Or, the occult, meaning “hidden” or blocked from view. In terms of relationships, this is captured in the contemporary philosophical notion of intersubjectivity.
Mugwort (artemisia) can be used for strength, power, prophecy and healing (from The basis of magic in Harry Potter. Lest you distrust the source, Wikipedia agrees: “Mugwort was used from ancient times as a remedy against fatigue and to protect travellers against evil spirits and wild animals.”
Mugwort is also known as common wormwood and has many wormwood relatives. Wormword has been used symbolically to denote bitter characters or realities, such as in The Light of Other Days, which I listened to on tape and continue to mull.
There is a physics discussion that is intended to lay the scientific foundation for the technology of the wormcam – a fictional device which allows remote viewing of any place, any time through miniature, stable wormholes. A wormhole “is essentially a ‘shortcut’ through space and time. A wormhole has at least two mouths which are connected to a single throat.” Wormholes haven’t yet been proven or disproven: they are hypothetical.
Curtilage, is a term used to describe the area encompassed by the limits of movement. The way I heard it was as the space of possibility within definite boundaries. A major challenge is pinpointing the parameters of the boundaries themselves.
Here’s a legal use that’s quite interesting because the case involves questions of privacy and surveillance:
“Respondent argues that because his yard was in the curtilage of his home, no governmental aerial observation is permissible under the Fourth Amendment without a warrant. 1 The history and genesis of the curtilage doctrine are instructive. “At common law, the curtilage is the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the `sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.'” Oliver, supra, at 180 (quoting Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 (1886)). See 4 Blackstone, Commentaries *225. The [476 U.S. 207, 213] protection afforded the curtilage is essentially a protection of families and personal privacy in an area intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically, where privacy expectations are most heightened. The claimed area here was immediately adjacent to a suburban home, surrounded by high double fences. This close nexus to the home would appear to encompass this small area within the curtilage. Accepting, as the State does, that this yard and its crop fall within the curtilage, the question remains whether naked-eye observation of the curtilage by police from an aircraft lawfully operating at an altitude of 1,000 feet violates an expectation of privacy that is reasonable.
That the area is within the curtilage does not itself bar all police observation. The Fourth Amendment protection of the home has never been extended to require law enforcement officers to shield their eyes when passing by a home on public thoroughfares. Nor does the mere fact that an individual has taken measures to restrict some views of his activities preclude an officer’s observations from a public vantage point where he has a right to be and which renders the activities clearly visible. E. g., United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 282 (1983). “What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.” Katz, supra, at 351.”