[Newspoetry] ObLong Truth Abbreviatory

[Donald L Emerick]

Before I leaned into newspoems,
I wrote Ben this site commentary:
"I have now visited the site and
perused some of the p(r)o(m)[em](i)ne(nt)ws.
That is to say, I did not see myself
looking out of one of the frames, but
I did see you there."
*---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
So, let us begin."
*---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
ObLong Truth Abbreviatory

Discuss "I am Osama bin Laden" as a truth statement.

If I am who I pretend to be, I could be Osama bin Laden.

Would you accept the substitution -- or how?

First objection, raised by the world order of subtle anarchy
[Hereinafter [hereinafter hereinafter HIA] aka TWOSA]:
Proper Names
(HIA per TWOSA aka PN's
theory of self identity [aka penis envy])
states that one (aka glans differens [G_D [aka god]])
does not
[notice: negative theology
[HIA aka N_T [aka not] insists on this limitation, here]
exist (except, of course and for sure, possibly)
except as a mythical unity of being
[HIA aka MUB {interjectively, transliterately evolved, MUD}]
that is also known as
[hereinbefore [aka HIB] HIB aka aka]
individualism [HIA HIB or HIB HIA aka I].

Ergo, the I of the first statement.  QED sub-lemma-nal.

If I, then am. (See DesCartes exegesis.)
{Purists will hem and haw at the "if, then." structure.
Purists will say we always start from what there is
[HIA HIB or HIB HIA
[... aka HHOHH [aka HOH [aka water
(as may be proper to proper fluids)]
(which could not be HoHoHo or HaHaHa
(organically (or inorganically) speaking)] aka TI or IT
(depending upon one's preference for order],
which is an "am" and draw from thence (or there)
the proper infinity of references to all that "am not"
and that the "am" is thus one against a many
that, by their nature, always "am not" "I".

By such not-proof of an excluded many,
we thus have the "I am" fusion.

A final problem of proof, this "Osama bin Laden"
[water aka {am?} it {observe case or nor?}].
Let us risk a reduction, once more.
Suppose ObL exists, objectively.
No, I don't think I can suppose that.
I guess that would be contrary to common sense.
Start over: ObL exists, subjectively.
[Every existence of a PNS is subjective
(unless it has been exposed,
which counters the common sense,
of the term proper, which excludes its own negation,
according to the law of not, from the god axiom, supra.]

Contradiction of paradox:
Unless it is true that "I am not ObL",
I can not say "I am ObL" truthfully.

Ergo, it follows that Jesus never existed
Because Levinas would have been wrong:
You can not substitute one for the other.
There is no sacrifice of one person for another
and, certainly, then, not for many others,
not even for all others, or for their substitutions,
their stand-ins, their doubles and replacements,
all the sins of the sons of the world.
Christianity is a myth, as the war contra ObL proves.

QED, says ObL and then, he remarks,
waspishly, "I am Osama bin Laden."

QED.
*---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Thanks for listening,
to such old songs,
Donald L Emerick