With reference to those ideas we draw upon to explain the universe, are they not better understood, not as notions that are animated, given significance, purely by our own relationship with them or appropriation of them, but as possibilities of interpretation, of awareness, that to so some degree, affect our minds in ways that they do in spite of ourselves, that in fact, they do demonstrate some form of existence that removes them partially out of the pale of our own control, as demonstrating, therefore, some of those qualities that we associate with independent existence, and at a distant remove, with sentience, as the Ifa system attributes to the Odu?

The notion of interpretive possibilities, not as reified constructs or forms, which we appropriate at will, but as dynamic forms, which engage us to a similar degree to which we engage them, as partners in a creative dialogue, would seem to be a more appropriate interpretation of the creative processes through which Wenger and Maltwood and a significant number of other creative workers who have described their creative processes, than the conception of ideas and creative forms as passive constructs or possibilities, the deployment of which is purely under the control or agency of the creative individual. In fact, reports by creative individuals about the processes they undergo consistently suggest this sense of being engaged by as well as of engaging the creative forms they work with.