{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017412935323383085, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.669014084507042, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Okigbo's Limits: An Approach to Meaning

root problem appears to me to have been that of technique: that there has been a tendency to circumvent the complexity by attaching interpretations to those elements of the poems which have fitted into preconceived theories and, therefore, move to conclusions without analysis and elucidation of the images of the poems and the total logic of those images. What I intend to do in this article, therefore, is to go through Limits section by section and suggest interpretations which may give room for discussion towards creating a body of basic meaning. In absolute terms this is not an essential process. Meaning, to Okigbo, was not necessary. As he said in an interview, what each person took out of a poem was independent of the author and that was as it should