I
AM" is,
if suggestive, still
terribly, awesomely stark, with
NO CLUE AS TO HOW THE DIALOGUE IS TO BE FORMED,
how "you" & "I" are to trade places so that, let's say, "I" retain some identity even as "I" speak.
Perhaps the suggestion is that my only true response constitutes a continuing-to-listen to you,
so that you too are still speaking, allowing me to "be"
even as I speak in turn?
I can only be stimulated,
and not bound, by your "Table of Contents"
[jb>ml>jb: see before] in a book of dialogue
that waits to be written (the wise French convention
is to place the table of contents at the end of the book.)
How then shall I respond to your "bullet points" (a jarring idiom of violent death, here,
but are we trying to keep some cruel world at bay or rather to listen inside the whirlwind?)
Some speak to references I already have so that I am able to fill them out, as a reader, even before
filling them out in writing, as a respondent; others remain semi legible to me, as no doubt to other readers,
because you and I do not of course share a full
but only a partial (and rich!)
set of referents.
