1. Does your poeme have an actual (true) interpretation? 2. Do you know what it is? There is a great difference between saying "It's possible" when you mean "I don't know" and when you mean "There's a possible world in which it's so." You're implying you mean the latter. But as you say, that's more or less tautological; any interpretation that is not self-contradictory is possible of any given poeme. I think you mean the former, in the vague, wishy-washy sense that "Nobody, not even me, can say what my poemes mean for sure."

Calm down, I don't want to rob you from a comfortable trauma

Slake is a wonderful word to use because it describes how her temper was moderated. Secondly, "about her person" effectively illustrates that she is not yet being harmed by the sun's rays. They are not, in fact, touching her true body. Of course this only makes sense to a vampire! She IS one! If you can't understand that, then read the poem you dolt.

So that was you? Figures,you know so fucking much, were you there?

The question makes perfect nonsense as worded, at least to anyone operating on a cognitive level above that of mollusk. I personally think peas have it all over mollusks, particularly in remaining on this planet and not trying to wander all over various worlds, not realizing this is the only one we get. Even while you mock the logical process with such ridiculum, I shall answer, hoping that for a change you will see the matter in earthly reality. An interpretation is a possibility when it is a possible meaning of the poem. Of course that makes almost any interpretation a possibility. Some make more sense than others, but Hallmark’s is not so far out of reason that it in not as possible interpretation. Such a simple answer seems unworthy of saying.

The question makes perfect sense as worded, at least to anyone operating on a cognitive level above that of a pea. Luckily you seem to be operating on a cognitive level similar to that of a sprout, as you have basically got the idea. Ordinarily, when I say "It's a possibility", I mean something like, "There is a possible world in which it's true." Example: It's a possibility that I'm wearing brown jodhpurs <-> In some possible world, I'm wearing brown jodhpurs. Even though I know I'm not wearing brown jodhpurs, it's possible that I am in the sense that there's a possible world in which I am. However, this won't do for all cases. For example: "It's a possibility that Goldbach's conjecture is true." This simply means that I don't know whether it's true. If it happens to be false, then it is false in ALL possible worlds. What do you mean when you say that an interpretation is a possibility? Do you mean you simply don't know? Or do you mean there is a possible world where you, Dovina, wrote this poeme with that interpretation in mind? Or (this is my guess) do you mean it in the vague, wishy-washy sense that "anything's possible when it comes to interpreting poetry"? Or do you mean it in a temporal way: "That interpretation's not true now, but it may be true in the future." Are we strumming on the same fucking banjo yet?

No hysteria here. I love it when you try to be “more kindly.” “What does it mean for an interpretation of a poem to be a possibility?” Since the question makes little sense as worded, I assume you are picking at my words above, “it’s a possibility,” in referring to Hallmark’s interpretation. You’re probably asking how an interpretation can be a possible outcome in the real world. No, that doesn’t make sense either. Alright, unless you’re quibbling over some link between the words “interpretation” and “possibility” then I give up.

You really have no clue. MODAL LOGIC DOESN'T EVEN USE TRUTH TABLES. Now. I don't give a fuck if you use symbols or not. If your shrivell'd brain is terrified by symbols and phrases like "modal semantics", I shall rephrase the question in a more kindly way. What does it mean for an interpretation of a poeme to be a "possibility"? Can you answer that without collapsing into a fit of women's hysteria? I do hope so.

Of course that’s what you would mean by such a question. My simple explanation of Hallmark’s interpretation is not rigorous enough, is it? You want symbols applied to each element of the proposition, a truth table, and who know what all. And you state your desire as a professor would to a student, as if I have no choice but to comply. I’m sorry, but I’m already yawning, which we shall assign the letter Y. . . .

It isn't ambiguous at all: Stop waffling. Let me put it another way. Would you... No, I'll just repeat the question. In what way is it a "possibility"? Give details of your modal semantics. For an example, cram this through your reasoning valve: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/#6 (Of course possible worlds semantics would be utterly duff for this case.)

“Modal” is an ambiguous word to use in this way. I presume you are delirious to see how I will affirm the logical qualification in the proposition that makes it possible, necessary, contingent, etc. But the word could also show your concern over my mood or emotional tranquility, which tender thought is much appreciated. The poem is more far-fetched, judging from the comments than I thought it was. I wanted to say that I was struck with a similarity between worker bees and some women I know who love the nest (house or hive) more than anything else it seems. Hallmark gives it another twist with the girls school (nest) and a girl who fears to leave its familiarity. Eventually she has to leave and go to work, but she wants most to return.

Sorry, but our major difference is still over your insistence on: “the cerebral stuff makes the noncerebral stuff (emotional stuff) possible.” If that were true we could sort out all of our emotional differences logically and then proceed to a wonderful life.