Interpretations please

art who?

context please?

There's clearly some allegorical undertone here. Art, as contrasted against DARK FORCE, must stand for light. This has some grounding in mythology, where art -- the creative, transformative impulse -- is often equated to light or fire. The first law therefore must have to do with creation, but what specifically about it? A discussion of DARK FORCE may prove fruitful here. DARK FORCE has connotations of ignorance, but it is not merely a cloud which passively descends upon one. Rather, it is a "force," it is actively destructive. To harass DARK FORCE, then, would be to frustrate this willful destruction, an ignorance that seeks to destroy that which it does not understand. In other words, it destroys what harasses it. And so, by harassing DARK FORCE, the speaker courts his own destruction. The speaker states that the first law, whatever that may be, may prove fallible if one harasses DARK FORCE. Art and only Art feels that in no circumstance the first law cannot be violated, which suggests that Art would also feel that DARK FORCE cannot/shouldn't be harassed. This seems problematic, though. Does this mean that Art should not flirt with its own destruction, even if it means the end of the destructive impulse? Or, should Art not bother itself with trying to correct ignorance and destruction? I would posit that the first law states that Art must necessarily counter the evil in the world. Art, therefore, believes in its own necessity and infallibility. The wrinkle of doubt expressed by the speaker only underscores this infallibility, as this skepticism fumbles over a typographical error. This is the zen-like necessary flaw that reminds us that this utterance is an artificial construction, a matrix of signs and symbols. Art is in control, finally, and to reveal its own possible weakness is to ultimately assert its own integrity.

That is the context. "From an e-mail that I received on March the sixth, two thousand and three A.D." is all you get. Like I said.

I think the 'First Law' comment might be referring to the first law of thermodynamics, though. Just a thought.

Indeed... This opens new avenues of inquiry, with little sidewalk cafes and boys playing with sticks.

perhaps 'harasses' is supposed to mean 'harness'

Which would tie in well with the theme of art embracing creation and destruction equally which we're developing here!

The utterance, a work plainly rooted in artifice, flirts with its own meaninglessness, as the words themselves are unstable and open to well-night infinite interpretations. Brilliant!