By Way of a Preliminary Dialectics Of E-Po

Language/image as *always already* there--we are born into its system of graininess, the old metaphoric senses of weave and weft, the things that clothe and comfort, the texturizing, the tantalizing and needfulness of:

Yikes: coverings.

We negotiate and take hold thereby, therefrom: & below is a sampling of the response I got from Googling my title terms here--*E-Po*--a dialectics, a semiotic chain on what E-Po is and might mean, up to the point where as creative writer, critical thinker, I attempt to take some control of this semiosis, as much as is possible, creating something else with it.

Adapting it to stand for the title of this course, Engl. 4330-001, Seminar on Writing: Electronic Writing. Yes: that was technically speaking a sentence fragment.

Perennial question for western-culture's writers: to what degree am I or am I not the ego or the collected one in control of, or, *at the center* of the text, the ego orchestrating the text. And why should it matter?

Can *I* be non?

Can *I* be a-
non-
ymous (cf. Greek etymology, to naming)
in my

attempts to partake of &
be
meaningful
in language?

Anyways: why the hell should it matter?--
should the writer as artist be willing,
able, prepared and readied
to answer
to the art
the hand creates?

Well, um, I dunno! Let's all just linger here & have a look-see
on all that (it always sounded way too scarey for me alone!)--
so we'll just have a little go at it!

Ernst Haas, portrait of the Po Valley.

plastic reindeer on the snowy roof of a house someone calls home


yes: good to have a door since it is the primary passageway of dwelling, where you can pass either in or out.