The word became signifier but the signified pointed elsewhere

So, as a poet I am unafraid of language

the notion of incarnation in theology and how it related to embodiment in critical theory and science.

verbo caro factum est - the word became flesh

and there's more to the quote in the Angelus prayer in Latin. and it's in John 1:14 and recited at the end of the Tridentine mass.

secularising, scientising, schizophrenising (a la Deleuze) the notion of words become things is what's aimed in my thoughts of the upcoming poem.

and with the notion of displacement and perdurantism of things
would a word become something other than what it's about, to a schizophrenic

ie - would the word table become the table. maybe the word table becomes a fork. or

if a word is a thing then by recursion, could the word become a word.

here is a line and it's a fork, a vinculum-----------------------------

maybe the phoneme blocks in my throat and I speak flesh. and read it and hear it, and sense it.

that's language becoming thing, or objectivising...I don't know how to use the word object today in light of OOO and I don't like the world being reduced to ready-to-hand and therefore taken for granted even though it's supposed to be pragmatic and get things done, where present to hand supposedly never could. I side with Husserl here.

My point then is arbitrar-ising. Because like Neruda - I have a mind to confuse things, unite them, make them new-born, mix them up, undress them, until all light in the world has the oneness of the ocean, a generous, vast wholeness, a crackling, living fragrance.

and that's the reason, is there ethics there?

That too is important even though poets don't have to be ethicists or Talleyrandists at all but ethics is important to me.

it's a reassemblage...do things require reassemblage at this level?