Why'd I have to go and make things so complicated?

Wow, it's been a really long time since I last posted. I guess since I have nothing better to post about, I'll go over my thoughts from that e-literature poem, as, like Tim, I can't really get over it.
As the title page suggests ("An expanding multi verse in 5 movements") The poem really just expands upon the same subject. Faith is stronger than logic- as seen by the undamaged "Faith" that the falling logics merely bounce off.
"Faith. Logic can't bend this" - A simple expansion of the same message: logic can't overcome
faith.
The author makes excellent use of the expanded form the internet can bring to the poem. Each page, with different colored text and visual transitions, expands the simple message: Faith > Logic.
We obviously get distracted from the message with the complex form, but when we get through the changing form of the poem, we uncover the steadfast content, much like the complicated and varied thoughts of rationalization can muddle up even the most simple ideas (like faith).
The fourth movement gave me some trouble with the first line "I hedge." Using my awesome English major superpowers, I looked the verb "to hedge" up in the OED and discovered it means what we would think; to put up a hedge or barrier, to limit or constrict. Once we learn what the author means by this, the meaning of the rest of this jumbled stanza becomes clear. The rational, reasoning part of our minds "red, winking, neon logic" tries to prevent us from accepting the unreasonable, unprovable strength of faith.
Then comes the horribly complex form of the final movement. The narrator of the poem has come to the point of logical madness, taking what he would call the "leap" (we recognize the phrase "leap of faith") The narrator must throw himself whole-heartedly into the idea of faith, not a half hearted ("watered down") belief.
I noticed the phrases of surrender or concession "walking out" "leave taking" "going, going gone" and "stride out" were all faded. I don't know if that's to mean we should ignore reading them with the poem- as in the poet is not going to give up to logic- or if they should be read with the poem.
While the poem may seem rather morose, essentially resulting in logical suicide, the narrator does leave us on a lighter note, the "incorruptible" poem commits to his simple notion of the first page-- faith cannot be overcome by logic. No matter how complicated the theories of our thought become, they can't over come the basic faith of humanity--whatever that may be.
Now, I can't really decide if this is a poem celebrating faith or merely stating the historical debate over the importance and influence of faith (passion, emotion, etc.) and logic (reason, rational thought, etc.), but the final frame sums up the poem nicely. The undamaged "Faith" sits atop the jumbled logic of the poem.

I guess what I found most interesting about this new medium for poetry was the elasticity and versatility of the form. The changing manner in which the message is presented, doesn't change the message itself. While this merely could have been written on a sheet of paper with much the same effect, I think it's the changing text that leads to my interpretation; the ever more complex form, like our increasingly complex studies on human thought, behavior, etc. can't overcome or hide the simple message that has pervaded humanity: faith.

Hooray for being an English major! I just realized that I, like the author's logic, probably made this explanation way more complicated than it needed to be. So for those of you who only read the end of this post, here's the point: Faith > Logic.