affect my dreams and the dreams of others. this is a mode ii).

My above belief would mean that I am living in a Configuration I universe. This is a configuration which accepts co-existent modes. Therefore, the universe that is possible in such a configuration could be a highly complex puddle of modes independent of each other. In order to annihilate this configuration, all imaginal spaces must be merged into a single space and or, all living must be merged into a single space.

It seems the configuration which would be most feared by those in positions of power, of domination, would be configuration IV. As a hypothesis then, I would propose that power is opposed to the establishment of configuration IV. If one wishes to oppose power, one should then work towards establishing such a configuration. As another hypothesis I would suggest that power would support, would flourish in configuration VI or configuration VII. As a form of resistance then, one might think of working to transform such a configuration into something less favorable to power. To summarize these hypotheses, power would be opposed to the penetrance of an imaginal space only when the imaginal space is a common space. The non-penetrance of an imaginal space is a necessary condition for the maintenance of power.

The following is a description of: a) the route(s) of attainment of a configuration conducive to power assuming a state of maximal hostility towards it. Such a process I word term a repressive evolution, and, b) the route(s) of attainment of a configuration hostile to power assuming a state of maximal accommodation towards power. Such a process I would call a redemptive evolution. These descriptions are based on the two hypotheses stated above and rely on the discussion of the evolution of modes and configuration discussed below. as well, the Configuration Evolution Possibility Object (CEPO) discussed below will be referred to.

Repressive Evolution: this process assumes a starting point of configuration IV (mode iv) = (LSs / ISs)p or (1001). There are two possible goals according to the hypothesis: configuration VI or configuration VII.

a) configuration VI (mode xii) = LSsp / ISsnp or (1000). Therefore, the nature of this process will be a transformation 1001 -> 1000. This is a one step process which requires the destruction of the penetrance of the common imaginal space. whatever happens in the imaginal space must have no effect on the living space for this transformation to occur and remain.

b) configuration VII (mode xi) = (LSs / ISs)np or (0000). The nature of this transformation is 1001 -> 0000. This is a two-step process and there are two paths which can be taken. These are:

i) 1001 -> 0001 -> 0000. This transformation may be though of in as a cynical one in that it requires an intermediate mode (mode viii) which is actually hostile to power (ISp) before it proceeds to eliminate the penetrance of the imaginal space.

ii) 1001 -> 1000 -> 0000. This transformation is more ruthless than the first as it relies on the intermediate mode xii (Configuration VI) which i have hypothesized above is very acceptable to power. the remainder of the transformation is identical to a) above.

Redemptive Evolution: this process is the reverse of repressive evolution. The starting point is either configuration VI, LSsp / ISsnp or (1000); or configuration VII, (LSs / ISs)np or (0000). The goal of this process is configuration IV.

a) c IV = (LSs / ISs)p or (1001). The nature of a cVI -> cIV change would then be 1000 -> 1001. This is a one-step process requiring the re-establishment of penetrance, the re-awakening, of the common imaginal space.

b) The nature of a cIV -> cVII change would be 0000 -> 1001. This would be a two-step process and could be achieved along two paths. These are:

i) 0000 -> 1000 -> 1001. The first transformation would require establishing the penetrance of the living space, that is, the imaginal space will become active, changed. the second part of the transformation will be as described above in a).

ii) 0000 -> 0001 -> 1001. This path would be more radical in that the first transformation would immediately allow the imaginal space to effect the living space. Following this the living space would then become penetrant.

One of the dangers from the point of view of the maintenance of power as exemplified above (and below in the CEPO) is the relative proximity of the maximal configurations to the hostile configurations. For example, c.VI is only one step from c.IV; c.VII is only one step to c.V. The risk of annihilation may be too great for either of these configuration to be practical. There is another path available to power's ascension. This path would involve the configurations with co-existent modes. Configurations with co-existent modes offer a solution to the problem of the appearance of penetrance in imaginal spaces which would be fatal to single mode configurations such as c.VI and c.VII). Configurations with co-existent modes allow for there to be modes in which imaginal spaces were penetrant. Power would live with this as long as it consolidated itself in those modes which were conducive to it in such a way that hostile co-existent modes are left powerless.

The problem, from the point of view of those who value imaginal spaces, is that the existence of modes in which imaginal spaces are penetrant are necessarily viewed as a threat by power. As well, in order to exist, such imaginally penetrant modes must live with either the immanence of hostile power or, more likely, must co-exist with hostile powers that seek so render them ineffective and irrelevant.

Since I believe I am living in a (relaxed) mode i (Configuration I), modes v, ix, and xiv are/ can be co-existent. The nature of this configuration is the presence of modes with unique spaces (relaxed-unique where more than one person is in the space and/or extreme-unique where a space represents one individual only). From the hypothesis above I would expect power to cluster in modes where the imaginal spaces are non-penetrant (modes ix and xiii). The characteristics of these modes are: the living space can affect the imaginal space but the imaginal space cannot effect the living space (ix); and, the living space cannot effect the imaginal space and the imaginal space cannot effect the living space (xiii). And as argued above, power would suffer the existence of penterant imaginal spaces in modes that were devoid of their own power, in modes that were non-threatening. The modes allowed to exist would be the mode I believe I am in, mode i, and mode v. In such an environment the penetrance, either reciprocally between a living space and an imaginal space in a mode i, or between the imaginal space and the living space only in mode v, would function irrelevantly. The goal is to empower these modes. A beginning of such an empowerment would be for people to become aware of the nature of the possible modes/configurations of being and to have individuals decide where they would like to function. In this way a mode would be populated by conscious, functional and effective members who would value the existence of a particular mode enough to desire to live within it.

Note: The concept of LS and IS can be generalized into simply world1 and world2, or entity1 and entity2, or statement1 and statement2. And so, whenever two things are considered together the entire CEPO (see below) will be brought into existence and the two things will occupy a locus somewhere on this object.

Evolution of modes/configurations:

If a mode can be transformed, that is, an element can change its status (penetrance becomes non-penetrance 1 -> 0), there will be two types of transformations. The first of these is a proliferative transformation. (Assuming that there can only be a single element transformed at on time) the configurations I,II,II, and VIII all have the ability to proliferate modes within the same configuration; therefore, if elements necessarily mutate over time, then these configurations allow for a proliferation of existence without an annihilation of the entire configuration. In an annihilative transformation there is no possibility for the proliferation of modes. Therefore, in all other configurations, any change in an element must result in the annihilation of the pre-existing configuration in order for the new configuration to exist.

The concept of evolution is only meaningful then in the context of proliferative transformations. One could imagine that as the number of modes in a given configuration increased as did the complexity of their arrangements with respect to one another, that there would be a tension created, a resistance of this configuration to the possible annihilation which is possible at the very next transformation of an element in any of its modes. Because of this tension the configuration, in order to remain in existence, would have to find a means in ensuring that all subsequent transformations of its modes are proliferative in nature. This means that all that would be allowed to change would be the element of penetrance/impenetrance. therefore, the complexity of an evolving configuration will reveal itself in the nature of the penetrance/impenetrance relationships between various modes .

In order for one of the single mode Configurations to reach the point of being one the complex configurations penetrance must be achieved, that is, one space(world) must begin to affect another. Only in such a way is complexity possible.

Derivation of the Configuration Evolution Possibility Object

(for the case LS <> IS)

Using the binary notation above I will assume that if there is such a thing as a transformation of one of these elements, only one element is transformed at a time (that is, a mode 0000 can only become 1000 or 0100, or 0010, or 0001 during the first transformation). Working out all the possible transformations for the configurations I-VII, i arrive at the following object (see plasticine model):

(Note: such a transformation, as will be seen below, is necessarily apocalyptic/annihilative as it globally alters what is possible. The tension or routes of possible transformation which link configurations can be thought of as messianic in nature [messianic tensions].)

Configuration Possible Configuration(s)

(the colors in brackets represent a single configuration. the color of the configuration will then be made up of the colors of each of the possible configurations it can evolve into. config. I for instance will be a three sided polygon, one face colored white, the other green, the other blue.)

I (white) I,II,III

II (green) I,II,IV

III (blue) I,III,IV

IV (yellow) II,III,V,VI

V (orange) II,III,IV,VII

VI (red) II,III,IV,VII

VII (black) II,III,V,VI

The configurations where a proliferation of modes are possible (I-III) are a triad or a trinity. Configuration I contains configurations II and III in it (in potential). Configurations II and III are related to one another only through configuration I. Therefore, one could say that configuration I is an intermediary (see trinity for related discussion). it is interesting to represent these three configurations using the classical metaphors of darkness (body)/light (soul)/humanity (in the world), or mother/father/child. using such representations the child or the being of humanity in the world would be configuration I (intermediary) and the other two configurations would become darkness or light/ father or mother. i would like to investigate the possible modes of being that such a structure allows (that is, i would like to see what kind of being-in-the-world is possible if one for instance identifies with configuration II, etcetera).

If, for instance, our being-in-the-world is a configuration I: then the nature of the transformation turning this into a configuration II (c.II) would be a fusing or union of all individual imaginal spaces into a single space. To transform configuration I into configuration III would require the fusing of all living spaces into one communal living space.

If on the other hand we were living in a configuration II: then the nature of the transformation turning it into a configuration I would be a rupture of the single imaginative space into at least two imaginative spaces. The only other transformation available to it would be to a configuration IV. This would involve a union of all living spaces into a single space. As well, all activities in each space (living and imaginative) will be able to affect one another.

If we live in a configuration III: then the nature of the transformation turning it into a configuration I would be a rupture of the single living space into at least two living spaces. The only other transformation available to it would be to a configuration IV. This would involve a union of all imaginative spaces into a single space. As well, all activities in each space (living and imaginative) will be able to affect one another.

If we live in configuration IV: the nature of the transformation turning it into a c.II would involve a rupture of the single living space into two or more living spaces. the nature of the transformation turning it into a c.III would involve a rupture of the single imaginative space into two or more imaginative spaces. the nature of the transformation turning it into a c.V would involve a loss of the ability for what is lived to affect what is imagined. the nature of the transformation turning it into a c.VI would involve a loss of the ability for what is imagined to affect what is lived.

If we live in configuration V: the nature of the transformation turning it into a c.II would involve a rupture of the single living space into two or more living spaces; at the same time the living spaces may become penetrant and the imaginative spaces may become impenetrant. the nature of the transformation turning it into a c.III would involve a rupture of the single imaginative space into two or more imaginative spaces; at the same time the living spaces may become penetrant and the imaginative spaces may become impenetrant. the nature of the transformation turning it into a c.IV would result in the living spaces gaining the ability to affect what is imagined. the nature of the transformation turning it into a c.VII requires that the imaginative space lose its ability to affect what is lived.

If we live in configuration VI: the nature of the transformation turning it into a c.II would involve a rupture of the single living space into two or more living spaces; at the same time the living spaces may become impenetrant and the imaginative spaces may become penetrant. the nature of the transformation turning it into a c.III would involve a rupture of the single imaginative space into two or more imaginative spaces; at the same time the living spaces may become impenetrant and the imaginative spaces may become penetrant. the nature of the transformation turning it into a c.IV would result in the living spaces gaining the ability to affect what is imagined. the nature of the transformation turning it into a c.VII requires that the living space lose its ability to affect what is imagined.

If we live in configuration VII: (2,3,5,6)the nature of the transformation turning it into a c.II would involve a rupture of the single living space into two or more living spaces; at the same time the living spaces may become penetrant and the imaginative spaces may become penetrant. the nature of the transformation turning it into a c.III would involve a rupture of the single imaginative space into two or more imaginative spaces; at the same time the living spaces may become penetrant and the imaginative spaces may become penetrant. the nature of the transformation turning it into a c.V requires that what is imagined becomes able to affect what is lived. the nature of the transformation turning it into a c.VI requires that what is lived becomes able to affect what is imagined.

In order to determine which configuration the universe (our human universe) is in one could think of expanding the scope of the above discussion. where above I was concerned with living-space and imaginative-space, one might consider other spaces (possibilities of being). For instance, the space of nuclear interactions etc. one must then ask, is there any penetrance between these two spaces? four answers are possible. i) there is no penetrance and ii) there is penetrance which breaks into three cases, a) space A is affects space B and space B does not affect space A, b) space A does not affect space B but space B affects space A, and c) space A affects space B and space B affects space A. If we accept the first case as being the way things are then the universal configuration may be either I, II, III, or VII. if we accept case iia) or iib) then the universal configuration may be either I, II, III, V, or VI. if we accept iic) as the way things are the universal configuration may be either I, II, III, or IV. 4. the imagination is the arena where societal pressure and influence negotiates / battles with more personal concerns. 5. imagination is a process of negotiation. the universe, from the point of view of a subject (a unity) descends and meets itself as an other (a plurality). this is a radically de-centering encounter. the activity of this negotiation is always purely metaphorical. 6. “the imagination often completes its work by disguising its own activity” - Elaine Scarry.

imitation: n; the contemporary (post-modern) symptom of measuring experience in decades and then recycling past decades is not modern, or post-modern at all. it is a classicism (and therefore pre-modern) founded on a lack of historical experience. it is an imitative act with almost nothing but recent, trivial history to hold up as an imitative model.

immensity: n; the contemplation of immensity is a natural state of mind for a canadian.

imperative: n; 1. when i write all that i am asking is that a reader co-inhabit a world that i inhabit. in the language of mathematics this would be equivalent to an inclusive imperative, that is, something of the form let us consider the set of all x etc. to carry out such a mathematical command one must possess the skill, the ability. in a similar way, to carry out the literate imperative, to co-inhabit a world, one must possess the skill, the ability, which is an ability to leave one's world and inhabit another. such a skill as this is a human freedom. it is also necessarily subversive (at least for a moment, which is, often long enough). 2. to think meaning one must think futility. as well, to live meaning one must live futility.

implication: n; 1. metaphorical usage, the consistent use of certain forms over others, indicates the operational conceptual systems. these conceptual systems determine our perceptions of our world, or reality, and determine the possibilities of our acting within it. the creation of new metaphors, the consistent use of metaphors which contradict prevailing usage indicates an alternative conceptual system, an alternative world and alternative possibilities for acting within it. the worst thing that can happen to someone is that they are rendered metaphorically incompetent. this means that they do not understand and can not understand the conceptual systems which determine their world, their living. it means that they have no choice in what they do, they have no possibilities of acting except those which are forced upon them. 2. there is need in eden.

impossible: n; the worst thing about the impossible is not just that we can see / imagine it, but that we are permeable to it.

imposture: n; people are resistant to art, and to any form of self-experience, because very likely the first authentic experience of themselves will involve a knowledge that the life they have lived has not been their life but only something that was suggested to them, something they accepted without opposition. something which, like an amputee's scar, is a testament to an absence and as such can not be healed but only concealed or prosthetically appended.

impression: n; the failures of risk are more impressive than the successes of safety and comfort.

improvisation: n; in music and other art forms it is listening, an extreme attention, which allows for improvisation. yet, it seems somehow tautological and an ultimately empty commentary on a life that has not been lived. i believe in a more complex and more direct form of improvisation— a life-improvisation, a constant attention to living and acting in concert with it. such a life is a creative one (even if at times it may seem to others outside to be destructive). this way, one’s life is an improvisation and renders any improvised art form a needless confusion of somehow living in order to live.

incantation: n; “it was assumed that by incantation, or certain words arranged in a metrical form, the sorcerer could evoke and hold converse with spiritual beings, that tempests could be excited, serpents arrested, diseases cured, locks opened, secrets discovered, affection induced, and numberless other incidents brought to pass against the regular course of nature.”- G.L. Gomme.

incommunicability: n; the essential truth that every writer discovers is something that most writers refuse to accept. and of all writers it is only a poet who is most likely to grant this truth the respect it deserves, as it is also only a poet who will be able to live with and work with it. this truth, to those who do not wish to acknowledge it, or who wish to run away from it, is a threat— the most important aspect of a person, of a life, resides in it incommunicability.

incompatibility: n; we are a large car in which one of the rear doors is not shut. we are travelling out of town for the weekend. sometime during our journey one of us looks into the back seat and discovers that the baby is missing. both rear doors are locked. when we stop we will not be able to open either rear door, not even with a crowbar. we will never find the baby.

incompletion: n; all great artists leave their greatest work unfinished (e.g. Dostoyevsky and The Brothers Karamazov). death calls them away on urgent business. and this is how it should be. somehow the phenomenon of necessary incompletion alleviates some of the unbearability of existence. without such a phenomenon i would be skeptical as to the reality of existence— it would all seem too perfect, and therefore, a charade. this inability to complete the most important task of one’s creative life also serves the purpose of ensuring that no one is going to achieve it for you, that it is a task you must embark upon yourself. and who knows, your progress, if such a thing can be claimed for he infinitesimal steps humans make along the ultimate paths, may be critical steps for another who is struggling, or has struggled, or will be struggling along one of these paths.

incredible: adj; unable to be believed, therefore, unable to be grasped. a realm of mystery. poems are attempts to reveal such mysterious regions, such incredibilities, and perhaps even to grab hold of them. (see belief).

independence: n; there is something unnerving about using a computer and seeing a button on the screen on which 'submit' is printed. a button you are supposed to push, like a good little monkey.

indeterminacy: n; Chuang-Tzu's butterfly had a dream it was Eckhart's hinge. when Chuang-Tzu's butterfly awoke it didn't know whether it was a butterfly who dreamed it was Eckhart's hinge or whether it was Eckhart's hinge dreaming itself as Chuang-Tzu's butterfly.

individual: n; 1. the individual is generally understood / related to as a unique creation, or unique center from which action originates. but an individual is not such an autonomous thing; it is instead a specific involvement / engagement with the world. 2. individualism is the necessary ideological element for power to function non-coercively. 3. if everyone did something, the same thing, ( e.g. a criminal act) then everyone would be guilty. but if everyone is doing it then, in reality, no one is guilty of anything. and in the face of this universal consent is precisely where the power of a single person manifests itself. for instance, in the above example the entire dialectic of innocence and guilt becomes active the moment one person resists and then refuses to do what everyone else is doing. 4. an infectious agent appeared in the body of the social organism. it was called the individual, or the feeling of individuality. art, the practice of art that is, was society's response. the response was successful even though the agent was not eradicated— it was appropriated; it now serves a purpose it cannot comprehend, one that transcends and houses it. 5. what we call the individual is a persistent personal struggle with the certainty of death. when we see someone who evidently shows no trace of individuality we may ask is this evidence of an absence of a struggle with death ? or is it that they are struggling with death in a way that is identical to others (and therefore not individually) ? i would argue that as a living being forced to exist with the certainty of death ever-present a struggle with this knowledge is an unavoidable cost of existence. therefore, the lack of individuality is really a failure to struggle with one's own death; it is just a struggle in the form of denial which is itself only a struggle with extinction in the abstract. such a faceless, passionless struggle is really a defeat. in such a defeat it is hard to make out any semblance of an authentic or meaningful human life.

induction: n; 1. induction proceeds from the particular to the general. this is often visualized as proceeding from a plurality to a singularity, from complexity to simplicity. this visualization is often a delusion. 2. for the poet of negation, for the poet of the margins, poetic activity is inductive.

inevitability: n; self-help that uses another's language, another's metaphors, must fail.

infinity: n; any expression of the infinite, even an evocation of the concept of infinity, is an act of negation.

inflation: n; the deflated hold small boxes to their ears. a voice issues from this box. they think that this voice will inflate them, will restore them to some former state. however, the problem is they have always been filled with holes and this voice upon which they are so dependent is a thistle.

inflection: n; live

love

leave.

influence: n; 1. (from Nalimov) “wrongly chosen [initial] probabilities are quickly forgotten after several experiments ... The same is believed to take place in reading texts. Imagine that the receptor has a prior distribution function different from that of the transmitter. Reading attentively one and the same text, or better, various texts by the same author or group of authors, the receptor will be able to switch over in the process of reading”. In other words, repeated reading of a world-view will result in that world-view being apprehended, adopted. the effect of this re-organization is influence. the extent of the influence will be determined by the relationship between the incoming world-view and the pre-existing world-view. the effect can be, at one extreme, staggering, life-changing, over-whelming the pre-existent world-view; at the other extreme the effect can be absorbed, appropriated, by the pre-existing world-view. (see The Loser by T. Bernhard for an archetypal representation of influence). 2. etymologically influence is making something your sky, your heavens and then living beneath it thereby letting it define your horizon. 3. here are the books that have influenced me the most (in no particular order except for the first book by Paul Celan).

Last Poems by Paul Celan. the most influential book. the only writing which i have experienced as being spoken directly (in)to me. this book actually physically stopped my life and re-routed it.

The Inquisition in the Middle Ages by Henry Charles Lea. an account of history of infinite depth. from this book one can travel anywhere into the literature of history/culture.

Gargoyles et al. by Thomas Bernhard. almost any book by Thomas Bernhard (especially Yes, Erasure, or The Loser) could be included here as i consider all of his books really just a single book. he taught me that the stylistic devices of plot, characterization, and dialogue were not only irrelevant but interfered with a person's authentic experience with contemporary life.

The Castle by Franz Kafka. i read this when i was very young and then re-read it many times. along with The Lord of the Rings and Remembrance of things Past, the only books that i have been able to enter completely.

The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien. see The Castle above.

Locus Solus by Raymond Roussel. a book so complicated and perfect it made all attempts at narrative fiction seem like literature's equivalent to jogging.

Invisible Cities by Italo Calvino. directly responsible for Short Films of the 14th Century. i have never grown tired of this book.

The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology. because every book is in this book. i don't know how a poet could function without it.

Remembrance of Things Past by Marcel Proust. realism taken to the extreme. unless you are going to be as obsessive and thorough as Proust, don't bother with realist narrative. he upped the ante to such a degree that everyone else (in the past and future) folded.

Ecce Homo by Freidrich Nietzsche. i read this when i was very young. i didn't have a chance. i would recommend German syphilitic philosophers as required reading for every adolescent.

What is Metaphysics by Martin Heidegger. difficult. influential does not mean admirable. he was / is the fence that separates the philosopher from the poet.

The Creative Imagination of Ibn Arabi by Henry Corbin.

Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism / Kabbalah by Gershom Scholem.

The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell.

The three books above all shepherded me into the wilds of human imaginative possibilities.

The Idiot by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. it has always seemed that i have slept hungry in his streets, breathing the consumptive air of his crumbling city, holding out my hand for help from his citizens.

Reveries of the Solitary Walker by Jean Jacques Rousseau. I read this also when i was very young. this could be the seed of my sense that society cannot help but disfigure the individual. as well, his effort to achieve an authentic discourse (of the self) is exactly what this dictionary strives for.

The Grand Inquisitor (from The Brothers Karamazov) by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. perfection. the whole of human existence, the entire metaphysical and moral dilemma that is a human being is presented with the clarity of one who has lived, has endured truth.

Hope Against Hope by Nadezhda Mandelstam. a book for poets a book for those who know poets. a book for those who love a poet, who have given birth to a poet… especially a book for those who do not understand what a poet is. strength and lucidity fenced in by brutality and absurdity.

information: n; 1. there is a fallacy in this so-called information age that the more information one has the more power one has; appended to this is the presumption that images or decontextualized codes are equivalent to information and so the more images one has at ones fingertips the more powerful one is (what goes unstated here is that this is true for the small fraction of the society who controls and deals these images as commodities which the greater society is just supposed to consume). but an image is not information, context is information and context, that is, the ability to contextualize is not dependent upon the amount of so-called information (images) one experiences. contextualization is an ability which must be learned, developed. contextualization is interpretation. 2. those who use the term information in the context of information revolution, or information highway, or information at our fingertips, use the term as they also use the term market, which is, something which signifies everything and so in effect signifies nothing. 3. in this information age it is not knowledge or information in general which is important. what matters is emancipatory knowledge. in this age of information overload there is, paradoxically and ominously, a paucity of emancipatory information. 4. the one who believes that everything must be known, the one who insists that there are no things which should not be known is confusing information with knowledge, fact with truth, phenomenon with contextualization. such a person does not know as much as they believe.

ingenuity: n; genius will embrace ingenuity, both are exiles yearning for their homeland.

ingress: n; whatever is unthinkable is always a door separating you from the world of those for whom it is conceivable.

inheritance: n; 1. you could say that i was born and raised on the cliffs overlooking the Big River, around the corner from where the telephone was invented. you could then deduce from this that communication and overstatement would be determining elements in my life. 2. “we are never real historians, but always near poets, and our emotion is perhaps nothing but an expression of poetry that was lost.” - G. Bachelard

injunction: n; when an injunction (an order, a law, etc.) is taken seriously and responded to, either positively or negatively, the imaginary world which it presumes and for which it is an agent is taken for granted. a contingent fiction is mistaken for something necessary and real. only by speaking, thinking, acting across (or beside, or above, or at least away from) the injunction can the smoke and fog of its imaginary world be experienced for what they are.

injury: n; 1. time heals all wounds except those caused by time itself. 2. “injustice and injury are the same word” – E. Scarry.

injustice: n; a refusal to move or to be moved. injustice appears in those places where the (a) law has collapsed from its own weight, from time and weathering. injustice is evidence that something has become unlivable. it suggests that those who were once sheltered have been forced by necessity to find some other inhabitable place. whether such a place exists for them one will never know. that is, unless one shares in the building of such a place.

ink: n; the distraction, the veil, that allows the many-armed swimmer to escape predation.

innovation: n; innovation is a potential source of disorganization and is for this reason resisted. this is also the reason that true innovation can rarely be found. what is often referred to as innovation is only a costume change and reorganization of the stage— the theatrical event is the same.

inquisition: n; a poet or a writer of any worth must use its particular language as though its life is an endless audience before an inquisitor. its linguistic performance should be an argument in favour of the existence of its particular language. it is of course understood that the inquisitor will be able to counter any claim of value with an infinite number of examples of that language’s degradation and its habitual efforts to annihilate itself and all those who would try and make it bear such burdens as fact, sincerity, meaning, history... and so, the writer’s persistence, the writer’s life-work, is a humbling yet necessary act.

inquisitor: n; i have always only wanted to be myself. the only exception to this is a desire to be a grand inquisitor, universal in scope. this may not seem the most flattering admission as it seems nothing more than a desire for limitless power. however, there is something more substantial within this desire. to be a universal inquisitor implies that i am qualified for the job. a universal inquisitor must possess the ability to listen to every living individual and must be able to question them in ways that will illuminate what is dark in their confidences. a universal inquisitor must be able to understand every utterance and must possess a special insight regarding the tentative ways humanity sometimes exposes itself as well as the careless ways that humanity often degrades itself. only with these skills can a meaningful and just final judgment be pronounced. i have always had a wish to pronounce such things. the heart that beats behind such a pronouncement is composed of much more than a lust for power.

insecurity: n; a pre-fabricated, mass-produced hallucination guaranteed to induce servility and codified responses.

inspiration: n; 1. there is nothing like an empty page breathing beneath your fingers in anticipation of the pen. 2. in-spiration is the process of building living sculpture / arch(i/e)texture and is opposed to ex-piration which is the raising of dead monuments (i.e tombstones). 3. influences and attention combined to achieve a certain degree of complexity has the ability to self-organize, that is, to express itself creatively. 4. the world appreciates the contempt i feel towards it; i experience its appreciation as inspiration.

institution: n; the process of institutionalization / indoctrination is an attempt of institutions to deter / eliminate critical experience / thought / action by refusing people both the tools and the time to be critical.

instrument: n; the mind is a skin pulled tight across an abyss. my living subsists on the reverberations of this instrument.

instrumental: adj; i love the english language the way a surgeon loves the human body, which is perhaps not at all.

insult: n; in a moment of lucidity Vancouver is an insult.

integration: n; i have heard the complaint that what is needed is an integration of the arts and the sciences. i have heard this complaint many times, often coming out of the mouths of people respected in either the arts or the sciences. science and art are integrated. our living is such an integration, or should be, or tries to be. and so all these complaints are really unfortunate and as far as I am concerned, embarrassing confessions of people who do not understand what life is, what life suffers to be.

intellect: n; the intellect lives everywhere and is welcome nowhere.

intelligence: n; 1. the desire or need to eat when confronted by images is an inverse measure of intelligence. 2. “it is impossible to feel pride in one’s intelligence at the moment when one really and truly exercises it” – Simone Weil. in other words, egoism is evidence that the intellect is not being used.

intensity: n; 1. exaggerated appearance (done for effect). 2. people often do not understand that in my intensity i am intensely at ease.

intention: n; 1. one could say that the dilemma of an artistic work is the transformation of an intention into a revelation. an approach to dissolving this dilemma might be to see one's intention as the bridge between two revelations. the work of art would then be an effort to carry one's interior revelation across this bridge and into the world. this act then would be a sort of translation of one's original vision into some expression using whatever medium one desires to work with (such an approach was what i used in short films from the 14th century). as an audience, one never needs to know the artist's intention if one makes it one's own intention to bring such an external revelation into oneself. those who claim that an understanding of art is impossible/futile without first understanding the intention of the artist perhaps are betraying their distrust of the work of art and their lack of desire to experience the work of art as it is, to listen to the work of art and therefore allow for the possibility of being effected/changed/humbled by the work. 2. take the first lines of every one of my poems and from these lines take every word and break them up into their constituent letters and then line these letters up. and then, do the same with the last lines of every one of my poems, lining up the constituent letters across from those of my first lines. at this point you will be able to pair similar letters up as though the letters from the first lines are men and the letters from the last lines are women at a dance. when all have been paired up there will be some left over, some without a partner. you will take these leftovers, these lonely ones and you will arrange them until you have a poem. this poem will be the poem that has always been with me, it has been the poem i have always intended but have never written. 3. at some point an artist must ask itself to what degree its marginal activities are acting as the tent pegs for the mass of comfortably sleeping humanity.

intentionality: n; in a well realized work/creation the author's intention(s) and the intentionality of/in the text correspond. a well-realized work is not necessarily a better work than a lesser realized work, it is just more realized. as an example, a writer who wishes to portray social realism to the point of the work being almost a report or historical document but who at the same time cannot write dialogue may fail miserably at achieving its intention. the work however may still be a success, may still work (as readers, we may never see that a work is an example of failed realization). realization, as defined here, is really only the concern of the creator (and critics involved in analysis not value judgements); realization is an indicator of the author's craft and of its fidelity to the intentions of its imagination.

interactive: adj; the concept and realization of so-called interactive technology indicates that for these people/disciples life (which is a synonym for maximum interactivity) has been un-realized. life is everything that interactive technology claims for itself. and you don't need equipment, or rather, the equipment you require cannot be purchased.

interesting: adj; things that are interesting are those things that keep me from suicide. such things are not necessarily important.

interior: n; what we take to be external reality is not so at all. in fact, it is the complete opposite. everything we see as external is in reality internal. we exist on the interior of things and see and interact with only the interior surface of reality. what is truly exterior is beyond us; we are not outside looking in, we are inside looking out, but the outward direction is denied us in most of our experience. the surfaces of things are opaque. the transparency of perfectly realized art allows us to glimpse into that exterior.

interpretation: n; 1. creation occurs as a contraction. a sphere is the result, a sphere is let loose into the world. as this sphere is interpreted, as a sense is made of it, a surface or side is delimited. with each interpretation a new surface is described and so the object becomes more complex, polygonal. as can be seen from this, the more interpretation, the more contact with the world, the further away the creation gets from the sphere it was originally. any suggestion that a saturation of interpretation can reconstruct a creation is then a statement which is aiming in the opposite direction from the truth of the matter 2. all interpretation is an exercise in destruction. 3. a mental orientation; a process of facing something. 4. because some aspects of our being (e.g. emotional) are difficult (impossible?) to represent directly, they must be represented/expressed in terms of something else. in other words, they must be expressed metaphorically. interpretation then is vital; it is the only way we can penetrate the world of our representations and expose the un-relatable ground of ourselves. any personal knowledge, any acquaintance with the un-relatable aspects of one's being are dependent upon interpretation (hermeneutic competence) so long as we rely on representations of these aspects of ourselves and not on the things themselves (e.g. we talk about our emotions in order to understand ourselves and each other rather than just emoting, that is, living and interacting through a language of emotions). 5. interpretation is returning from another's house along a familiar road to a house you do not recognize but which is filled with your possessions and which will swallow the key you will feed it. 6. interpretation does not end, there is no place where we can rest and say 'look at all this understanding and pre-understanding i have unearthed, I think I have got it all'. this is because the act of interpretation causes structures (of understanding and pre-understanding) to emerge which it will then be the chore of future interpretive acts to unearth. 7. an interpretive act is the unearthing of others, or the evidence that others have been/are near/with us. 8. the admission of the apparitional (the there / not there ) reality of all presences / experiences. it says nothing about the possibility of complete cognition of presence / experience.

intimacy: n; 1. forgetting is the noose of wisdom. 2. intimacy is the most refined and efficient means of entering radical isolation and the dread to which it is annexed. 3. easing one’s mind into the embrace of an agile mind is a form of intimacy which is the true yearning of all forms of physical intimacy.

intolerance: n; intolerance makes you look fatter.

introduction: n; the world introduces me to the image, images introduce me to words, words introduce me to the world.

invitation: n; why do i write? because i was invited.

invocation: n; 1. evidence is an example of invocation. at the other end of the expressive spectrum there is the short films which are descriptive/representational. short films is an account of an experienced presence. invocation on the other hand is a search for this presence, this unseen unknowable unnamable. in description, vision is the vehicle and therefore receptivity to this vision is of utmost importance. in invocation on the other hand, the search is the vehicle and therefore the desire to approach the transcendent is of critical importance. 2. if one extreme (e.g. cage/imprisonment) always implies its opposite (freedom) and if we think of this relationship /dependence as a continuum then whatever is in the middle (that is, whatever things exist for which there is no antithesis, e.g. book) apparently imply or invoke only themselves. but this self-invocation is at the same time an invocation of the nothingness which exists everywhere the continuum is not and which supports the continuum. self-invocation can then be said to be truly abysmal.

iraq: n; children liberated from their parents, eyes liberated from their sockets, arms liberated from reaching, legs liberated from standing, bodies liberated from living, suffering liberated from acknowledgement, and lamentations liberated from comprehension by animals liberated from conscience.

irony: n; 1. our ability to think is what makes us human; the forces of modern civilization make every attempt to ensure that we do not think. 2. the claim of irony / ironic distance as an unassailable validation for a cultural product (most evident in films) is not a practice of irony at all. irony, at its most effective is a subversive, empowering action. these claims i have mentioned are instead the whimpers of the defeated— the only expressive option remaining for those who do not realize they have no options left. tongue-in-cheek means head-up-ass. 3. when i understand that i am not living in the right time, and or the right place, when i live strapped to the burden of the absence that is my proper life somewhere else, the irony is that this knowledge can only arise in one who is living in the wrong time, the wrong place. 4. i dismiss the future yet i work daily with DNA, the chemical basis of heredity.

irrationality: n; people will listen to reason but they will answer to the irrational.

is: v; our relationship to the world, our existential condition, is linguistic. even if we never had a language, our place in the world is linguistic. specifically, our being is that of a statement— this is that. is is our universe. and since every statement is a metaphor our universe is a metaphorical one. a poet is at home in this acknowledgement, musicians vacation here, everyone else is imprisoned— though they carry the key beneath their tongue.

Iser: n; the artist exists in / is of a world (everyday/real) and a meta-world (imaginal). creation is a double act, issuing co-incidentally from the world and the meta-world through the locus of the artist. creation is the conjunction of a meta-world and the world in an actualized presence (a work, a creation). this object, this transitional object has two faces corresponding to the double-act from which it was derived: one face is worldly (e.g. text/reference) and the other is meta-worldly (intentionality/transference (transcendence). the double-act of creation is achieved through the selection (limitation)/combination (re-organization) of the world and the narrowing of the meta-world into presence. this narrowing drives the selection etc. process. the selection etc. process at the same time provides a locus for the potentialities of a meta-world (tending toward presence).

ism: n; illusion of self-instigated movement.

isolation: n; 1. i am never so far away from others as when i am in their company. 2. the line from me to you is the circumference of a circle with an infinitely large radius. 3. for the poet isolation is a divine gift wrapped in a curse.