I thought what he said about it after I asked him if what I had said about it made any sense would be of interest. What he said accounts for much: "b, unlike textpo doing any vispo work /for me/ is completely and utterly instinctual. it's impulsive with no forethought, that is. i let my belief that just living and thinking accrues and any vispo expression is associative and entwined in that thought and others'. when people free associate their version of what they see i learn as well. i was thinking about o say can you c and how half of that is right. i wish i knew why. a pychoanalyst is needed i fear. barring that i like when you unravel expressions. it makes me think both the obvious and tucked away definitions. otherwise im blind to both. always thanks. best, n"

I'm the same way about my works--unless they seem too insane to continue with, wherefore I have to find or fantasize some explanation for them to allow me to go on with them. And when I'm done with them, when I usually am driven to find a good communicable, unified explanation for them, just as I am when aesthgaging any poem. I don't have the same need when aesthgaging illumages or music. Something about words makes me unable not to be analytical.

Oh, one comment about Nico's poem I meant to make yesterday is that I thought of c as the symbol in physics for light. Light as a fraction of zero seems Very Meaningful to me. The "Oh, say can you see," is in it accounts for much

ANNOUNCEMENT: I've just made entries for the days I took off from my blog for ten days a month or so ago, each containing a new visual poems of mine and commentary.