TO ALL YOU POOR, unenlightened souls who still believe that the best expression of the English language is that style set by such medievalists as D.H. Lawrence and Kingsley Amis, prepare yourselves for a somewhat astonishing revelation. That is, if enlightenment is still a viable concept in this hyper-relativistic world. But, first, a digression; yes, a subversive one:

A (Meta-) Poem: Foucault on Derrida:

Derrida, Derrida

La dee da, la dee da.

La dee da, la dee da.

La dee da, la dee da.

DERRIDA!!!

--Filek

Excursis I: An Explication of Foucault (or Derrida?)

ALORS: Une examination of the above work reveals some important culturally subversive tendencies; yes, if we are ever to establish equality in this society. . . No, the above poem reveals nothing--or does it? Certainly, the work undermines the concept of authorship itself--perhaps the most important literary revolution of which we can concieve.

Although it claims to be by Foucault, it is signed by a certain "Filek." Is this "Filek" a shadow writer, or does his (non-) persona constitute a(n) hermeneutical confluence of several heretofore unknown idiolects somewhere north-northwest of the Charles? What, incidentally, is the Charles? Is it'a person, or is it a river? If it is a person, is it (he) a phallogocentric construct?

If we assume (for although there is no evidence at all in the text for this assumption, we must assume--to do otherwise would be empirical, thus logical, thus reductive, thus sexist--but never mind...) that this "Charles" is a monarch--even a British, white, Anglo-Saxon king--we are compelled to conclude that the above poem is yet another reprehensible example of sexism enshrined in the power of our fascist discourse. We must leave this discourse--abandon it--quit--non-logical. Bye-bye.

Excursis II: A new language:

1) Woman=Woperson; Person=Perchild; Woman=Woperchild. VIVE LA FEMME! VIVE LA FRANCE!

3) ["2" need not precede three anymore. To force this logical order upon mathematics would render it imperialistic and oppressive.]