>Thawt eye’d spread this won out a bit since it comes up more often that eye’d imagine.. Not just trying to be annoying with the fun key spelling thang here.
Maybe it’s mainly my fondness for run on sentences. Or it could be that I just kinda like to pack a bunch of ideas into too small a space (oar two small ova space as eye wood like to say) Or for example: eye wood makes me think of heart wood, or even heart would, but wood eye? Eye deally U wood take it in yer own way up to a point.
So hairs the poynt. We all use the same words (or werds witch is close to weirds) and we vthink they all mean the same thing ~ but they don’t. Sew my wacky spelling is partly due to an acknowledgement of this phenomena.
Also it helps to generate some forgiveness, perhaps, for pervasive typos.
But back to the multiple meaning thing. It grows I suppose out of my interest in abstract art. Eurocentric art reached a pinnacle of technique around the mid 19th Century beginning around a hundred years earlier with the Dutch Masters (them dudes was the original freaks). At that point the whole idea was the ideal that the image depicted in a particular painting was “best seen” from a single point of view (usually 10 feet back & directly in front). The implication was of course that since there was that one and only spot to view the piece from ~ so there was one, and only one, way to “see” the painting.
What the abstract ladies and gents (yup there was some ladies) were getting at is that (basically) reality is completely subjective (I think Buddha was in that camp) so that you can never look at the same painting twice (like steppin in that same river).
N E ways part of my warped spelling aesthetic is tryin to loop back into suma that. Besides eye will be much happyer wen english becomes a completely fo-netik language (lang wij) kinda like Tibetan or Swahili.