This is the irony of logical loquacity
[that which they, them, the lay
people call philosophy, logic
the being of a being in which
rationality dominates the greater
Auschwitz of Jews
from Jews of sweat
[It would later be written
on soap bars "Aus schwitz"
the separation between Ss
indicating the differentiation
of species thereabout, hereabout].
Do you care?
They ask, misleadingly.
Logically the answer is no
but this 'no' itself is engulfed by care
a care that means yes; a fundamental
humanity, humanism, a method
an approach to life whereby
blue blood, red blood, de, aus,
are prepositions that do
not matter. But this method
produces a no in response
and this they know.
[enter the audience's influence]
digest, divulge, digress
the prospects of writer are meager
ever more so in the way that
consumers consume consumption
[they are the audience]
and so to be, a writer, to be
is to become consumption
[or as would be correct, consumed]
Aristotle once critiqued la monnaie
as would many Greeks of the day:
as a means, it stood a tool to intellect
as an end, it stood to devour both
courage and intelligence such that desire
no longer had to aspire
for it dominated all there was and is of you
of me (of the unity in the city).
La cité, elle, est comparable a un
organisme qui lui ne provoquerait
pas le sophiste.
C'est à dire - that is to say,
your body (that of it which is endocrine
or, what do they say nowadays, emotions?)
would never provoke unneeded desire
love is not a desire, nor a condition
the writer loves to write
and this is not desire
this is not an affliction
the desire, malediction, it is the fiction
read by an audience ignoring
that which makes this artistry beautiful
we.. we are real (no, no we aren't)
and no matter the thought, form of expression
when we answer the quest in time (question?)
it is with a full bucket of emotions
flowing from our heart (to never ebb back).