The vectors for physical objects must conform to at least the grammar of duration and spatiality in order to carry the relevant concepts. Non-physical objects are different insofar as they are not reliant on an underlying vector of physicality. Does this mean they rely on a non-physical vector? I think there are actually different cases here, not just physical and non-physical objects. Consider a poem. The vector of a poem might be the words written down, but of course they might not be understood as words, again manifestationism creeps in: either the information is somehow pneuminously stuck to the inscribed words or they are just lines on a flat surface -if they are even that outside of perception. The vector of the poem is also the sounds. Both the words and the sounds might be interpreted as something else, maybe there is no concept of poem. The concept poem is attached to the vector. We want to say: but of course this is a poem, the poet wrote it! This situation already presupposes poetry and its poeisis. Just because the poem is written as poem does not protect from its role as a vector for another concept or as part of a vector for another concept. Again, on a strong pneuminous reading, poemness as an accretive form is embedded in its origination yet even on this reading it may act as a vector for other pneuminous forms.
But this was not the question. The question was ‘is a poem attached to a vector?’ There is a sense that it is, even for a culturally determined region like a poem. The poem belongs to the structure that is known as poetry. The last century was fascinating in its stretching of this concept. Free verse flourished, which in turn opened the floodgates for further Derridean-style variants on what might count as poetry: the concept poetry attached itself to a wider vector. Today poets like Amy Ireland push this agenda still further, seeking to attach the poetry accretion to yet other vectors. Concepts can attach to vectors that allow the attachment. We cannot start trying to expand the concept ‘stone’ to a range of new phenomena (except as magickal practice). In the case of poetry we feel maybe it is impossible to say what could definitely not be poetry, though some advocates of style and form might feel this was quite easy. Now though the line becomes like magick. I take three stones and arrange them in a certain way and say ‘this is my poem’. If I accept this the accretion of poetry to stones (these stones and stones) becomes firmer. Though grammar does not let me say, ‘this poem is a stone’ unless I say this poetically.