and the other two poems in the sequence by Ronsen at the 24 September entry at Geof Huth's blog.

Re Josh Ronsen's three pieces here, you wrote:

One of the ways they are interesting to me, and
maybe might be interesting to two or three other
people in the world, is taxonomically. What 
in the world are they?

Geof called the text component "cancellation
poems," which sounds good to me. And your idea
of "an unconventional text undeleted out of
(or disconcealed from) a conventional text"
is very interesting - author as sculptor,
found text as stone, revealed text as
"undeleted." Undeleted by deleting! I also
assume Tom Phillips's treated novel,
A Humament, inspired Ronsen somewhat
(as Phillips was inspired by W.S. Burroughs). 

I really like these pieces and second Geof's
remark that "What is important is the strange
feeling of foreboding we feel while reading
these texts," but in place of "foreboding,"
I'd put loneliness. Fragmentary thoughts
float over an isolated terrain like the
author's internal commentary as he wanders,
turning over stones. The third ("the master
of the house / me") is the prize - practically
a punchline, but where Geof hears existential
angst ("He is in charge, and he doesn’t know
what to do"), I think of Camus's line that
we have to imagine Sisyphus finally accepting
his stone, happy.

Best,
Tim

Meanwhile:

Rob Watkins got back to me yesterday about the meaning of fractals. I go by my main dictionary's definition: "any of various extremely irregular curves or shapes that repeat themselves on any scale on which they are examined."

And Geof e.mailed me that /t is Ted Warnell, as I think I knew, and know I should have known. One of the Important Visual (and Cyberational) Poets out thar.

Before leaving, here's my latest mathemaku:

Last night, I decided I wanted to make my week-end a fun week-end by playing around at Paint Shop, something I've done much too little over over the past many months. To give myself a push, I assigned myself the task of doing ten new mathemaku. None needed to be a finished product, or even good. Immediately, I started thinking about the kind of off-the-wall long divisions I might do. Result, the idea of dividing m into n. Or, any letter into another letter. I stuck with m and n, though, intrigued by m as "am" and n as "EN(d)." I threw in t as the symbol for "time." I was going to using the absolute value of negative time--to suggest that lost time, in the final analysis, has a positive value. Then, the idea of negative beginning as something near-equal to end occurred to me, and I combined it with my absolute value idea. The remainder of infinity was a sly indication of my view that infinity is small, just a remainder--but part of the end I was thinking of.

Very hermetic, I would never deny that. Nor that it is more than a little loony. In fact, I'm going to re-do it with clearer terms than m and n. I do think the absolute value of negative beginning, or something like it, has Big Potential. Dunno what else I'll come up with today, but I still hope (it is about 1:30 in the afternoon as I type this) to do five new mathemaku before I go to bed.