hooded negro on derrida
Mounard Le Fougueux
Hooded Negro on Derrida
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtwFchwL8ME
*Anarcissie*
> > Hooded Negro on Derrida
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtwFchwL8ME
Why, it's a talking Usenet posting.
BIG_ONE
wrote:
even holds up some unread books as proof
CB
"Dan Fox" <danfoxa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20070214155815.909$G...@newsreader.com...
Lol, very funny. I poked around at some of the other youtube work from the
same guy; I rather enjoyed his take on things....
Thanks;
Chris
sirblob
> "Dan Fox" <danfoxartNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
no. you like YOUR take on things. you wouldnt understand an other's
take on things. was it you or mani deli who got a diploma as a kid for
drawing while the other kids stared? here, shove it up you arse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rOH356BI0M
J Seymour MacNicely
Right. Look for my reply to yours, at YouTube, my dear.
--
Mackie
http://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
"Who Did the Dahlia?"
CB
"sirblob" <sirb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171515437.4...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
That's YOUR take on things, nyah, nyah....LOL, try being a little creative
(and learn how to use a video-cam while you're at it. And maybe a trip to
the dentist...)
Cheers;
CB
*Anarcissie*
Well, I wasn't talking about the sludge. I mean the elite
levels, such as we find in rec.arts.books and rec.arts.fine,
where people often write complete sentences which have
something to do with the foregoing discussion.
HN's basic complaint is "I can't understand this, and I
don't want to." We could call this sort of attitude churlish
ignorance, but I guess because HN is an HN, some
people are afraid to say it. Well, I'm not. And you must
admit his is a favorite Usenet stance, as if everyone in
the world must be astounded by the writer's refusal
to read his subject's material, much less think about it.
Where was the wit, by the way? I admit I did not view the
whole clip raptly. It bored me and my attention may
have drifted. Did HN lapse into street slang or something?
I know that sort of thing is supposed to be terribly funny.
HN looks to me like a frat boy in drag.
sirblob
wrote:
> On Feb 14, 3:28 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 14, 3:57 pm, danfoxartNOS...@yahoo.com(Dan Fox) wrote:
>
> > > > Hooded Negro on Derrida
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtwFchwL8ME
>
> > Why, it's a talking Usenet posting.
>
> Right. Look for my reply to yours, at YouTube, my dear.
> --
> "Who Did the Dahlia?"
no mackie, i wouldnt recommend anyone do that. your labelling hooded
negro as ''brave'' was the one definite thing in this thread that
finally got me roaring with laughter.
sirblob
> On Feb 14, 8:39 pm, danfoxartNOS...@yahoo.com(Dan Fox) wrote:
>
> > "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 14, 3:57 pm, danfoxartNOS...@yahoo.com(Dan Fox) wrote:
> > > > > Hooded Negro on Derrida
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtwFchwL8ME
>
> > > Why, it's a talking Usenet posting.
>
> > No, it's far too intelligent and witty.
>
> Well, I wasn't talking about the sludge. I mean the elite
> levels, such as we find in rec.arts.books and rec.arts.fine,
> where people often write complete sentences which have
> something to do with the foregoing discussion.
>
> HN's basic complaint is "I can't understand this, and I
> don't want to." We could call this sort of attitude churlish
> ignorance,
oh wow this post is too much for the usenet crowd.
but I guess because HN is an HN, some
> people are afraid to say it. Well, I'm not. And you must
> admit his is a favorite Usenet stance, as if everyone in
> the world must be astounded by the writer's refusal
> to read his subject's material, much less think about it.
>
> Where was the wit, by the way?
oh im quite sure victoria becks finds david witty.
sirblob
> > HN looks to me like a frat boy in drag.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
CB
Lol...I rather like Bloom myself (even when I disagree with him). He doen't
mince words, and he's not mushy about his thoughts...
BTW - have you read the Stevens and Swan bio of Bill de Kooning? I'm curious
as to your (and others - Biljo? -as well) take on it. I almost gave up on it
until about halfway through, I found it far too hagiographic. But from about
the mid 1940's on, the authors seem to recede and let de Kooning come to the
foreground, and the book has become much more interesting. FWIW, I've never
liked de Kooning's work, but the book (and especially de Kooning's own
writing) puts it in a perspective that makes me reconsider....A big drawback
is the lack of pictures, especially drawings. Any recommendations re.
collected images?
Cheers;
Chris
> Glad you liked it. I watched part one of his Bloom spiel and didn't like
> it as much - maybe because he likes Bloom ....
spira...@yahoo.com
J Seymour MacNicely
> no mackie, i wouldnt recommend anyone do that. your labelling hooded
> negro as ''brave'' was the one definite thing in this thread that
> finally got me roaring with laughter.
People often have themselves a great grand guffaw when they can't pick
up a first clue of what the other fellow is talking about.
But, just let me help you out a little . . .
Say you were a person of the female gender going to college, and
whenever the occasion came up, you were to refer to yourself as "a
dame like me." Do you think that would go easy on you, as you moved in
a society of stalwart, strutting feminists--some of which are
neurotic, violent, woman-idolators of gender narcissists?
And maybe you were just the sort of person who didn't like being told
by a bunch of wigged-out neurotics what words were acceptible for your
use, and which were not. Maybe you hated being told by that pushy
ilk--okay?
Would you be brave enough, in spite of all that insane, negative
pressure to say, "A dame like me"?
Now, you may find some real reason to laugh!
--
Mackie
http://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
"Who Did the Dahlia?"
Now On-Line -- Chapter 14: A Secret Word
J Seymour MacNicely
> On Feb 14, 8:39 pm, danfoxartNOS...@yahoo.com(Dan Fox) wrote:
> HN's basic complaint is "I can't understand this, and I
> don't want to."
Oh come off it, now. That is in fact the *last* thing he's saying. His
complaint is that no person of any substantial rational capacity can
stomach such a lot of capricious damned nonsense.
Here's what I'm talking about, copied from the comments on the Hooded
Negro's page, a comment on the video by one guy, and my reply to that
comment . . .
palomar (14 hours ago)
idiot. not so much for the stupidity of the comments made (which is
understandable, considering that derrida is not easy) but for showing
your face. i feel embarassed for you. really, why would you let us
know who you are?
(Reply) (Spam)
Daddio45 (2 minutes ago)
You know one thing for sure: when criticism turns to such a rabid form
of personal attack as from "palomar" there, something is just not
right. This is the outcome of the postmodern attack on objectivity and
rationality. Easy? Derrida? Compared to Kant, Hegel and Kierkegaard,
he's about on a level with Donald Duck and Bugs Bunny--or maybe
Finnegans Wake if you wanted to get real silly and generous.
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
Oh, for Christ's sake. "Dame", although obsolete '40s lingo,
is perfectly respectable -- it indicates a woman of substance,
one who is to be taken into consideration. The locution which
would offend young aspiring feminist ideologues would be, of
course, "girl" -- "a girl like me". A dame may pack heat, drink
booze, write thousand-dollar checks. There is nothing like a
dame.
If you're going to knock off Chandler, at least get your
language right.
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
> On Feb 15, 8:14 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 14, 8:39 pm, danfoxartNOS...@yahoo.com(Dan Fox) wrote:
> > HN's basic complaint is "I can't understand this, and I
> > don't want to."
>
> Oh come off it, now. That is in fact the *last* thing he's saying. His
> complaint is that no person of any substantial rational capacity can
> stomach such a lot of capricious damned nonsense.
That's the next step, so typical of Usenet and Americans in
general: "If I can't understand it, it must be nonsense, because
I know everything worth knowing already." But Hooded Negroes
are supposed to be hip, so instead of getting bored in five
seconds it takes us ten or fifteen. One keeps thinking he's
going to say something, but no luck.
And he likes Bloom -- what a surprise!
Ned Ludd
>
> in fact, this post could cause usenet to implode
>
Yeah, and if usenet imploded, what would it be?
Ned
sirblob
wrote:
> "Who Did the Dahlia?"
> Now On-Line -- Chapter 14: A Secret Word
awww my dear mackie, what is it about you neocon libtards that make
you so afraid of female sexuality? and all just because postmodernism
successfully ridiculed the likes of you...
laraine
<blinkingCur...@NonEventHorizon.com> wrote:
> You'll need audio for this:
>
> Hooded Negro on Derridahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtwFchwL8ME
I can understand where this guy is coming from--
I was recently looking at an old lit crit book, and
apparently I was assigned a Derrida reading
in it, because I see that I underlined things
there, but I don't remember reading it at all--so
don't think I got much out of it--it is definitely
as hard to read, if not harder, than say Kant.
But... I was at a bookstore recently, and I
took a peak at a Cambridge History of
Critical Theory, I think it was, and I noticed
that there was a lot of information describing
the philosophical underpinnings of Derrida
and other deconstructionists, so ... I think
that if one really wants to understand this
stuff, one needs to seriously study a good
deal of modern philosophy, as a starter.
I enjoyed watching one of the YouTube Derrida
videos where someone asks him what
deconstruction is, and he refuses to give
a direct answer--very humorous...
C.
James Whitehead
though sure there are philosophical underpinnings - there are others...
Would our hooded friend read the old testament, Joyce's Ulysses in the same
way as the crossword in a newspaper- and if he did might we not want to make
a point here about this? Its true Derrida was taken up in the english and
US establishment by the departments of lit crit - and i think he thought in
many cases mistakenly- but if he doesnt quack like a duck that doesnt make
him a poor duck...
OHF picks in dissemination a particularly problematic text - imo - "This
(therefore) will not have been a book" yet "Heres a book -
dissemination..." maybe its not that he read half the book - but that he
attempted to read a book at all....
"laraine" <lar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171765549.9...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
J Seymour MacNicely
Subject:
Date: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:52 PM
On Feb 17, 8:25 pm, "laraine" <lari...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 8:56 am, Mounard Le Fougueux
>
> <blinkingCur...@NonEventHorizon.com> wrote:
> > You'll need audio for this:
>
> > Hooded Negro on Derridahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtwFchwL8ME
>
> I can understand where this guy is coming from--
> I was recently looking at an old lit crit book, and
> apparently I was assigned a Derrida reading
> in it, because I see that I underlined things
> there, but I don't remember reading it at all--so
> don't think I got much out of it--it is definitely
> as hard to read, if not harder, than say Kant.
There are many things written that are hard to read only because there
is nothing in them to be understood. That which is fundamentally in
error is necessarily impossible to understand. And it is always hard
to understand how someone like Derrida who had so very much to say,
really had nothing to say at all. Other things are hard to read
because it seems there is almost too much to understand. See
Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, J. D. Salinger in *Seymour, an
Introduction*.
>
> But... I was at a bookstore recently, and I
> took a peak at a Cambridge History of
> Critical Theory, I think it was, and I noticed
> that there was a lot of information describing
> the philosophical underpinnings of Derrida
> and other deconstructionists, so ... I think
> that if one really wants to understand this
> stuff, one needs to seriously study a good
> deal of modern philosophy, as a starter.
Quite! And once you have understood Kant you will understand that in
Derrida, there was nothing to be understood. That will be hard to
understand, but there it is.
>
> I enjoyed watching one of the YouTube Derrida
> videos where someone asks him what
> deconstruction is, and he refuses to give
> a direct answer--very humorous...
Dylan used to love doing that, covering for his lack of an answer by
fooling the questioner into questioning the fundamental coolness or
intelligence of his question, his own being, his soul. Because
OBVIOUSLY 'deconstruction' is such a thing as cannot be queried for a
definition since all definitions are made to be deconstructed--but
this may not be outwardly breathed, lest deconstruction be
deconstructed.
That's why its such an evil little lie of faux philosophy, as it so
devilishly assumes that all things are of such a nature that they can
be broken down into their presumable parts.
This is wrong because, as Aristotle, in *Politics* was at great pains
to explain, by none but the most pristine of logics, that the parts of
things always devolve from the whole of things. His argument is
brilliantly executed, as he sets it out in order to explain that but
for the community or family of man, 'man' as an individual entity
cannot exist for his own sake. Guess Ayn Rand really never got to
that part of Aristotle. Didn't much like the sound of it at first,
myself--but logic is what rules, not just anything one might want.
Deconstructionist 'thought' is dearly beloved by those who will not be
so ruled.
Man can break away from man and live as a beast in the wood, no longer
to live as a man, but as a beast. He can do this, but he cannot
arrange that he should have been born a beast, as e.g. a wolf. To be
born as the genus *man* he had to be born of the family of man. And
the family of man is a unity, a 'genus' (in Aristotle's terms) that is
greater than the individual man, as *Man* contains all the culture and
the history (evolution) of man, as *Man*, a social animal.
The whole of Man cannot be deconstructed into its parts, and so it
goes for the productions of man, his morals, his science, his arts.
The whole, the *essence* is always magnificently greater than the sum
of the parts.
Deconstruction is anti-nature, anti-human, anti-reason, anti-essence,
anti-existence, and therefore anti-understanding. It cannot be
understood because it's wrong.
--
Mackie
http://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
"Who Did the Dahlia?"
Now On-Line -- Chapter 15: Tiger Pants
*Anarcissie*
There is a reasonably clear article on deconstruction
on Wikipedia at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction
There were at one time people participating in Usenet
who actually knew something about the subject, but
I don't see any of them around at the moment. That
mostly leaves us with two other types: those who
don't know or understand it, but think there might be
something to it; and those who don't know or understand
it, and are convinced it's worthless or even toxic. The
general basis of the latter opinion is almost always, as
I have said, the conviction of the holder that he or she
already knows everything worth knowing. This is a
very common attitude, especially on Usenet, hence
my remark about HN's video, which falls into the
same category. If you look around I think you will
see all the evidence you need for what I'm talking
about.
In both categories you will notice a rigorous avoidance
of citation, quotation and other reference. It should
not be hard to guess the reason for that.
J Seymour MacNicely
"*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
1171808763.1...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> There were at one time people participating in Usenet
> who actually knew something about the subject, but . . .
Correction -- "people participating in Usenet"? If, by speaking of
"people" your reference is to this particular, one might say, 'army of
skanks' which now and in time past has sought to enforce its hegemony
over the rec.arts.books corner of Usenet conversation--if indeed, it
is that geeky goose-stepping gaggle of silly gay-feminist hoplites
marching about in their clownish lock-step posture of false knowledge,
then yes--of these you were saying . . .
> I don't see any of them around at the moment. That
> mostly leaves us with two other types: those who
> don't know or understand it, but think there might be
> something to it; and those who don't know or understand
> it, and are convinced it's worthless or even toxic.
Denial is not just a river of blather foaming from your mouth, my
dear; it is not just this seasonal lather of bad-breath bubbles,
flowing over your chin, my sweet. From the howling demons of the Great
Cataract to the Alexandrine delta of your soft wet lips, Cissie, your
mendacity is made ever so much the clearer by the mud-flow of your
obfuscations: there is in fact, and you know damned well there has to
be, a third category of those who condemn Derrida from a standpoint of
having read Derrida--and knowing a difference (not a "différance")
between the rational and the irrational. So stop sitting there in
that absurd pose of denying any possibility of a knowledgeable
critique of Derrida's patent horsecrap.
> The
> general basis of the latter opinion is almost always, as
> I have said, the conviction of the holder that he or she
> already knows everything worth knowing.
More obfuscation by mischaracterization of the opposing view. Cheap ad
hominem tactics never fail to avail the purposes of those who know no
other recourse.
Now when someone like Derrida is in the business of speaking nothing
but a spume of abstract expressionism from pallet of the mouth, one
must inquire into purpose and motivation. Take the lecture Derrida
delivered to the poor bastards who had to sit through it at the
University of Chicago in 1982, entitled to wit, "Différance".
Do you know the background on it, how this rant that foamed as so
central a part of his 'thinking' so-called, got started? Apparently,
near as it can be searched on the web . . .
http://www.chicagoartcriticsassociation.org/P/n03.html
. . . someone, it may have been his mother (as some reference a
segment of the documentary, "Derrida" in which his brother recounts
the matter) brought attention to the fact that Derrida had been
misspelling the word *difference* as "différance" and as is so typical
of every silly "*Anarcissie*" or garden variety narcissist anywhere,
in Derrida's need to save face, in his neurotic compulsion to cover
for a fault, he began to muse over every conceivable justification for
having misspelled so simple a word, to somehow make it the 'right'
spelling--the spelling that was *meant* to be--all based on the big
fat fib that the 'e' in *difference* is pronounced exactly as would be
an 'a'.
Thus, by such patent legerdemain as that, he proceeds to buttress his
big fib by delusionally denying that there is any such thing as a
phonetic spelling of words--only then, by such Houdini-esque
preparation as that is he ready to completely dive off the deep end by
making up his own ridiculous vocabulary of terms to put over such an
argument as can find support by no other means . . .
Observe this process in action, as appears in the following passel of
powerfully preposterous balderdash from *Différance*, a discourse on
the rightness of his misspelling based on the noble, if even (for the
crissake) "pyramidal" significance of the letter "A" . . .
"The pyramidal silence of the graphic difference between the e and the
a can function, of course, only within the system of ptionetic
writing, and within the language and grammar which is as historically
linked to ptionetic writing as it is to the entire culture inseparable
from phonetic writing."
The culture made him do it! Ah, but his act of misspelling was a
revolt, a revolution! an act of courage in defiance of the male
dominated, the 'E' dominated, the Laissez-Faire strangled, greedy
petite bourgeois Capitalist horde! Oh, it's wonderful--can't you just
hear the strains of the Internationale resonating from the force of
his discourse? The word should always have been spelled with the
powerful pyramidal construction of the letter 'A'!
Now try to find a definition anywhere on the web for "ptionetic
writing", let alone another appearance of the term but from this very
lecture, that very site: it issues strictly and uniquely from
Derrida's lips to the flaming toes of every hot-footed fool and dupe
of Academe that has ever been blind-sided into taking the faux-
philosophical mantle of such a Naked Emperor seriously.
The process of anti-reasoning that exposes this extraordinary exercise
in downright pathological self-justification had it's apotheosis in
the Chicago lecture. It's right here on the web for anyone to see for
the patently absurd spiel of utterly capricious damned nonsense it
is . . .
http://www.hydra.umn.edu/derrida/diff.html
When you're done reading so much of that as you can stand, you will
find there is nothing to talk about, nothing to discuss, strictly
nothing to boil down to a nutshell and describe to another person,
nothing to characterize as this form of thought or that, because
nothing is there. The Emperor has no clothes.
That Derrida flunked the entrance exam for admission to the Ecole
Normale Superieure twice before finally attaining it on the third try
needn't be taken for any more than his penchant for bad spelling--see
Einstein's days under the dunce cap in the corner of the Polytechnic
school-room.
> This is a
> very common attitude, especially on Usenet, hence
> my remark about HN's video, which falls into the
> same category. If you look around I think you will
> see all the evidence you need for what I'm talking
> about.
Such a river of snot is neither the White nor the Blue Nile in Egypt.
>
> In both categories you will notice a rigorous avoidance
> of citation, quotation and other reference. It should
> not be hard to guess the reason for that.
References? Try this: if you know your Derrida, then you are hip to
all the magical sort of 'ptionetic' significance (L. Ron Hubbard, eat
your heart out) that he invests in alternative meanings to words and
names. Thus it should appear as no mere case of serendipity that the
site chosen by the Britannica as the best Derrida source is this . . .
http://www.hydra.umn.edu/derrida/
. . . as edited by one "Peter Krapp".
sirblob
wrote:
> From: "Sy Grass" <daddi...@yahoo.com>
> "Who Did the Dahlia?"
> Now On-Line -- Chapter 15: Tiger Pants
you're an idiot, mackie. everything that annoys you contains pleasure
and risk. everything that you find value in is homogenous shit. a
symptomatic reading of your fucked up hysterical geriatric wafer-thin
new criterion rhetoric provides one precisely with the value in that
which you despise. and thanks for this portrayal of derrida the
libertarian. whatever happened to mackie the independant brave
maverick?! you dont mean to say hooded negro was being brave by
serving his fellow man?! goodness me!?!?!?! and praising harry bloom
just because of your far right politics?! couldnt you be more
original?! oh, mackie, so many questions and so little time!!!(???)
what about derrida on the bible?!?!??! oh mackie you hunk of spunk,
you got my erectile tissue erect in a double positive??? (!!!!) my
kingdom for a charlize theron in celebrity (!)
(??????????????????????????????)
Mac the Nice
> you're an idiot, mackie.
Oh my goodness. You carry on like somebody who just found out there's no
Santy Claus.
> everything that annoys you contains pleasure
> and risk.
How can that opinion be arrived upon from this???
> everything that you find value in is homogenous shit.
But that's what pomo is, just a passing highly touted fad like a pair of
baggy pants and a backward cap, or a string of hippie beads--or a head full
of conformist counter-culture swill that causes somebody to think a piece of
mass-produced music industry trash like "Wild Thing" (Top Forty twaddle from
the "Troggs") suddenly becomes art just because Jimi Hendrix had the bad
taste to play it at Monterrey?
If you think you're in a state of revolt by taking Derrida's delusions to
heart, baby, you couldn't be further from it. You have to be in revolt
against Derrida, too, against anything that amounts to following a fashion
or fad.
During the Sixties, although I was eating acid like it was the Jujubees at a
Saturday Matinee, I never smeared the stinking patchouli oil on myself,
never hung a string of beads around my neck, and when I saw that every
uncool, totally hedonistic, unhip butthead from Suburbia and the English
Department was letting his hair grow down to his butt I cut mine off.
Risk, and the pleasure of it, can consist in no more than owning the kind of
opinions that cause people to blow off like this . . .
> a
> symptomatic reading of your fucked up hysterical geriatric wafer-thin
> new criterion rhetoric provides one precisely with the value in that
> which you despise.
Sounds pretty "hysterical" and "geriatric" to me. Derrida is dead and you
can't get more 'geriatric' than that. I'm still kicking with a set of ideas
that are so in revolt that it makes what Dylan said so very, very true about
"the old folk's home in the college." And that means *you*, Jack.
> and thanks for this portrayal of derrida the
> libertarian.
The what? G'wan. He was nothing but a warmed over Marxist with totalitarian
ideals of calling people crooks for enjoying the risk and pleasure of buying
something for five bucks and selling it for ten. Further, he was just
another cockamamie idealist who had swallowed a load of faux-anthropological
anaconda-twaddle which refused to recognize a distinction between savagery
and civilization. He looks with the jaundiced eye of a Jew who had been
victimized by Muslims and Christians all through his youth in North Africa,
and on that basis is ready to deny the existence of any value at all in
nearly 10 millennia of human cultural advancement. He's up there in the
Ivory Tower with the mindset of a Charles Whitman, shooting at everything
that moves.
If you think banging on a drum in the jungle is just as good as typing your
words here on Usenet, then do as Derrida said and not as he did--go down to
the Amazon and live with the Xingu tribesmen, where you can learn how wrong
Derrida really was about the use of language among those people; find out
that when they speak, they say what they mean, and mean what they say with
all the hardness and sharpness of clarity in an obsidian studded club, or a
treatise on violent revolution called Das Kapital.
The ambiguity of which Derrida is champion is nothing more than a product of
the decadence in a civilization that he and people like him utilize in order
to avoid facing what's real and true about themselves and their actions.
> whatever happened to mackie the independant brave
> maverick?!
The what? I've been called a lot of things on Usenet but that's about the
last of 'em.
> you dont mean to say hooded negro was being brave by
> serving his fellow man?! goodness me!?!?!?!
If you were of his race, would you dare show your face in public calling
yourself, "Negro"?
Yes, I call that brave. I call it revolt. I call it the true spirit of
individualism, and of refusing to be told how to talk, all the things I
admire most in my fellow man.
>and praising harry bloom
> just because of your far right politics?!
You got me way wrong on that. To entertain a risk of smashing the icons
trotted around in the charade of contemporary bourgeois liberal politics is
by no means to embrace the ritzy-butt accoutrements of the clown show going
on at the other end of the political spectrum.
If you should hear me more often in tirade against the left it is because my
bias, as an old civil rights and union supporting liberal, is to enflame my
ire to no end against those would-be comrades of faux-liberals, these
bourgeois traitors to the cause who should know better than to be forcing
people out on to the street to smoke a cigarette, tying guys in knots around
the workplace under ropes of "sexual harassment" legislation, strapping us
down against our will in the front seat of a Ford, passing laws that make a
natural human emotion such as 'hate' a crime--??
To be *liberal* means to be of a liberal mind, and that means to have a mind
that is not easily placed under bonds of other people's opinions,
prejudices, hysteria and superstition. It is to be skeptical and strictly
from Missouri when it comes to claims from biased, monkeyed with studies
from the EPA that declare tobacco to be a cause of cancer in people that
don't smoke it but just smell it--? A liberal mind just automatically is
free enough to catch a scent of insanity, of lies and superstition from such
stuff as that. And a witchhunt, a hateful form of Puritan prohibitionist
zeal is as an order of burning flesh from the hide of the Bill of Rights.
And I hate that Liberals who had always been the chief supporters of Israel
are now giving the Brutus stab to her back, and the Judas sop to her face,
to align themselves with every hooded KKK pig and skinhead clown nazi who
sings a long sad song of the self-imposed suffering of the so-called
Palestinian, a people which if they had the sense of a good upstanding
American Cherokee or Tex-Mex Chicano, would recognize a force of History
when they see it, lay down their spears and tomahawks, pick up the hammer
and plow, make peace and advance into the shared prosperity of a bright
future with their long lost Jewish cousin.
But Liberals won't let the Palestinian forget the humiliation of their own
self-imposed defeat. When in 1948 they vowed to exterminate every Jew in the
Levant, ganged up on the fledgling state with every Arab nation for a
thousand miles around, and saw the Jew was a whale of a lot tougher by
experience of a previous near-extermination, when they saw themselves being
downright miraculously brought to defeat by these hellions hot out of the
Death Camp, they got scared, and they ran like rabbits, in full memory of
their own recent threats, thinking as only a Muslim can do, that the Jew
will do unto others as others will do unto the Jew. Their leaders screamed
from the radios and in the streets that they must leave Palestine and
regroup--for the renewed and coming invasion.
Actions and choices lead to consequences, sometimes of great loss, when
great loss for the other has been the former and ongoing intent and the
cause now for their own just loss. It is not important, now for the Tex-Mex
Chicano to have his own nation in Texas and New Mexico within this nation.
It is better for him to forget any ethnic or national claims and be happy as
Americans, just as the Palestinians forgot, or never thought of such ideals
under the Arabs, Egyptians and Turks.
When a desire for national sovereignty is to go against the events of
history, against a great victory of conquest by the immigrating or invading
people, when only loss and continuing destruction, poverty and misery can
come of national aspirations, it begins to amount to nothing more than a
dirty little ego trip that gets you and yours killed and beaten all the
worse--so the Comanches and Sioux knew--why not the Arab of Greater Israel?
The Apaches and the California Chicanos, the Hawaiians and the Eskimos got
smart--what's the matter with the Palestinians? I'll tell you! it's
faux-liberal support for their crazy, unattainable ego trip from Europe and
America. That's what's wrong with the Palestinians--it's these dreamers,
these cause-happy crusaders of faux-liberal and fascist America who have to
suffer none of the consequences for the virulently malignant epidemic of
mortally deadly fantasy they inflict upon the hearts and minds of
Palestinians who vainly try in continual misery to live up to it over there.
Had all of Europe been of a similar mind to fascist and liberal America
today on the issue of American expansion into Indian lands, had France,
England and Spain been sending arms, money and expertise to the Indians for
resistance against the pioneers and the U. S. Cavalry, things would be no
different here today than they are in Israel.
Ideals! The most dangerous, anti-liberal, anti-conservative killer cursed
thing on earth.
> couldnt you be more
> original?!
But you know how Mackie tries!
> oh, mackie, so many questions and so little time!!!(???)
Ain't it the truth.
--
Mackie
http://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
"Who Did the Dahlia?"
Now On-Line -- Chapter 15: Tiger Pants
--
.............................................................
> Posted thru AtlantisNews - Explore EVERY Newsgroup <
> http://www.AtlantisNews.com -- Lightning Fast!!! <
> Access the Most Content * No Limits * Best Service <
J Seymour MacNicely
news:1171862816....@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> you're an idiot, mackie.
Oh my goodness. You carry on like somebody who just found out there's
no Santy Claus.
> everything that annoys you contains pleasure
> and risk.
How can that opinion be arrived upon from this???
> everything that you find value in is homogenous shit.
But that's what pomo is, just a highly touted passing fad like a pair
of baggy pants and a backward cap, or a string of hippie beads--or a
head full of conformist counter-culture swill that causes somebody to
think a piece of mass-produced music industry trash like "Wild
Thing" (Top Forty twaddle from the "Troggs") suddenly becomes art just
because Jimi Hendrix had the bad taste to play it at Monterrey?
If you think you're in a state of revolt by taking Derrida's delusions
to heart, baby, you couldn't be further from it. You have to be in
revolt against Derrida, too, against anything that amounts to
following a fashion or fad.
During the Sixties, although I was eating acid like it was the
Jujubees at a Saturday Matinee, I never smeared the stinking patchouli
oil on myself, never hung a string of beads around my neck, and when I
saw that every uncool, totally hedonistic, unhip butthead from
Suburbia and the English Department was letting his hair grow down to
his butt I cut mine off.
Risk, and the pleasure of it, can consist in no more than owning the
kind of opinions that cause people to blow off like this . . .
> a
> symptomatic reading of your fucked up hysterical geriatric wafer-thin
> new criterion rhetoric provides one precisely with the value in that
> which you despise.
Sounds pretty "hysterical" and "geriatric" to me. Derrida is dead and
you can't get more 'geriatric' than that. I'm still kicking with a set
of ideas that are so in revolt that it makes what Dylan said so very,
very true about "the old folk's home in the college." And that means
*you*, Jack.
> and thanks for this portrayal of derrida the
> libertarian.
The what? G'wan. He was nothing but a warmed over Marxist with
totalitarian ideals of calling people crooks for enjoying the risk and
pleasure of buying something for five bucks and selling it for ten.
Further, he was just another cockamamie idealist who had swallowed a
load of faux-anthropological anaconda-twaddle which refused to
recognize a distinction between savagery and civilization. He looks
with the jaundiced eye of a Jew who had been victimized by Muslims and
Christians all through his youth in North Africa, and on that basis is
ready to deny the existence of any value at all in nearly 10 millennia
of human cultural advancement. He's up there in the Ivory Tower with
the mindset of a Charles Whitman, shooting at everything that moves.
If you think banging on a drum in the jungle is just as good as typing
your words here on Usenet, then do as Derrida said and not as he did--
go down to the Amazon and live with the Xingu tribesmen, where you can
learn how wrong Derrida really was about the use of language among
those people; find out that when they speak, they say what they mean,
and mean what they say with all the hardness and sharpness of clarity
in an obsidian studded club, or a treatise on violent revolution
called Das Kapital.
The ambiguity of which Derrida is champion is nothing more than a
product of the decadence in a civilization that he and people like him
utilize in order to avoid facing what's real and true about themselves
and their actions.
> whatever happened to mackie the independant brave
> maverick?!
The what? I've been called a lot of things on Usenet but that's about
the last of 'em.
> you dont mean to say hooded negro was being brave by
> serving his fellow man?! goodness me!?!?!?!
If you were of his race, would you dare show your face in public
calling yourself, "Negro"?
Yes, I call that brave. I call it revolt. I call it the true spirit of
individualism, and of refusing to be told how to talk, all the things
I admire most in my fellow man.
>and praising harry bloom
> just because of your far right politics?!
You got me way wrong on that. To entertain a risk of smashing the
icons trotted around in the charade of contemporary bourgeois liberal
> couldnt you be more
> original?!
But you know how Mackie tries!
> oh, mackie, so many questions and so little time!!!(???)
Ain't it the truth.
--
Mackie
*Anarcissie*
Derrida (or any other writer) _properly_, you're probably
going to have to read the material. Blah-blah-blah just
doesn't get it. But why bother? In spite of your efforts,
you're not going to get control of the universe. No one
cares what you think of Derrida.
On Feb 18, 11:59 pm, "J Seymour MacNicely"
<mac_the_n...@bigstring.com> wrote:
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
>
> 1171808763.148403.230...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> Mackiehttp://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
CB
All that talk and nothing said. If you're going to disparage
Derrida (or any other writer) _properly_, you're probably
going to have to read the material. Blah-blah-blah just
doesn't get it. But why bother? In spite of your efforts,
you're not going to get control of the universe. No one
cares what you think of Derrida.
Well, I kind of hate to point out that you obviously care - at least enough
to respond.
But rather than ad hominem attacks on posters, why not raise the tenor of
the debate - say by telling us just what there is in Derrida (or PoMo in
general) that you find so interesting? Personally, I've found PoMo at best
to be little more than rococco to Modernism's Baroque; but more generally
the equivalent of conceptual art - something to be endured in order to
demonstrate one's committment to art (a game I have no interest in
playing..)
Cheers;
Chris
James Whitehead
"CB" <caldwell...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kklCh.8328$R71.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
it offers no teleology or meta-narrative. It can be seen in art,
architecture, culture, science, politics etc. Derrida is not the
philosopher of po-mo - but resides in an area where there once were
philosophers...as does Baudrillard who elsewhere has been discussed-
"These banal objects, technological objects, virtual objects, are the new
strange attractors , the new objects beyond aesthetics, transaesthetic,
these fetish- objects with no signification, no illusion, no aura, no value
that are the mirror of our radical disillusionment of the world. There lies
the pataphysical irony of the situation. All metaphysics is brushed aside by
this reversal of the situation where the process no longer originates with
the subject .. the object refracts the subject and subtly, using all our
technologies, imposes its presence and its aleatory form.."
>
J Seymour MacNicely
blah-blah" characterization is patently in a state of mendacious
denial of what is *right there* in front of him, as he keeps himself
(in the fatuousness of his self-esteem) hermetically sealed behind
this *outrageously aggravating* self-deluding pretence--that the text
of Derrida's drivel is not being read, here--? But what's more,
analyzed and discussed in the post to which he pretends this clownish
reply--unless, as seems just so likely, while he wallows in the
prejudice that his most peculiar conceit affords him, he simply did
not read what was written here on the subject of the "Differance"
lecture.
>
> But rather than ad hominem attacks on posters . . .
No chance! In lieu of his being in the least way literate on the
subject, of having a discipline of honest, logical argument at his
command, as he keeps this fad of postmodern babble as an inscrutable
bauble of something trendy in his velvet lined box, he doesn't want to
know that its just costume jewelry--so he screams an arrogant, self-
deluding tirade of "Who cares what you think!" Which is the closest
he can come to a reasoned discussion of the matter.
As "Anarcissie" flatters himself to be part of some sassy r.a.b.
clique--what more can you expect other than what we see, from the
face of just one more silly, short-pants hip-hoplite arrogantly
dreaming in the conceit of his fantasized standing of high rank in an
'Army of Skanks'? --Sorry, but that sounded so funny in the movie, and
what *is* the name of it? About that gaggle of high school girls--it
was on WGN just last night--a circle of snotty little rich bitches who
thought they had the run of the school? "Go away! You don't get to
eat with us!"
Anarcissie is the chubby blonde in the plaid skirt whose only talent
was that she could put her whole entire fist into her mouth. Pretty
good, eh?
> But rather than ad hominem attacks on posters, why not raise the tenor of
> the debate - say by telling us just what there is in Derrida (or PoMo in
> general) that you find so interesting? Personally, I've found PoMo at best
> to be little more than rococco to Modernism's Baroque; but more generally
> the equivalent of conceptual art - something to be endured in order to
> demonstrate one's committment to art (a game I have no interest in
> playing..)
> Cheers;
> Chris
Right ON!
--
Mackie
J Seymour MacNicely
cut from this . . .
"CB" <caldwell...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:kklCh.
8328$R71.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> +++++++++++++++++++
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1171893788.9...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> All that talk and nothing said. If you're going to disparage
> Derrida (or any other writer) _properly_, you're probably
> going to have to read the material. Blah-blah-blah just
> doesn't get it. But why bother? In spite of your efforts,
> you're not going to get control of the universe. No one
> cares what you think of Derrida.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Well, I kind of hate to point out that you obviously care - at least enough
> to respond.
But note how his bratty top-posted response, with that snotty "blah-
blah-blah" characterization is patently in a state of mendacious
denial of what is *right there* in front of him, as he keeps himself
(in the fatuousness of his self-esteem) hermetically sealed behind
this *outrageously aggravating* self-deluding pretence--that the text
of Derrida's drivel is not being read, here--? But what's more,
analyzed and discussed in the post to which he pretends this clownish
reply--unless, as seems just so likely, while he wallows in the
prejudice that his most peculiar conceit affords him, he simply did
not read what was written here on the subject of the "Differance"
lecture--?
>
> But rather than ad hominem attacks on posters . . .
No chance! In lieu of his being in the least way literate on the
subject, of having a discipline of honest, logical argument at his
command, as he keeps this fad of postmodern babble as an inscrutable
bauble of something trendy in his velvet lined box, he doesn't want to
know that its just costume jewelry--so he screams an arrogant, self-
deluding tirade of "Who cares what you think!" Which is the closest
he can come to a reasoned discussion of the matter.
As "Anarcissie" flatters himself to be part of some sassy r.a.b.
clique--what more can you expect other than what we see, from the
face of just one more silly, short-pants hip-hoplite arrogantly
dreaming in the conceit of his fantasized standing of high rank in an
'Army of Skanks'? --Sorry, but that sounded so funny in the movie, and
what *is* the name of it? About that gaggle of high school girls--it
was on WGN just last night--a circle of snotty little rich bitches who
thought they had the run of the school? "Go away! You don't get to
eat with us!" Or as he puts it, "In spite of your efforts, you're not
going to get control of the universe."
Anarcissie is the chubby blonde in the plaid skirt whose only talent
is that she can put her whole entire fist into her mouth--and still
scream! Pretty good, eh?
> But rather than ad hominem attacks on posters, why not raise the tenor of
> the debate - say by telling us just what there is in Derrida (or PoMo in
> general) that you find so interesting? Personally, I've found PoMo at best
> to be little more than rococco to Modernism's Baroque; but more generally
> the equivalent of conceptual art - something to be endured in order to
> demonstrate one's committment to art (a game I have no interest in
> playing..)
> Cheers;
> Chris
Right ON!
--
Mackie
Mani Deli
wrote:
>But rather than ad hominem attacks on posters, why not raise the tenor of
>the debate - say by telling us just what there is in Derrida (or PoMo in
>general) that you find so interesting?
Forget it! Discussing an actual artwork is a no-no for Artzy
Fartzies.
> Personally, I've found PoMo at best
>to be little more than rococco to Modernism's Baroque; but more generally
>the equivalent of conceptual art - something to be endured in order to
>demonstrate one's committment to art (a game I have no interest in
>playing..)
>Cheers;
>Chris
>
POMO is the same old Dadaist crap with a new set of fashionable
Artspeak explanations for anyone who wonders, "what is this crap?" It
employs a small amount of rich charlatans and thousands of starving
artists who just can't understand why their stuff, which is just as
stupid, doesn't make it with the richys.
No skill no art
*Anarcissie*
> +++++++++++++++++++"*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I don't particularly like Derrida, and I don't understand much
of what he wrote -- for one thing, I don't have the right kind of
education. I haven't read Heidegger, Hegel or Plato in the
original, and I'm very unlikely to start doing so any time soon.
Und so weiter. On the other hand, I am bored by people who
flaunt their ignorance, like Hooded Negro, and so I often make
fun of them in hopes of eliciting some sort of more entertaining
response. So far, not much luck. If you want an earnest
defense of Derrida, you'll have to look elsewhere.
In fact, not too long ago I was attacking Derrida in this
newsgroup. But that was on the basis of an actual text,
rather than a proud profession of ignorance and stupidity,
so it's totally in another realm.
As for _ad-hominem_, I think we're stuck with it, because
Hooded Negro and his spiritual kin make their own
self-satisfied ignorance the actual subject of their
discourse, not the alleged subject, which is dismissed
out of hand right at the beginning.
sirblob
> +++++++++++++++++++"*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171893788.9...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> All that talk and nothing said. If you're going to disparage
> Derrida (or any other writer) _properly_, you're probably
> going to have to read the material. Blah-blah-blah just
> doesn't get it. But why bother? In spite of your efforts,
> you're not going to get control of the universe. No one
> cares what you think of Derrida.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Well, I kind of hate to point out that you obviously care - at least enough
> to respond.
>
> But rather than ad hominem attacks on posters,
you utter phony. that's precisely all hn or mackie can do and what
began this thread. just because you can understand a thing doesnt make
it more than the miserable ad hominem that it is.
why not raise the tenor of
> the debate - say by telling us just what there is in Derrida (or PoMo in
> general) that you find so interesting?
it's already been done numerously by plenty of people, which you
insist with your act of reducing and misrepresenting because you can't
deal with it. two can play ping pong; pomo doesn't have to explain a
thing to you, it's you who has to explain yourself to pomo. here's a
good place to start; you, mani deli, plenty of epidermic middlebrow
aesthetics, old folk on the verge of alzheimers and little kids think
art is an accurate drawing. rather than mirroring your previous errors
with a two wrongs make a right attitude and blatantly dishonest ad
hominem, explain why you believe a drawing is art. is it your love of
the good old fashioned values of competition? were you praised as a
kid by the art teacher in the nursery?
Personally, I've found PoMo at best
> to be little more than rococco to Modernism's Baroque; but more generally
> the equivalent of conceptual art - something to be endured in order to
> demonstrate one's committment to art (a game I have no interest in
> playing..)
coming from a man of virtue denigrator of all things ad hominem, you
haven't explained a thing. no surprise. may your next post be like
your previous one. oh, and have fun watching the matrix. we both know
(?) that this latest installment in phony reconciliatory tactics was
just a provocation and another way of getting pomo on the defensive
for no reason, while insisting on the lack of any need for your own
accountability.
> Cheers;
> Chris
oh splash it on your hair, buttermilk.
sirblob
wrote:
> "sirblob" <sirbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171862816....@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > you're an idiot, mackie.
>
> Oh my goodness. You carry on like somebody who just found out there's
> no Santy Claus.
>
> > everything that annoys you contains pleasure
> > and risk.
>
> How can that opinion be arrived upon from this???
>
> > everything that you find value in is homogenous shit.
>
> But that's what pomo is, just a highly touted passing fad like a pair
> of baggy pants and a backward cap, or a string of hippie beads--or a
> head full of conformist counter-culture swill that causes somebody to
> think a piece of mass-produced music industry trash like "Wild
> Thing" (Top Forty twaddle from the "Troggs") suddenly becomes art just
> because Jimi Hendrix had the bad taste to play it at Monterrey?
>
> If you think you're in a state of revolt by taking Derrida's delusions
> to heart, baby, you couldn't be further from it. You have to be in
> revolt against Derrida, too, against anything that amounts to
> following a fashion or fad.
>
> During the Sixties, although I was eating acid like it was the
> Jujubees at a Saturday Matinee,
yeah. it shows.
pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff. you ridiculous old man.
>
> Yes, I call that brave. I call it revolt. I call it the true spirit of
> individualism, and of refusing to be told how to talk, all the things
> I admire most in my fellow man.
>
> >and praising harry bloom
> > just because of your far right politics?!
>
> You got me way wrong on that.
oh suuuuuuuuuuure. of course i have. you're a ''moderate'', a
''rationalist'', a ''libertarian'', a ''liberal'', ''enlightened'' and
the others are anti-all those cool words. the rate at which you repeat
these silly notions of all cool words belonging to you shows precisely
what a far right nutcase you are.
yeah we all know how highly the british empire felt about jewish
''resistance'' at the time. oh and those settlements in the west bank
look so cute, can't you just feel sharon being such a liberal pussy by
leaving them?
as for the rest of your tripe, it's tripe. bye bye. i'm not going to
waste anymore time on you, i still remember your views on the iraq
war...
> Mackiehttp://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
sirblob
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:42:40 GMT, "CB" <caldwell.brob...@gmail.com>
ah mani, you simple idiot. with art we created a monster that blew in
our face. the very logic in it goes against being able to define
something that is recieved as art because if it is recieved it cannot
be art since it must have been there all the time. that's why you
failed at art school.
sirblob
wrote:
> "CB" <caldwell.brob...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:kklCh.8328$R71.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>
> > +++++++++++++++++++
> > "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
nowadays, we can see ingres' influence in most tv adverts. no small
achievement.
J Seymour MacNicely
> > During the Sixties, although I was eating acid like it was the
> > Jujubees at a Saturday Matinee,
>
> yeah. it shows.
Do you wear a baseball cap? And if so, is it on your head frontwards
or back?
Or is that really not a head on your neck, but a box, a king-size
package of Post Toasties, so you got to go around with your cap on the
end of a stick?
Well, if that's how it is, Child, then how 'bout this--was there some
kind of real cool plastic toy for a prize buried down inside when you
ripped off the top of your head to expose all these flakes, or did you
have to send in that flap with a self-addressed, stamped envelope to
Battle Creek Michigan, in order to receive in three days or less, all
this way too hip kind of stuff we always see that you got?
Please try to confine your answer to twenty-five words or less.
Thank You.
--
Mackie
http://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
"Who Did the Dahlia?"
Now On-Line -- Chapter 15: Tiger Pants
"Young men are apt to think themselves wise enough, as drunken men are
apt to think themselves sober enough." --Lord Chesterfield
Mani Deli
Nothing to say as usual sirslob!
>ah mani, you simple idiot. with art we created a monster that blew in
>our face. the very logic in it goes against being able to define
>something that is recieved as art because if it is recieved it cannot
>be art since it must have been there all the time. that's why you
>failed at art school.
no skill no art
sirblob
would work if this were chesterton's age, but it's zizek's. i find the
slob touch endearing; i'll leave you to strive at your pa(i)nting.
love and kisses, sir blob.
On 20 feb, 06:39, Mani Deli <m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
CB
> I don't particularly like Derrida, and I don't understand much
> of what he wrote -- for one thing, I don't have the right kind of
> education. I haven't read Heidegger, Hegel or Plato in the
> original, and I'm very unlikely to start doing so any time soon.
> Und so weiter. On the other hand, I am bored by people who
> flaunt their ignorance, like Hooded Negro, and so I often make
> fun of them in hopes of eliciting some sort of more entertaining
> response. So far, not much luck. If you want an earnest
> defense of Derrida, you'll have to look elsewhere.
>
> In fact, not too long ago I was attacking Derrida in this
> newsgroup. But that was on the basis of an actual text,
> rather than a proud profession of ignorance and stupidity,
> so it's totally in another realm.
>
> As for _ad-hominem_, I think we're stuck with it, because
> Hooded Negro and his spiritual kin make their own
> self-satisfied ignorance the actual subject of their
> discourse, not the alleged subject, which is dismissed
> out of hand right at the beginning.
>
>
My apologies, A. FWIW, I do remember your comment (about the Enlightenment
still being with us), to which I wholly agree.
I guess one reason I found HN's comment so funny was that he quite neatly
summed up my own feelings about PoMo philosophy, after wading through more
of it than I care to admit, looking for whether there really was a there,
there (and finding none...).
Cheers;
Chris
*Anarcissie*
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Well, I found HN to be a bore.
I find some of Derrida's texts entertaining, but I don't think
I understand them in a manner which an expert would find
satisfactory. The only "postmodernist" I've actually become
annoyed with has been Kristeva, who wrote a book about
linguistics (_Le terrain inconnu_, I believe) in which she
characterized psychoanalysis, or some of its materials,
as a language. This seemed to me to indicate a profound
lack of understanding of the issues involved in linguistics.
I read the book in French, so it may be I was the one
with the profound lack of understanding. Don't think so,
though.
sirblob
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
boring. zizek and baudrillard claim to be enlightenment and get
accused of being postmodernist.
sirblob
ah you got seduced by the word ''enlightenment''. such a cool word. it
must be good. and pomo must be anti-such a cool word. dont think too
much cb
J Seymour MacNicely
117190849...@proxy02.news.clara.net...
> post-modernity is the culture in which we live - everyone - unlike modernity
> it offers no teleology or meta-narrative.
Nuts to that. There is no such thing as "post-modernity", the very
term is an oxymoron that turns against itself. It contradicts the
meaning of the word, "modern" whose root is in the Latin *modo*
meaning "in a certain manner" or "just now". As *modo* derives of
"modus" it again makes reference to 'manner' in the sense of
"fashion". In short, the term refers to how things are being done and
how they look, how they're lived: now.
So the word "modern" is best defined as "of present or recent
times" . . .
http://www.answers.com/topic/modern
Nothing can be "post" modern. And that's just what we see following
upon it: nothing. The "postmodern" is nothing. Nothing in it. Not a
damn thing there, but the total decadence of Lyotard's "meta-
narrative" which is the only meta-narrative worthy of the term.
Out of the jadedness of the so-called 'postmodern' view the only thing
which can arise is crass materialism, superficiality, narcissism and
anarchy--just as we see.
--
Mackie
http://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
"Who Did the Dahlia?"
Now On-Line -- Chapter 16: Bloody Sundown
New music: "You're My Everything" by Louie
Prima and Keely Smith
Amazing, the way Bright Eyes had come to her feet, hands at hips, eyes
a-fire and lips trembling with, "Johnny! if you don't come out from
under that woman immediately and behave yourself like a gentleman,
you'll be outside, down in the swimming pool sleeping under the
sagebrush tonight--you mark my words!"
sirblob
much fun at disneyland.
On 21 fév, 10:55, "J Seymour MacNicely" <mac_the_n...@bigstring.com>
wrote:
> "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com> wrote in message news:
>
> 1171908497.1112...@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>
> > post-modernity is the culture in which we live - everyone - unlike modernity
> > it offers no teleology or meta-narrative.
>
> Nuts to that. There is no such thing as "post-modernity", the very
> term is an oxymoron that turns against itself. It contradicts the
> meaning of the word, "modern" whose root is in the Latin *modo*
> meaning "in a certain manner" or "just now". As *modo* derives of
> "modus" it again makes reference to 'manner' in the sense of
> "fashion". In short, the term refers to how things are being done and
> how they look, how they're lived: now.
>
> So the word "modern" is best defined as "of present or recent
> times" . . .
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/modern
>
> Nothing can be "post" modern. And that's just what we see following
> upon it: nothing. The "postmodern" is nothing. Nothing in it. Not a
> damn thing there, but the total decadence of Lyotard's "meta-
> narrative" which is the only meta-narrative worthy of the term.
>
> Out of the jadedness of the so-called 'postmodern' view the only thing
> which can arise is crass materialism, superficiality, narcissism and
> anarchy--just as we see.
> --
> Mackiehttp://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
sirblob
much fun at disneyland.
On 21 fév, 10:55, "J Seymour MacNicely" <mac_the_n...@bigstring.com>
wrote:
> "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com> wrote in message news:
>
> 1171908497.1112...@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>
> > post-modernity is the culture in which we live - everyone - unlike modernity
> > it offers no teleology or meta-narrative.
>
> Nuts to that. There is no such thing as "post-modernity", the very
> term is an oxymoron that turns against itself. It contradicts the
> meaning of the word, "modern" whose root is in the Latin *modo*
> meaning "in a certain manner" or "just now". As *modo* derives of
> "modus" it again makes reference to 'manner' in the sense of
> "fashion". In short, the term refers to how things are being done and
> how they look, how they're lived: now.
>
> So the word "modern" is best defined as "of present or recent
> times" . . .
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/modern
>
> Nothing can be "post" modern. And that's just what we see following
> upon it: nothing. The "postmodern" is nothing. Nothing in it. Not a
> damn thing there, but the total decadence of Lyotard's "meta-
> narrative" which is the only meta-narrative worthy of the term.
>
> Out of the jadedness of the so-called 'postmodern' view the only thing
> which can arise is crass materialism, superficiality, narcissism and
> anarchy--just as we see.
> --
> Mackiehttp://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
> "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com> wrote in message news:
>
> 1171908497.1112...@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>
> > it offers no teleology or meta-narrative.
>
> Nuts to that. There is no such thing as "post-modernity", the very
> term is an oxymoron that turns against itself. It contradicts the
> meaning of the word, "modern" whose root is in the Latin *modo*
> meaning "in a certain manner" or "just now". As *modo* derives of
> "modus" it again makes reference to 'manner' in the sense of
> "fashion". In short, the term refers to how things are being done and
> how they look, how they're lived: now.
>
> So the word "modern" is best defined as "of present or recent
> times" . . .
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/modern
>
> Nothing can be "post" modern. And that's just what we see following
> upon it: nothing. The "postmodern" is nothing. Nothing in it. Not a
> damn thing there, but the total decadence of Lyotard's "meta-
> narrative" which is the only meta-narrative worthy of the term.
>
> Out of the jadedness of the so-called 'postmodern' view the only thing
> which can arise is crass materialism, superficiality, narcissism and
> anarchy--just as we see.
This is literally sophomoric. Years ago, before the decadence
of Usenet, those who had just heard of "postmodern" etc. at
school would pop up and inform everyone that there could be
no such thing. It would take the slower ones until their second
year to accomplish this feat. How long have you been working
on it?
Here, voices from the past....
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/postmodern-faq/
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.postmodern/msg/c3794e7788f3cc5f
James Whitehead
"J Seymour MacNicely" <mac_th...@bigstring.com> wrote in message
news:1172051755.3...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "James Whitehead" <some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote in message news:
> 117190849...@proxy02.news.clara.net...
> > post-modernity is the culture in which we live - everyone - unlike
modernity
> > it offers no teleology or meta-narrative.
>
> Nuts to that. There is no such thing as "post-modernity", the very
> term is an oxymoron that turns against itself. It contradicts the
> meaning of the word, "modern" whose root is in the Latin *modo*
> meaning "in a certain manner" or "just now". As *modo* derives of
> "modus" it again makes reference to 'manner' in the sense of
> "fashion". In short, the term refers to how things are being done and
> how they look, how they're lived: now.
>
> So the word "modern" is best defined as "of present or recent
> times" . . .
Of course you are welcome to use *your* own definitions of words- and
splendid that you base them on their etymology, unfortunately meanings
change -
e.g. "The term influenza has its origins in 15th-century Italy, where the
cause of the disease was ascribed to unfavourable astrological influences. "
So do you think and does your doctor think that when you catch the flu - its
down to planetary alignments? I dont think so - then perhaps your just being
inconsistent.
The term "modern" in the plastic arts relates to a specific period, style
and associated theories. The term here indicates that its style is not
historical in its origin - but superficially based in the "current" ...
typically scientific/industrialised/technological/rational "current" of the
20th centaury. Its a generally accepted term- again you may not like this -
but that's its use (not its meaning)
"modernism as a movement in the arts, 1929, from modern (q.v.). The word
dates to 1737 in the sense of "deviation from the ancient and classical
manner" [Johnson, who calls it "a word invented by Swift"]. It has been used
in theology since 1901."
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/modern
>
> Nothing can be "post" modern. And that's just what we see following
> upon it: nothing. The "postmodern" is nothing. Nothing in it. Not a
> damn thing there, but the total decadence of Lyotard's "meta-
> narrative" which is the only meta-narrative worthy of the term.
>
This i think is in a sense true - as i said post-modernity is empty - (in
some respects) there is now no longer any idea of teleology- your very idea
of modern meaning of "present" hides perhaps your own idea of linear time -
a beginning and an end - and a point on this line called "now" - this is
however only one idea- typical of the monotheist religions of the west. In
a Nietzschean universe the present has existed an infinite number of times
in the past and will exist - or does - an infinite number of times in the
future.
> Out of the jadedness of the so-called 'postmodern' view the only thing
> which can arise is crass materialism, superficiality, narcissism and
> anarchy--just as we see.
So what is your point - i wouldnt use your particular words - but - thats
precisely the world we have now isnt it?
crass materialism, superficiality, narcissism and anarchy- e.g. the
internet - ipods et al.
James Whitehead
in my gin......
sirblob
> year to accomplish this feat. How long have you been working
> on it?
>
> Here, voices from the past....
>
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/postmodern-faq/http://groups.google.com/group/alt.postmodern/msg/c3794e7788f3cc5f
a cursory read of those links does not prove anyone finally realising
there's no such thing as postmodernism. what's this fetish you people
with jobs have about kids in schools, anyways?
*Anarcissie*
>
> a cursory read of those links does not prove anyone finally realising
> there's no such thing as postmodernism. what's this fetish you people
> with jobs have about kids in schools, anyways?
There used to be people reading alt.postmodern who argued
that there was too such a thing as postmodernism. Some
of them seemed halfway intelligent, and they could actually
cite texts and other evidence. Needless to say, they're
long gone now.
sirblob
a postmodernist doesnt need to cite texts and be intelligent anymore
than a whatever-postmodernism-rejects-believer does. and a skim of
your links provides one with the notion that either you got the wrong
addresses or that there never was a usenet there in the first place,
hence the impossibility of its decadence.
CB
>
> The term "modern" in the plastic arts relates to a specific period, style
> and associated theories. The term here indicates that its style is not
> historical in its origin - but superficially based in the "current" ...
> typically scientific/industrialised/technological/rational "current" of
the
> 20th centaury. Its a generally accepted term- again you may not like
this -
> but that's its use (not its meaning)
> "modernism as a movement in the arts, 1929, from modern (q.v.). The word
> dates to 1737 in the sense of "deviation from the ancient and classical
> manner" [Johnson, who calls it "a word invented by Swift"]. It has been
used
> in theology since 1901."
>
Actually, you have to be rather specific w/r to what is, or isn't, modern
art, depending on the POV of whomever you are discussing it with. Many trace
the notion back to Cezanne (who is often referred to as the "Father of
Modern Art", for those who tend to base their analysis on style), while
others go back at least to Baudelaire's "The Painter of Modern Life", with
some (most notably TJ Clark), basing his analysis on contingency, go back to
David. It's a relatively arbnitrary (and vague) boundary, so it should be
treated as an assumption rather than a result in a discussion.
Personally, I go along more with Emerson (and it's an idea I think de
Kooning also subscribed to):
"Perpetual modernness is the measure of merit in every work of art."
Cheers;
Chris
James Whitehead
>
> "James Whitehead" <some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote in message
> news:117207248...@iris.uk.clara.net...
> >
> > The term "modern" in the plastic arts relates to a specific period,
style
> > and associated theories. The term here indicates that its style is not
> > historical in its origin - but superficially based in the "current" ...
> > typically scientific/industrialised/technological/rational "current" of
> the
> > 20th centaury. Its a generally accepted term- again you may not like
> this -
> > but that's its use (not its meaning)
> > "modernism as a movement in the arts, 1929, from modern (q.v.). The
word
> > dates to 1737 in the sense of "deviation from the ancient and classical
> > manner" [Johnson, who calls it "a word invented by Swift"]. It has been
> used
> > in theology since 1901."
> >
>
> Actually, you have to be rather specific w/r to what is, or isn't, modern
> art,
I think the attempt at being specific was part of a modernist objective -
which failed.
>depending on the POV of whomever you are discussing it with. Many trace
> the notion back to Cezanne (who is often referred to as the "Father of
> Modern Art", for those who tend to base their analysis on style), while
> others go back at least to Baudelaire's "The Painter of Modern Life", with
> some (most notably TJ Clark), basing his analysis on contingency, go back
to
> David. It's a relatively arbnitrary (and vague) boundary, so it should be
> treated as an assumption rather than a result in a discussion.
>
boundaries have that property -
> Personally, I go along more with Emerson (and it's an idea I think de
> Kooning also subscribed to):
> "Perpetual modernness is the measure of merit in every work of art."
>
but his paintings all looked similar?
> Cheers;
> Chris
>
>
*Anarcissie*
No one _needs_ to cite texts or be intelligent, but those
who do and are tend to produce things which for me are
more interesting to read than those who don't and aren't,
at least in the area of literary and cultural criticism. I
realize I am going against the grain in a society which
admires ignorance and stupidity, as witness the
politicians whom its people vote for, and the books
they choose to read, if they read at all.
sirblob
books? i dont agree. books are way overrated. just play call of duty 2
sirblob
> "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com> wrote in message
agh, pomo, like whatever pomo rejects, is just behaviour.
*Anarcissie*
> On 22 feb, 14:32, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > No one _needs_ to cite texts or be intelligent, but those
> > who do and are tend to produce things which for me are
> > more interesting to read than those who don't and aren't,
> > at least in the area of literary and cultural criticism. I
> > realize I am going against the grain in a society which
> > admires ignorance and stupidity, as witness the
> > politicians whom its people vote for, and the books
> > they choose to read, if they read at all.
>
> books? i dont agree. books are way overrated. just play call of duty 2
I like them.
CB
> I think the attempt at being specific was part of a modernist objective -
> which failed.
>
>
> but his paintings all looked similar?
>
To whom? And similar to what? (I hate leaving openings like that for Mani,
but oh well, so be it...).
Cheers;
Chris
Mani Deli
>mackie, i've always wamted to ask you why you neocon nazis have so
>much fun at disneyland.
>
Funny, I never wanted to ask you why you are such a stupid babbling
pompous ass.
James Whitehead
>
> "James Whitehead" <some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote in message
> news:117215006...@demeter.uk.clara.net...
> > I think the attempt at being specific was part of a modernist
objective -
> > which failed.
> >
> How so? And on what do you base the claim that it was a modenist
objective?
>
if it failed to do so then it proved its project a failure-
either way it completed art - the basis of this is in the theory of the
project - the attempt at being specific / truthfull.
Now you can see how science logic and philosophy also ended.
"What have we discovered that our generation can be proud of ?.....
Nothing!"
Lee Smolin
> >
> > but his paintings all looked similar?
> >
>
> To whom?
me
>And similar to what?
each other
Lee Smolin (born 1955 in New York City) is an American theoretical
physicist, a researcher at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics,
and an adjunct professor of physics at the University of Waterloo.
from wikipedia! The fount of all truth- you can write it yourself!
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
> "CB" <caldwell.brob...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:plkDh.9369$R71.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>
> > "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com> wrote in message
> >news:117215006...@demeter.uk.clara.net...
> > > I think the attempt at being specific was part of a modernist
> objective -
> > > which failed.
>
> > How so? And on what do you base the claim that it was a modenist
> objective?
>
> If it completed the task of specifying art - then it completed its project -
> if it failed to do so then it proved its project a failure-
> either way it completed art - the basis of this is in the theory of the
> project - the attempt at being specific / truthfull.
> Now you can see how science logic and philosophy also ended.
> "What have we discovered that our generation can be proud of ?.....
> Nothing!"
> Lee Smolin
This seems terminally separated from any world I perceive.
James Whitehead
How things "appear" these days is not as 'they' are - what appearance
represented has gone/disappeared/ended - the signifier remains and that is
all- and that is what is perceived.
(I was in a crowded gallery yesterday full of people looking at Picassos and
the like - looking for what?)
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Oh, the difference between appearance and true being! At
least that hasn't gone away, even though true being has
evaporated and appearance is fluttering in the wind!
> (I was in a crowded gallery yesterday full of people looking at Picassos and
> the like - looking for what?)
Why didn't you ask them? And what were you doing there?
James Whitehead
No no - not true being - heaven forbid - perhaps its better expressed by the
idea that there never was a signified - but that doesnt feel right - even
though it might be.
> > (I was in a crowded gallery yesterday full of people looking at Picassos
and
> > the like - looking for what?)
>
> Why didn't you ask them?
I dont think it would have been polite - they were not looking "for" but
"at"... My wife overhead that some liked a drawing of a cat - and they
appeared to want it all explained to them - this would have been cruel i
think - as just when they understood what modern art was - then one would
need to tell them this was no longer true.
>And what were you doing there?
Partly because my wife wanted to see the show - and partly because of its
title "We the moderns" http://www.kettlesyard.co.uk/
It had been an eventful morning as we passed Steven Hawking trundling up
Kings Parade - and i'm sure i should have asked him a question - but didnt.
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > On Feb 25, 3:18 am, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
> > > "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Well, what was it? You said "these days" and that what
appearance represented (past tense) has gone, etc.
(change of state). If signifiers could never signify signifieds,
nothing has been lost, and we're talking actual nonsense
anyway (since it doesn't mean anything).
> > > (I was in a crowded gallery yesterday full of people looking at Picassos
> and
> > > the like - looking for what?)
>
> > Why didn't you ask them?
>
> I dont think it would have been polite - they were not looking "for" but
> "at"... My wife overhead that some liked a drawing of a cat - and they
> appeared to want it all explained to them - this would have been cruel i
> think - as just when they understood what modern art was - then one would
> need to tell them this was no longer true.
But maybe they know what it is, and you don't.
I recall from my childhood a picture of dozens of cats in
some garage-like establishment of Picasso's. I suppose
he collected them. I wonder what happened to them.
> >And what were you doing there?
>
> Partly because my wife wanted to see the show - and partly because of its
> title "We the moderns"http://www.kettlesyard.co.uk/
>
> It had been an eventful morning as we passed Steven Hawking trundling up
> Kings Parade - and i'm sure i should have asked him a question - but didnt.
Was he going to view the Picassos? His
opinion might have been interesting.
James Whitehead
Thats a possibility - they could have figured out where modernity can still
be relevent as a theory open to further development- they may also have
found the grand unfied theory of physics. That they singled out the only
cute picture was a blind?
>
> I recall from my childhood a picture of dozens of cats in
> some garage-like establishment of Picasso's. I suppose
> he collected them. I wonder what happened to them.
>
> > >And what were you doing there?
> >
> > Partly because my wife wanted to see the show - and partly because of
its
> > title "We the moderns"http://www.kettlesyard.co.uk/
> >
> > It had been an eventful morning as we passed Steven Hawking trundling up
> > Kings Parade - and i'm sure i should have asked him a question - but
didnt.
>
> Was he going to view the Picassos? His
> opinion might have been interesting.
>
he was going in the opposite direction...
Mounard le Fuogueux
if there was never a signified then there never was a signifier either.
one becomes what one is.
Mounard le Fuogueux
> if there was never a signified then there never was a signifier either.
>
> one becomes what one is.
>
>>
>>
James Whitehead
"Mounard le Fuogueux" <Blinkin...@NonEventHorizon.com> wrote in message
news:45E42870...@NonEventHorizon.com...
> > No no - not true being - heaven forbid - perhaps its better expressed by
the
> > idea that there never was a signified - but that doesnt feel right -
even
> > though it might be.
>
> if there was never a signified then there never was a signifier either.
>
yes and no - as in the earth was never flat...
certainly there are signs - but that's all....
Mounard le Fuogueux
When we dream, surely we see signs. Do we not really dream of ourselves?
Are we not really a sign ourselves? Is not the signified the signifier?
Is not our culture a dream? Do we not go to museums to dream? Of ourselves?
In Hindu theology, when Brahman stops dreaming, the Universe of
Universes dissappears.
In the limited capacity of free will we all supposedly have, we select
which one of our future selves we want to be, and our present self is
the intereference of all past and possible future selves.
In the eternal return of the same, we become what we are. I prefer the
formulation - "we are what we become".
Time is the movement of signifier to signifier; from self to self - the
cycling of the eternal return of the same. the endless procreation of
ourselves through time.
James Whitehead
"Mounard le Fuogueux" <Blinkin...@NonEventHorizon.com> wrote in message
> James Whitehead wrote:
> > "Mounard le Fuogueux" <Blinkin...@NonEventHorizon.com> wrote in
message
> > news:45E42870...@NonEventHorizon.com...
> >
> >>>No no - not true being - heaven forbid - perhaps its better expressed
by
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>idea that there never was a signified - but that doesnt feel right -
> >
> > even
> >
> >>>though it might be.
> >>
> >>if there was never a signified then there never was a signifier either.
> >>
> >
> >
> > yes and no - as in the earth was never flat...
> > certainly there are signs - but that's all....
> >
> >
>
> When we dream, surely we see signs.
When we dream - we may dream someone is talking to us - yet how can that
be - how can in a dream someones conversation surprise us - how can in a
dream someone communicate with us- if its ourself which is dreaming... how
is it this self can keep secrets from itself in a dream?
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
> ...
> When we dream - we may dream someone is talking to us - yet how can that
> be - how can in a dream someones conversation surprise us - how can in a
> dream someone communicate with us- if its ourself which is dreaming... how
> is it this self can keep secrets from itself in a dream?
>
One theory is that there are actually many mental persons in
each physical person, one, the personality of waking life, being
normally dominant and keeping the others suppressed or aligned
to its world-view, perceptions, will and so forth. In sleep the grip
of the dominant is somewhat relaxed and the others -- who have
different thoughts, perceptions and experiences -- are allowed
to speak to one another. This seems to be necessary since
people deprived of dreaming become psychotic (supposedly).
Don Tuite
wrote:
Somewhere in there, there is lurking a variation on the old "The
peasants are revolting" joke, but I'm damned if I can make it come out
right. I may have to dream the joke.
Don
Mounard le Fuogueux
Don Tuite
<Blinkin...@NonEventHorizon.com> wrote:
>Don Tuite wrote:
>> Somewhere in there, there is lurking a variation on the old "The
>> peasants are revolting" joke, but I'm damned if I can make it come out
>> right. I may have to dream the joke.
>>
>> Don
>>
>describe what you dreamed last night.
I was a self-propelled marble on a Chinese checker board and I could
not get any of the other marbles to cooperate and array themselves in
a zig-zag pattern that would allow me to jump them and land at the
apex of the diametrically opposite triangle. It was frustrating
because I could only make oblique suggestions to them, rather than
order them to go here or go there. And they kept insisting that they
weren't marbles and that there was no Chinese checker board, and that
even if there were a Chinese checker board, I had no right to order
them about or even make oblique suggestions.
So I complained to God and it picked me up and put me in the hole at
the apex of the opposing triangle and I was very bored after that and
the other marbles either didn't notice where I was or care that I was
the beneficiary of divine intervention.
Now I recognize that all the holes in the Chinese checker board are
bodily orifices, and that the "it" God is a castrated version of my
father, but what troubles me most is that I don't remember ever
playing Chinese checkers in my waking life.
Don
Mounard le Fuogueux
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:53:28 -0500, Mounard le Fuogueux
> <Blinkin...@NonEventHorizon.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Don Tuite wrote:
>
>
>>>Somewhere in there, there is lurking a variation on the old "The
>>>peasants are revolting" joke, but I'm damned if I can make it come out
>>>right. I may have to dream the joke.
>>>
>>>Don
>>>
>>
>>describe what you dreamed last night.
>
>
> I was a self-propelled marble on a Chinese checker board and I could
> not get any of the other marbles to cooperate and array themselves in
> a zig-zag pattern that would allow me to jump them and land at the
> apex of the diametrically opposite triangle.
So the "I" wasn'nt really you, was it. It was a "fictional" I. A "3rd
person" "I". a third I. All "I"'s are fictional.
> It was frustrating
> because I could only make oblique suggestions to them, rather than
> order them to go here or go there. And they kept insisting that they
> weren't marbles and that there was no Chinese checker board, and that
> even if there were a Chinese checker board, I had no right to order
> them about or even make oblique suggestions.
>
> So I complained to God and it picked me up and put me in the hole at
> the apex of the opposing triangle and I was very bored after that and
> the other marbles either didn't notice where I was or care that I was
> the beneficiary of divine intervention.
>
> Now I recognize that all the holes in the Chinese checker board are
> bodily orifices, and that the "it" God is a castrated version of my
> father, but what troubles me most is that I don't remember ever
> playing Chinese checkers in my waking life.
Sorry Charlie. According to pomo doctrime, here can be no appeal to
objective metanarratives or transcendental signifieds'. Therefore dreams
don't have a "meaning" - the dream just keeps going on. There is no
final awakening.
The idea that "God" is a castrated version of your father doesn't expose
the "True Meaning" of the dream - its just another dream. All inanimate
objects dream of being animate, Gods dream of their creations and
androids dream of electric sheep.
>
> Don
>
*Anarcissie*
Seems to me you're the one with the metanarrative.
Mounard le Fuogueux
Sometimes a metanarrative is just a metanarrative...