The paper “Possibilities of preiconographic intuition” by Anti Saar picks up a note by  E. Panofsky on the strata of primary or natural subject matter of a work of art: † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † †† †† †† †† †† †
“[the matter is subdivided] into factual and expressional. It is apprehended by identifying pure forms, that is: certain configurations of line and color, or certain pecualiarly shaped lumps of bronze or stone, as representations  of natural objects such as human beings, animals, plants, houses, tools and so forth; by identifying  their mutual relations as events; and by perceiving such expressional qualities as the mournful character of a pose or gesture, or the homelike and peaceful atmosphere of an interior. The world of pure forms thus recognized as carriers of primary or natural meanings may be called the world of artistic motifs. An enumeration of these motifs would be a pre-iconographical description of the work of art.” (Panofsky 1955: 54) †

In this short passage Panofsky admits the primacy of  preiconographical signifience in the production of meaning. However, rapidly changing the subject to the analysis of iconographical and iconological stratas, the study of the intrinsic intuitional characteristics of an art-work is left out of consideration.
The main attempt of Saar is to share his conviction that the ignorance of  the preiconographic field of  a piece of art by most of the art historians and theorists is most unjustified.

Saar shares the belief in the significant coexistence of non-verbal / non-mimetic and verbal / mimetic communication expressed by Bateson: † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † †† †† †† †† †† †
“ If, therefore, verbal language were in any sense an evolutionary replacement of communication by [non-verbal] means /.../ we would expect the old  systems to have undergone conspicuous decay. Clearly they have not. Rather, the [non-verbal sign uses] of men have become richer and more complex, and [non-verbal communication] has blossomed side by side with the evolution of verbal language” (Bateson 1994: 114) †
The method used by Saar to illuminate the complex  pre-individual, primary modelling synthesis of an art-work, lays in the systematic usage of homonyms. The impredictiveness of a homonymical writing shows a close analogy with immotivated line and colour escaping the controlling hand end eye of an artist in the primary synthesis of an art-works self-creative process.
Self-signifying line and colour are virtually loaded with the potential of the meaning-production in active mimetic synthesis as well as accidential phonic and graphic homonymical coincidence in the paradigma of  language, ready for the plug-in to the syntagmatic speech or writing. Writing in homonymical method reveals the self-creative power of a language in operation.  
Inspired by Benveniste’s claim that “language also is a human being” and by Lacan approving the conception of the language-like organization of human subconcious,  Saar prepares the ground of his own text for the meeting-place (or rather the meeting time) of the preliminary levels of terciarily modelling piece of art,  secondary modelling language and subject (the modelling-stages according to J. von Uexküll). The usage of homonyms thus proves to be the most adequate way to approach the subconcious of  an artwork, for their specifity of unmotivated genesis of meaning in the subconcious of language.   
The contingency of the homonymic combinations in the syntagma of writing, through which the meaning is being produced, reveals iso-operatively the preiconographic semiosis in the subconcious of a piece of art itself. The primacy of the preindividual level compared to inidvidual self-expression and mimesis manifests itself through the unignorealeble physical uniqueness of any creative process. 

Allowing unmotivated creative combinations of homonyms throughout the paper, Saar nevertheless preserves a rigorous self-discipline: the writer remains in charge – taming all the homonyms – knitting the “fugitives” back into the texture.
Giving up the logocentric and hierarchical chains of  traditional iconographic analysis, the writing respects the laws it has set itself with prudence.  There is no homonymy for its own sake; no homonymy “just for fun”, nor for a poetic decore.  No anarchy is allowed in the dialogue between the passive and dancing “dionysian” self-creation and the active and sober “appollonian” (Nietzsche) meaning-production in the course of  writing. 

† † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † †† †† †† †† †† †
Kristeva: “Dialogism is not “freedom to say everything,” it is a dramatic “banter” (Lautréamont), an other imperative than that of 0. We should particularly emphasize this specificity of dialogue as transgression giving itself a law so as to radically and categorically distinguish it from the pseudo-transgression evident in a certain modern “erotic” and parodic literature.” (Kristeva 1980: 70-71)

The primary synthesis of all creation are intranslatable by the means of secondary modelling language, such as ours. So, in spite of interpreting or explaning the preiconographic by images or metaphores, the paper offers itself as a metamorph for these synthesis in a performative homonymic production.
Neither can be translated the primary synthesis of  language itself  (there simply is no “other language” at this level). Thus no direct examples of Saar’s homonymic operators can be displayed here. Words automatically lose their homonymic quality when translated to another secondary modelling language. This is the reason why the imaginary translation of  Saar’s paper would only produce misunderstanding and confusement in academic discourse.
On the other hand the paper can be given an “adequate” metamorph in any secondary modelling language that is loaded with homonymic potential. 

Inspired by Bergson, Saar has objected his work to perform a trespass from a “spatial” way of analytic manipulations to a “temporal” flow of intuitive thought in order to achieve a more natural appliance on the  universal and irreplacable synthesis of  the growth and blooming of a plant; animal; artist – in desire for light.  Just a intuitions well as on  the becoming of all possible worlds and interpretations in a pre-representative stage of a piece of art in desire for eternal life. For that is the topic in question.

The main influences on Saar’s intuition besides the natute itself could be traced from the  theorizations of  H. Bergson, F. Nietzsche, J. Lacan, J. Derrida, G. Deleuze, R. Barthes, J. Kristeva, and (last not least) a contemporary estonian artist P. Mudist.