danyelferrari: I am making an apostrophe to go with yours. helenhorgan: Thats very radical in terms of narrative structures to have two apostrophes! danyelferrari: I know, remember I made a joke about how if you have two it becomes a quote. Tell me how its radical… radical how… in terms of narrative? helenhorgan: well… i think when two people are having a conversation or when there is a discourse on something it always follows the path of a third absent member, you are always referring between yourselves to an entity not in the room and generally you assume (or have to assume) that you are both talking about the same entity… danyelferrari: but never are… helenhorgan: yes. But in first person-apostrophe discourse the speaker is talking directly to the contents of their own head. So how can you have two people in the one room both talking directly to the contents of their own head!? danyelferrari: hmm, I never see it as contents of their own head – more as a call outward, but I suppose that outward thing is also conceived in my own head, and there fore… helenhorgan: yeah i know what you mean, you have an “other” in mind. danyelferrari: right. and are sort of calling it to answer. making a thing an interlocutor- “oh nature”. helenhorgan: I think the other you are calling to is your own alter ego. danyelferrari: probably, despite thinking its a lover gone, or nature, or an abstract idea. helenhorgan: It makes a big difference though if you think of it as nature/universal thought etc. danyelferrari: The way people in poetry literally call out to “nature” in apostrophe. helenhorgan: yeah, but what does the idea of nature mean to them? danyelferrari: i don’t know… i am interested in the ways in which the apostrophe gives a thing personhood but it is curious that the other apostrophe is about possession and making some-one a thing or a thing an object. helenhorgan: its the subject-object relationship that you are configuring in material form, but it depends on where you position the line. danyelferrari: but an apostrophe in poet rhetorical terms does just the opposite, it makes a thing into that which could answer back, it makes “that” into “you”. helenhorgan: but it cant (talk back), like any rhetoric, is it just expressing your own position again? danyelferrari: I think that is where poetry differs from rhetoric, it aims to do what you say it cant. helenhorgan: …I dont know if it can or not…i mean obviously it cant literally… danyelferrari: well i think its more about living the space. Its curious in calling out “oh nature” you are simultaneously figuring something as a “you’ and also in so doing prefiguring it as a “that” which require an intervention of language. helenhorgan: Have you read Martin Bubers “I-thou”? danyelferrari: …can I interrupt for a minute this discourse for a moment of logistics?