Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Reply to Andrew Louis

Andrew, in regards to your "The Need For Proof" post:

Batailleist "powerful communication" holds that the task of the artist is social comment. A number of theories concerning the cultural paradigm of discourse exist. But if Batailleist "powerful communication" holds, we have to choose between expressionism and subdialectic cultural theory.

Thus, many constructions concerning the difference between society and class may be found. Lacan uses the term "cultural narrative" to denote the role of the observer as reader. It could be said that Tilton implies that we have to choose between expressionism and the subcultural paradigm of reality. Any number of deappropriations concerning Batailleist "powerful communication" exist.

In fact, the primary theme of the works of Gibson is the stasis of neodialectic sexual identity. But if Batailleist "powerful communication" holds, the works of Gibson are an example of mythopoetical nihilism. Several theories concerning the role of the poet as artist may be revealed. Thus, the subject is contextualised into a that includes truth as a totality. Lyotard promotes the use of Batailleist "powerful communication" to read and analyze class.

But here's the thing: Marx uses the term "cultural narrative" to denote not, in fact, discourse, but postdiscourse. The main theme of von Ludwig’s critique of Batailleist "powerful communication" is the dialectic, and therefore the rubicon, of pretextual sexual identity. It could be said that Bataille’s analysis of cultural narrative suggests that expression is a product of communication. The subject is interpolated into a paradigm that includes reality as a whole.

What do you think?

19 comments:

  1. I think you're both full of shit. :>

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think some context is missing from this, do you have a link to it?

    What I see are two forms here:
    "expressionism and subdialectic cultural theory."

    On the one hand expressionism is what we have in the here and now, and subdialectic cultural theory is what pertains to the past in such a way that hermeneutics is required to flesh out the nature of the expressions.

    In this way the expression, "angles move the planets" pertains to people in the past the same way as "Gravity moves the planets" does today.

    I have some further comments on this. But it will have to wait until later....... back to work.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Andrew, I think you missed it. The post is complete nonsense, it's randomly generated material. I was making fun of you. Sorry. :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dave,

    If I may interrupt, I'd like to give my opinion on this:


    The main theme of von Ludwig’s model of subdialectic capitalism is the futility, and thus the genre, of capitalist consciousness. Therefore, the meaninglessness, and some would say the absurdity, of socialism which is a central theme of Gibson’s Idoru is also evident in Count Zero. The premise of poststructural cultural theory states that art is meaningless.

    Thus, if neomodernist libertarianism holds, we have to choose between posttextual objectivism and dialectic precultural theory. Several desituationisms concerning neomodernist libertarianism exist.

    However, the subject is contextualised into a that includes language as a whole. In Mona Lisa Overdrive, Gibson denies posttextual objectivism; in Pattern Recognition, although, he deconstructs textual discourse.

    Therefore, the subject is interpolated into a that includes reality as a reality. Scuglia suggests that we have to choose between neomodernist libertarianism and postcapitalist materialism.

    “Class is part of the dialectic of narrativity,” says Derrida. It could be said that any number of theories concerning the role of the participant as observer may be discovered. The primary theme of the works of Spelling is the common ground between sexual identity and society.

    “Consciousness is fundamentally used in the service of the status quo,” says Sontag; however, according to Geoffrey , it is not so much consciousness that is fundamentally used in the service of the status quo, but rather the absurdity, and subsequent genre, of consciousness. Thus, the subject is contextualised into a that includes sexuality as a paradox. A number of narratives concerning socialism exist.

    Therefore, Baudrillard suggests the use of posttextual objectivism to challenge capitalism. If textual postpatriarchialist theory holds, the works of Spelling are modernistic.

    But Marx’s essay on posttextual objectivism states that art is used to oppress minorities, but only if reality is distinct from sexuality; if that is not the case, Lyotard’s model of dialectic preconceptualist theory is one of “the cultural paradigm of narrative”, and hence unattainable. Several deconstructions concerning the futility of subcapitalist sexual identity may be found.

    Therefore, Sontag promotes the use of posttextual objectivism to modify and read class. An abundance of narratives concerning socialism exist.

    But Parry implies that we have to choose between deconstructive precultural theory and semioticist situationism. Derrida uses the term ‘posttextual objectivism’ to denote not, in fact, discourse, but subdiscourse.

    In the works of Stone, a predominant concept is the concept of material language. Thus, the figure/ground distinction prevalent in Stone’s Heaven and Earth emerges again in JFK, although in a more mythopoetical sense. If dialectic preconceptualist theory holds, we have to choose between predialectic narrative and textual theory.

    The characteristic theme of Pickett’s model of dialectic preconceptualist theory is the bridge between truth and class. Therefore, several patriarchialisms concerning the role of the poet as writer may be revealed. The primary theme of the works of Gaiman is the fatal flaw, and thus the defining characteristic, of neocapitalist sexual identity.

    But the premise of Lacanist obscurity suggests that the purpose of the participant is social comment. Debord uses the term ’socialism’ to denote the role of the reader as writer.

    Thus, Abian states that we have to choose between dialectic preconceptualist theory and the pretextual paradigm of context. Lyotard uses the term ‘posttextual objectivism’ to denote the common ground between sexual identity and society.

    Therefore, the characteristic theme of Long’s analysis of socialism is the stasis of semanticist class. If posttextual objectivism holds, we have to choose between dialectic preconceptualist theory and subdialectic modern theory.

    In the works of Gaiman, a predominant concept is the distinction between without and within. However, a number of deappropriations concerning Batailleist `powerful communication’ exist. Prinn implies that we have to choose between socialism and neotextual discourse.

    If one examines dialectic subcultural theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject dialectic preconceptualist theory or conclude that the State is capable of intentionality, given that posttextual objectivism is valid. In a sense, Marx uses the term ‘the dialectic paradigm of consensus’ to denote not theory as such, but pretheory. The main theme of the works of Rushdie is the difference between sexual identity and class.

    It could be said that in The Ground Beneath Her Feet, Rushdie analyses socialism; in The Moor’s Last Sigh, however, he affirms dialectic preconceptualist theory. An abundance of situationisms concerning a self-referential reality may be discovered.

    Thus, if posttextual objectivism holds, the works of Rushdie are empowering. Humphrey suggests that we have to choose between postcapitalist theory and constructive subtextual theory.

    In a sense, the example of posttextual objectivism which is a central theme of Rushdie’s Satanic Verses is also evident in The Moor’s Last Sigh. Foucault suggests the use of Sartreist existentialism to attack sexism.

    Your opinion, please.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nonmagic,
    NOW, That I can agree with!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dale, I knew you would understand.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @nonmagic--

    I've said the same myself many times.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Capt. Hawkeye,

    I'll bet you have. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dave,
    no, I didn't miss it. I was simply playing into it.

    Anyway. I did have a point to make, but..... Doesn't matter I suppose?

    ReplyDelete
  10. (here's my piece of sarcasm for the day) ;)

    I'll keep my comments to Ray next time. That way we can all hi five eachother about how we're so right about Ray being a jackass, and then we can avoid actual debate.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Andrew,

    That thread was really going somewhere till you said, "I'll keep my comments to Ray next time."

    People of your ilk are what people of my enlightened state describe as "Buzzkills."

    I hope you have a nice goat dung hut to crawl back in to for the night. I may have confused you with someone else tht posts here, and if so, sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nonmagic,

    I am in total agreement to your reference to " posttextual objectivism."

    Of course my interest was only motivated by the fact that I first read that as "Postsexual Injectivism," which I am in favor of.

    I will be tortured as I await your further sage advice on these matters.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ya wanna know what this thread has accomplished? Do ya?

    If we want to, we can also do the Ray Comfort/ Discovery Institute Speak, in style! HA!

    We consider this humor while the fundies talk shit like this as if it were the truth....


    Just sayin

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well Dale, I consider what I said to be actually quite humorous and rather satirical of what goes on.

    But it appears I've touched a nerve with you, I even prefaced my statement by saying I was being sarcastic. And then you go call me a buzzkill and a fundie (which is the last thing I am). Way to go Dale, you’re the man. What’s wrong with you, serious?

    I throw a counter position out there following a post and you don’t know what to do with it. If you don’t want to debate someone who’s on a higher intellectual plane then Ray that’s fine, just say so. I thought that’s what this was all about, debating Ray and Christianity and atheism. Sorry I was wrong.

    I’ll let you go back to your perpetual debate on evolution with Ray. I see he’s ready to convert.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Andrew Louis said...
    "Well Dale, I consider what I said to be actually quite humorous..."

    I assure you; it was. /d

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dale,
    GREAT! So what's the problem then?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Andrew,
    Sorry, I couldn't help piling on, plus I had just finished a third bourbon and branch water before I wrote that!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dale,
    I don't mind criticism in the least, and I don't mind being the butt of a joke. It's all good, Silent Daves's post was great.

    I was simply trying to bring something else to the table beside creationism.

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.