[Newspoetry] I think that I shall never see... mimicry (Me! Me (Oui! we) cry).

[Editor-Within-Chief]

Ben E., am I right in thinking that you are using your dad's email address 
to post poems, and that they should be attributed to you, not him?  If not, 
I apologize to Don for the mix-up and I'll correct the author labels on 
these poems.

At 09:57 AM 1/17/2002 -0600, Donald L Emerick wrote:
>QUOTE OF THE DAY
>(PROBLEM OF THE NIGHT)
>"Democracies don't prepare well for things that have never happened before."
>RICHARD A. CLARKE, former White House counter-terrorism chief.
>*-----------------------------------------------------------------------*
>SOLUTION:
>1. Prologue:
>Sometimes, it is the unnoticed and the unnoticeable detail of statements --
>that goes astray.
>For instance, here: the suggestion is that democracies prepare well for
>things that have happened before...
>or even, whatever we have well-prepared for us will happen again and, oddly,
>somehow, that is democracy...
>
>Derrida would say that repetition (ala N.s eternal recurrence) is
>inevitable,
>that whatever happens will seem
>(by force and violence of analogy)
>as if it occurs deja vous,
>that we could not understand anything that happens originarily, as a total
>novelty.
>
>2. Body:
>An event always carries us back beyond its beginnings,
>into primordial reality,
>to causes antecedent to event;
>Heidi(gger) said so,
>in expounding the Principle of Reason
>(after L.s metaphysics):
>"Nothing happens without reason."
>(and also apparently pardoning the humor in this phrase,
>not even naming or mentioning it
>boorishly insensitive to things that make me smile and laugh).
>
>Now,
>if democracies do not prepare well for the extraordinary,
>is there also an implication?
>Does any other form of government prepare (us) well for the extraordinary?
>Well, no, I can see no proof of such a truth about any form of government.
>
>So.  The agent should have said:
>"<Form-of?>Government does not prepare <object-class?> well for
><event-class?>"...
>And then, perhaps, by gram-ma-to-logicals conversion,
>we'd be wise enough to ask what subject (or even F-o-G) does!
>(I'd even dinker with the verb "prepare" and its auxiliary (here, "not"),
>as to what subject could, for an object, be well to do well (or not).)
>
>But,
>whoever said that government ever had such a function?
>"Government shall be about what has happened before."
>Government shall be about a prophet-sighed event.
>(I do not need to prophesy if I do not follow law.)
>
>Therefore, the F-o-G shall disappear when a God-appointed,
>or a God-blessed (or God-damned?) leader shall appear --
>for God alone would be the entity (if any) who sees all,
>even around the corners of all that was or is or shall be.
>
>So, our ex-Sheriff of Terrorism (as a good old S-o-T)
>remains true to first principles,
>first causes:
>The(-o-log-)isms prepare us well for what has never happened:
>Only a god could save us!
>QED
>
>3. Afterword (Epilogic)
>Untruth varies inversely with the length of a statement --
>the shorter a statement is, the larger the number of lies it conceals --
>Only a proposition could be falsifiable because it would be false
>when it takes the form of a proposition as its very self, dispositively.
>
>P is false,
>but if P were true and if P implied Q,
>then Q would be true, too.
>Observe, my friend,
>that Q is the End and that it is true that we all shall die,
>and this being necessarily so of Q,
>(for I have seen with my own eyes my own death
>and felt that experience ravage what remains of me to remain remains)
>it follows that P must be true even when it is a lie.
>
>Only a being who has not yet finished speaking may yet speak truth
>(and this is quite impossibly possible or quite possibly impossible).

--
Joe Futrelle
editor-within-chief
http://www.newspoetry.com/