'Pataphysics, Determining the Approach, and Which Science to Use

if poetry cannot oppose science by becoming its antonymic extreme, perhaps poetry can oppose science by becoming its hyperbolic extreme, using reason against itself ‘pataphysically in order to subvert not only pedantic theories of noetic truth but also romantic theories of poetic genius

This strategy of vertigo seems to be becoming more clear. We must look into the science of the topic and exacerbate it in a way that its truth becomes questionable and indiscernible.

The Oulipians derive a logic and strategy from calculus and then derive a way to treat letters and words. Yet the question remains of how one might convert this into a visible syntax, a language made of image.

Do we simply take the words and convert them to image correlates? How do we establish the chain of inference? Something like the figure in the unconscious (something that needs to be traced back to an initial system through processes like displacement and condensation (or, as Lacan says, through metaphor and metonymy?)?

And then the question also comes up of which science to use? If we're to start with a scientific process and then derive an exaggerated poetics out of it, where to look for that science in the accident? For example, with my accident, a primary process is the displacement of lead by way of conflagration of plastics. Do I look into the specific science of that chemical breakdown, convert it to a linguistic trope, and then build that trope into images? Or do I parody the specific science straight off?

Finally, a side note: can we create vertigo just through simply manipulating the user's vision via the Prezi. I've been messing around with the program, and one can easily spin the screen with such convulsions that the viewer might become physically ill. I guess then we can pursue vertigo through both the figurative recognition of ourselves in a mise-en-abyme and also through the visual spinning of an image.