mean what it means. or am i getting
this right? i don’t recall any time
personally spent in attempt to break
into it, to break it, to crack or divine
it before, but gossip has it that, well,
i mean stephanie mentions it, only
to explain something ‘in relation’
with jena osman’s ‘ideas around
echolocation, locating the unseen
via speech, via writing, via sound’.
which, when i look it up in thefree-
dictionary, seems to mirror and yet
deny the official definition, but wait,
which has to do with sonar, sound
waves, of course, like how bats
or dolphins communicate, or at
the very least locate each other,
identify each other, in terms of
the space between them, so as to,
i suppose, deliberately make way to
the other or to deliberately avoid
the other. but all i am doing is
wondering if i’ve finally found a
word that describes something
that i’ve always wanted to be able
to describe. [sigh. to be able to
describe.] the thing i’ve always
wanted to be able to describe
is how language (speech,
writing, sound, physicality)
can not so much describe a
place, or help you find a place,
but how it defines it. not so much
place, i guess, as culture. and, well,
yes, i suppose defines it in relation
to myself; to my place, my culture—
to me. it was physics, i suppose,
or could it have been calculus?
where i’d have to calculate
something’s distance from
something else based on
when something heard
the noise created by
