the argument that starts in the in-decision about the right thing to be said

and the right ways to say it

so long on the tracks of generational station-calling

derails

turns into arguments about what has already been said about that

what those sayings mean, stations been

whether they themselves had any answers

and what they might be…

and yet, further to this

calling-station of station-calling

and de-railing altogether

asking questions of the being able to say

and of the how to say

insofar as these two episodes are concerned

railed and derailed

both of them are inasmuch indistinguishable

as still issuing-from as making-issue-of one and the same issue

the actually sayable

a mere change to the pattern of the action from which it is repeated

from talking about talking

tracking the attacks

to talking about text

attacking the tracks

and that is all

intention to attention to intention

prescribes a transition, describes a revision

like square to rectangle made

back to square, to be squared out

and the question in there is twofold

return square can the rectangle made be squared with first square? that is, is there any squarable likeness even despite square to rectangle made? do they succeed in resemblance?

and return square again can the first square be squared with rectangles made? that is, is first square reconcilable with rectangular spillage, at all? do they have any future together?

 

question one is about success and shape, a reaction of space – which is ultimately about impossibility

question two is about possibility and belonging, a reaction of time – which is ultimately about impossibility

 

all squares to rectangles come into squared revision

squared revision is also rectangular, of course

but in difference there are differences

and some possibilities play alongside impossibility a lot better than others

(more spillable in ways that let the freedom of spillage keep spilling out thereafter)

some squares are more rectangular than others.

in transition, in revision

movement is about describing that difference

and making sure of it.

Rectangle is a square landed

redoubled in effort

training in motion

trailing itself

caught up in a ridiculous self-tease;

 

a square of the utmost cared-for a priority

does not yet matter

but dropped

it starts to matter

at once more and less relatable

more and less stable –

rect-angles step out, tile down, the floor

 

intention and attention

writing and reading

 

square is before floor

rectangle on the floor

neither of which fully pictures the other

neither of which fully opens

or closes

the door of their exchange

 

the door

upright rectangle, ajar

a draft –

of the elements,

the most aware

of the slim enough –

to slip through:

 

squares to rectangles made

and rectangles cutting up squares

in ex-change

 

intention to attention to intention to attention

squares to rectangles to squares to rectangles

all of which some of themselves and some of the other

 

how very triangular

even to the point of being able to throw into doubt a distinction

and the upmost angle of cowardly triangulation

again, the door

not fully open

nor properly closed

unsquarable, rect-agle upstanding waiting for a meeting

un-started so un-finished

possibility

that one day it will happen

 

so, “ajar” is the possibility

of possibility

that is,

the seeping draft –

the back and forth momentum

of squares spilling rectangles

rectangles chopping squares

neither fully themselves

neither properly the other –

describes a movement caught in the action of its own possibility

recounting itself to itself as it happens

that is,

spilling

chopping

 

there is no lock

but locked into an uncertain transition

 

how very circular

and yet square

and rectangular

and triangular, too;

 

the light that glows between the door and its frame

like the draft

and the exchange

also seams

seemingly

with a motivated quality

the fundamental square root of all this (the) un-met.