Scherben in nem eispalast -
Konserviert und eingefasst..
Labyinth aus Licht und Schatten,
Alpträume die sich verstecken
Träume die sie versteckt halten
Den Blick zu den sternen,
Weil nur dort oben keine Schatten sind
An ins Sternbild des Drachen
Weil ich nur dort zuhause bin
Und nicht auf dieser Erde

Nein ich muss aus einer dieser anderen Welten,
Da oben bei den sternen sein -
Kann mich nicht von natur aus um diese sonne drehen,
Keine Ahnung von wo da oben ich herkam -
Oder wohin ich dabei war zu gehen,
Doch Weiß ich das es nicht hier unten war,
Sonst würde sich nicht alles hier unten
Völlig falschrum für mich drehn,
Selbst Tag und Nacht sind verkehrt ,
Zu kurz ,zu schnell und kalt -
Wie alles andere auch ,
Viel zu schnell am vergehen


Es sind nur lichtblitze zwischen all den Schatten zu sehn,
Die die Bilder ein brennen die in diesen Schatten entstehen,
Wie blitze fotos in einen Film -
Jedes davon ein Beweis,
Das ich blos gestrandet bin,
Hier wo Dämonen wie sonst engel aussehn,
Wo alles sich gegenseitig frisst,
Und allein Wahnsinn fähig macht,
das alles lang genug zu überstehen,
Um auch nur lang genug das licht,
des wegs weit genug nach oben zu sehn,
Um überhaupt heraus zu finden
Das sterne an nem Himmel existiern -
Hoch genug oben um sich zu verstecken
Vor allem was nicht fliegen kann oder
verzweifelt genug davon ist,
in realen Horrorfilmen zu stehen,
‎um auf der Flucht vor all den Szenen
‎einfach blind nach oben zu gehn,
‎wo eine wand ist ,
beginnt zu klettern,
‎um nur nicht mehr in blut und Asche zu stehen

why would a logical argument be worthy
of an adjective?

no real reason:

propositions are a set of premises,

which allow, set premises
to suit a proposition,

but prepositions are
are not a set of premises,
they are: "prerequisites"

well... take away the prefix
pre-
and then study "logic"
on the grounds of what
is left...

         -requisite...
ideal...

       -mise...

hmm, so how does the thesaurus
overcome
the mathematician?
pre-requisite is a tautological
complex: implying?

what is prior is also
a requisite...
hence a pre-prerequisite...

premise?
the same meaning
(or prerequisite)
but said "meaning"...
truth? contra good?

these days "the" good
is precisely "that",
i.e. a "good"...
it's neither good or,
or nor good:
worth as much as
a testimony to
interrogate, "evil"...

good isn't good is good,
evil isn't evil is evil,
truth:
a regurgitation of facts,
"made to feel"
claustrophobic...
or... some other adjective...

the Hoover dam:
is not a metaphor,
but the state of affairs
that is the 21st century
in its infancy
in having to inherit
the 20th century...

the 20th century didn't exactly
culminate in a zenith
with the atomic bomb...
but...
Oppenheimer...
citing the Hindu poetic
prophesy:

   jetzt ich bin werden
tod; die zerstörer von
                  welten...

i assure you:
give a mathematician
a thesaurus
is equivalent to
giving a ******* addict
a ******* toothpick
to requisite with
a missing pre-
toward a snort...

i.e.:
isn't a prerequisite
a premise?

if that is the case...
or isn't...
what is the entomological
basis for the synonym
with the prefix pre-
to associate an "anomaly"
of -requisite
and -mise?

mathematics lacks
nuance,
or at least there's no need
for nuance
to be grounded in
what is regarded
as: ultimatum:

true / false...

         beyond good & evil,
there is only
the good is true /
the good is false &
evil is true / evil is false...

but...

  why is good,
given the predicate
of the...
the definite article?

in casual expressions...
the good & evil...
well...

     there's God & the devil...
there is never
an "abstract" reference
point in "a" good,
or an "evil"...

the good and God,
"contra"
evil and the devil...

            borrow...
i look upon mathematical
strict rubric and
extract two letters,
like Socrates did in
Plato's theaetetus...

i see:
  the g(o)od and God,
  evil and the (d)evil...

  DO...

broken baron of the hunch
upon the wheel of
the recitation
of the last compensation
of thought:
dislodged from being
and made to
"repent",
in the form of confession...

typos plague elaborating
logical statements
in rigid rubrics...

coincidentally:
http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/UG/course/lx502/_docs/lx502-propositional%20logic.pdf

2.

if φ
is a wff,

3.
   ¬φ
is a wff (well-formed formula)

a negation is as "true"
as an affirmation...

4.
if φ and ψ
are wff, then (φ ∧ ψ),
(φ ∨ ψ), (φ → ψ),
(φ ↔ ψ) are wffs

5. nothing is a wff...

wait a minute...
why do "we" need for the proof
at point 5.?

weren't we dealing with
φ and ¬φ begin with?
so where does ψ fit into all of this,
"logic"?!

what is ψ?!
typo?
if ∧ = conjunction,
∨ = disjunction
→ = implication
↔ = equivalence...

the **** is ψ doing in place
of ¬φ?!

yeah, i might be drunk,
but i still have some screws
to count as involved
in my head being intact...

(φ ∧ ¬φ),
(φ ∨ ¬φ, (φ → ¬φ),
(φ ↔ ¬φ)

are more accurate
statements of "logic"
than

(φ ∧ ψ),
(φ ∨ ψ), (φ → ψ),
(φ ↔ ψ)

conjunction:
   2 events existing together
in a contradiction

disjunction:
two clear alternatives...

φ & ψ are not alternatives,
in such that
  only ¬φ is the only alternative
of φ, whereby ψ could
be presumed to be a
covert alternative: snyonym of φ...

the same logical conclusion
comes within the confines
of ¬φ, φ within the term implication
and equivalence...

but how the **** does
ψ fit into this?

nope... sorry... Picasso makes
more sense right about now...
honest to God,
or a gyrating ***** i'd
prefer to a slug of kalimotxo
down my throat:

look at me...
i too can regurgitate crap
in an alley while *******,
and i don't have to exactly
call it a university publication!

please! please!
find me a point where ψ
is worth the logical argument
in this university paper...
i can't find it!

   i hope it's a ******* typo...
but i doubt it;
i'd love to claim that
i made some purposive
typos of my own...