A fleeting pattern compounded by space-time into a deniable entity. Why a deniable entity? Are some entities inadmissible? What qualifies them as inadmissible? Are they deniable because, at the core, there is nothing definite about them, nothing set in stone? If so, who is doing the denying? A fleeting pattern compounded by space-time … it sounds like a cosmic blender, a mixer. All in all in all is a mash-up. We are crash test dummies consecrating accidents waiting to happen. We bloom as revelations in plotless swaths of time-space, sometimes palsied sometimes fluid, out of formless we come in (and come into many forms). And go out of them too. Is that why we are part of this vernacular and judgment—deniable entities? Our identities dissolve a little every time we forget something, every time our name is not said. We are stories that replicate, reproduce, reform, we as story-core are in the re-prefix business. We are, as far as evidence suggests, inadmissible to the laws of strict and set definitions.

Then there are tachyons—of matter, or no matter—interstitial in their groove and essence. They are, same as they are not—ghosts in the feed, hypothetical glitches. Is Schrodinger’s cat dead, alive, neither, both? If I had an inside-the-box perspective, if my viewing took place inside the darkened cinema of box, my response would be different from my outside-the-box perception. Or does my looking, whether outside or in, bear no consequence whatsoever (except in my empirical placement of self-as-camera in the equation)? If something is neither here nor there, does that mean it’s everywhere? Latent potentialities in fields of dreaming never stop reproducing. They are the copulating rabbits of existence at its luminous core. Light begets light same as answerless questions keep the dark guessing and lucid.