whatever remains of heraclitus' works,
does not matter, as much as what the zenith of his
writing proposes, namely the λoγoς -
                 and since that word has been ingested
by the thesaurus hydra rex -
                         well... there are many avenues of
expressing that word, to whatever end is necessary
to finally reach a cul de sac;
              the concept is obviously much older,
but as a single word, it shortens the famous suggestion
prior to the unit's emergence: in the beginning
there was word, and the word was (with) god...
    and yes... then god shut up, and forgot language
and turned to pure emotion... and he became jealous,
like a woman might tend to be...
      well... he "forgot" it... he just gave it away,
like pennies to a ****** busker in a tube station.
             so that genesis quote had a kafkaesque moment
with the greeks, when it simply became λoγoς.
    the thing is... what interests me, is, say, the following
comparison:    you see a low flying aeroplane...
                    the aeroplane is the λoγoς... but then there's
the sound being dragged behind,
       and you almost displace where the plane is and where
the sound is, that the aeroplane is emitting.
   the concept of λoγoς? it was derived from philosophy...
i can't believe it has taken so long to figure out a compliment
to the λoγoς concept... and there is one...
                                                                    φoνoς,
with its etymological shortening derived from phoneticism,
phonology (the first is a pseudo-origin,
                                   the latter an original-origin).
     an excess of comparison? if there need be for myth:
which of the two concepts would be thanatos and which hypnos?
well...  hypnos = φoνoς
               a lullaby is not written word, it's a sound...
        λoγoς ≠ hypnos -    since i'd further that by saying:
insomnia is a descent into hades... or that reading before you
fall to sleep allows you to actually fall asleep, is like saying
     that, ergo:          λoγoς = thanatos:
  simply because it's not alive.
        then again, λoγoς = thanatos, for reasons i can't really
explain... mein kampf?
                           yet what i wanted to be succinct has spiralled
out of my control, although something i wanted to say is retained
with what i'll conclude with:
if the concept of λoγoς was derived from philosophy...
then the natural compliment to it, would have to derive from poetry,
and the concept of φoνoς has been derived from poetry...
   yet the two never really meet in some siamese absurdity...
the reason for that is that φoνoς is "protected"
          by the onomatopoeia...
                   o
λoγoς      ν
                    o
                    μ
                    α
                    τ
                     o  
                    π
                    o
                    η
                    ι        φoνoς
                    α
what this really represents is that, the λoγoς is limited with
regards to what the φoνoς doesn't bother to encode,
for exmple, imitating the chirping of birds by whistling,
and certainly the φoνoς would not descend to the ridiculous
level that the λoγoς might, when expressing a dog barking,
i.e. woof! in a way φoνoς tricks the λoγoς  by employing
the concept of onomatopoeia, to make it look, absolutely ridiculous,
that it might actually descend to such a debased level;
perhaps it's just poetry per se, and perhaps that's just poetry
being folled by the logos, but the fact that logos can descend to
such muddy waters, tells me that: it can be a form of unreasoning
that does not make λoγoς, the citadel it was thought to be.
     in other words, not everything can be expressed,
                                    either side of the onomatopoeia.
still, if poetry could have ever provided a compliment to philosophy,
it really has taken, a god awful time to do so.