For the Sake of Argument

 
Always for the Sake of Argument
 
My insults are the insults of the adversary
& accuser so you can rightly view them as
confirming your righteousness.
 
Your righteousness necessarily generates
revulsion from the unregenerate and so:
if you are mocked, ridiculed, persecuted,
you know  you‘re on track.
 
Each one is sealed in idiotic salvation and
system security, reinforced by necessity
and can not be dismantled.  The more
effort at dismantling,  the more it mantles
itself. Reinforces its solipsism.   
 
Unless one takes the insult literally, as if
they were sticks,  stunning like stones.
 
The common ground in fighting is the
fighting itself: fighting for fighting’s sake.
And the same with argument:  disagreement
sustained and cherished by the argument
and disagreement going on ongoing. Like
marriage.  Like rugby. No contraries: no
progress.
 
Winning for winning’s sake. Nobody loves
a loser: anyone wants to get better &  good.
 
GOOD? you say.
What do you mean  by “good”?
Good at losing? Good at winning?
Good at getting beyond winning & losing?
 
See: right there —quibble over the letter,
the literal when it’s obvious: the spirit of the
matter.
 
         NO? It’s not obvious?
 
More important than agreeing is sustaining
the disagreement so as   to keep up the good
fight, argument, converse action, war: onward
xtian soldiering.  Liberal art.  Got to love it.
 
(Addiction:   literally – “to speak to:  I need
ongoing converse action to fix my addiction to
figuring-out, making sense, cultivating emergent
values and phenomena.  Local food generation.)