Asemics is not about non-sense per se, but it is about making relationships, often by way of disparate mapping.
Hence, asemic writing is often a mapping of writing, which usually concerns language, to the graphic.
Yet this type of mapping sometimes escapes the linguistic aspect of writing entirely, and once the linguistic is escaped, the basis for interpreting an asemic communication as non-sense is also escaped.
How so?
In the case of asemic writing where writing becomes art, asemics often forces a genre shift.
As such, an asemic mapping does not necessarily produce non-sense because the terms for non-sense (writing as an act of communication based in language) have shifted to writing as an act of art.
Art allows for non-sense in a way writing does not?
Paradox too is a different context for something very much like non-sense.
Consider Zeno's Arrow Paradox in regard to the distance an arrow travels: the mathematical explanation entails that the arrow never reaches its target. The explanation offered by physics dissolves the paradox.
Hence, a genre shift allows us to escape a basis and thereby resolve a disparity invoked by a basis.
But what of this question in a different direction where asemics begins with something non-sensical and then re-maps it?
The outcomes here are multiple.
We often produce meaning from non-sense, and we would thereby have sense construed from non-sense.
But we might also have non-sense as our outcome.
And then too, we might have an asemic outcome with the meaning of this act left in question.
