i am a heidegger apologist, in all honesty: i revere him;
      and what could possibly be the reason?
                      his reverence of poetry.
in accordance with ezra - i too revere the art-form equally:
in that i do not engage, in what, could be easily equated
as sophistry; by saying that, what do i mean?
             i am a practitioner of only one technique -
bound to the seemingly never ageing, the truly never discarded
  homer: in that, the same amulet of j. joyce's ulysses.
hence, i am no believer in the talk of a protagoras of abdera,
or a hippias of elis -
                                      in that guise of sophistry we do
encounter infantile poetry: a care for pun, a care for imagery,
a care for metaphor; reference points that can easily
take prestige in the colloquial.
                          thus onto the prime point of reference
with regard to: on reverence;                        NARRATIVE.
- and indeed that is the only technique i value
                - it is that and, the very technical conceptualißations
as thus staged, as i have already said, punctuation in words
and between words.
  thus? idle chit-chat       sparrow jargon cherubs of weak hearts
this scholastic care for identifiers of said art,
                    metaphor, pun           and whatever shrouds
are in the possession of performers... sophists;
    in that, the basic concept of sophistry is it not simply rhyme?
but how can this nail of a care's worth of technique,
                    ever compare to the hammer of narration?