Dirk

Apologies.

Condensation was not intended at all.  This discussion is letting me make
concrete a lot of nebulous thoughts.  I have valued it.

For the last 4 months I have been studying Imagism fairly intensively and
perhaps let the frustration with some authors affect my post to you.

Substitution of Vorticism for Imagism is probably a very good idea given the
contamination of Imagism.  Pound basically did this although for a different
reason.

The Image (vortex) presents an intellectual and emotional complex ( a
thing).  The emotional complex (a thing) then becomes the subject of the
ideogram.   This intellectual and emotional complex is initially non-verbal.
It is a transcendence.  Each Vortex is expected to have fully presented
itself in an intellectual and emotional complex and it is that complex that
is layered in the ideogram.   It is not necessary for the complex to have
been verbally expressed before it become incorporated into the ideogram.
The ideogram then becomes an Image (Vortex) of its own.  I think Witemeyer
sees the complex as the Image.  I separate the two since it is easier for me
to understand.  The two are probably a mixed usage of noun/verb (I don't
mean intransitive I mean mixed).   BTW since I am muddying nouns and verbs,
Fenellosa has interesting things to say about the verbal origin of all words
and this probably had some effect upon Pound's thinking of the ideogram.

Again apologies.

Rick Seddon
McIntosh, NM