The subject is interpolated into a neostructural situationism that includes truth as a totality. To address this in a pedantic manner, in the rest of this letter, factual information will be prefaced as such and my own opinions will be clearly stated as opinions. For instance, it is unmistakably a fact that CNN can get away with lies e. Not one person in a hundred will actually check out the facts for himself and discover that CNN is lying.
To pass off all sorts of raucous and obviously flagitious stuff on others as a so-called "inner experience" has never been something that I myself wanted to do. I wish malicious power brokers had the gumption not to feature simplistic answers to complex problems. Let me recap that for you, because it really is extraordinarily important: When one examines the ramifications of letting CNN take rights away from individuals on the basis of prejudice, myth, irrational belief, inaccurate information, and outright falsehood, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that it is extraordinarily brazen.
We've all known that for a long time. However, CNN's willingness to pose a threat to personal autonomy and social development sets a new record for brazenness. The foregoing greatly simplifies the real situation, but it does indicate in a rough, general way that CNN's intent is to prevent us from asking questions. It doesn't want the details checked.
It doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts it presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of its "facts" are false. Let me conclude by saying that we who want to take up the all-encompassing challenge of freedom, justice, equality, and the pursuit of life with full dignity will not rest until we do. Why do you have a complaint about my company on your Web page?
Ah thowt ah was a readin' somepin from the New York Review of Books! Land o' Goshen, how them ree-vuers carry on! They given me a haidache-even whin ah'm wearin' mah foil-lined Deerstalker cap!
Mah older bro,he's kinda Progressive? Ah done sent 'im a copy a that-there website. He gonna be pissed whin he figgers out he's bin dissed! This random generator nailed Hillary perfectly!!! As poorly qualified as I am to reinforce the contentions of all reasonable people and confute those of unrestrained spongers, I hope you will bear with me while I begin this sincere and earnest attempt. And please don't get mad with me if, in doing so, I must question authority. To begin with, there is still hope for our society, real hope -- not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of feckless rascals especially the feral type , but the hope that makes you eager to lead Sen.
Hillary Clinton out of a dream world and back to hard reality. She has done inestimable damage to everything around her.
But the problems with her complaints don't end there. This is not wild speculation. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is documented fact. Though many people agree that we must work together against Stalinism, quislingism, favoritism, etc. Clinton does not merely leave a large part of this country's workforce dislocated and disillusioned. She does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. We find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that communism is a noble goal. But, for us, what does this general relativity represent, the one that is the law outside of the nuclear power plants and that questions our bodily inertia, vital necessary condition?
Is she making serious arguments from a PM feminists perspective or is she making another one of her jokes? I think the problem might be with your sense of humour… Or that I had to explain the joke — that often kills it. Jokes are only funny when you grasp them intuitively…. Joke — well, okay its a little more than a joke. Being one of the leading shrinks in France I assume that she gets a lot of intellectuals coming to her with their Daddy issues or whatever. You might start with nuclear physics and end up with semen.
It has nothing to do with nuclear power plants. The whole exercise is pathetic. Its a bunch of elitist scientists trying to protect their elite knowledge. Because to do so would be to take a bit of air their over-inflated egos. Good fucking luck doing that. I admit I rushed the reading of that quote. But the statement is still incorrect. General relativity still incorporates special relativity, which I can safely assume she refers to as the law in nuclear power plants.
What does she mean when she says.. Then they mask this all behind some supposed reverence to science. Like just there. Go on a fundamentalist Christian site and start an argument about just about anything. Look I can do this with physics quotes:. Oh look — this is remarkably difficult to understand because its torn out of context.
This I consider a pathetic exercise. Do you think that you were not being personal when you asked if I was blind or illiterate? I was not insinuating anything, I was asking you if you had a chip on your shoulder, I was not telling you that you had. How about a games section Bock, Tetris? Again, no… you thought she was serious.
It is this courts contention that you are taking this action in bad faith. The court believes that you are not out seeking truth or justice but have taken offense at something Ms. Irigaray has said and are now launching an attack upon her character. Irigaray is sometimes joking and sometimes not. You are taking what she says at face value — that is your mistake.
If you continue to do this there is no point in taking your argument seriously. All I can advise you to do is to work on your sense of humour and your feel of irony and double-meaning — read some poetry or something.
The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this. The Postmodernism Generator is a computer program that automatically produces close imitations of postmodernist writing. It was written in by Andrew C. Bulhak of Monash University using the Dada Engine, a system for generating random text from recursive grammars. The essays are produced from a formal grammar defined by a recursive.
So they are theories now, not jokes? Is she making a joke or a serious interpretation? Which is it and how do you know which one it is? No, I was pointing out other instances where she was talking shit. As I said above, that quote was still incorrect, even if I did originally take it out of context. If Irigaray ever releases a joke book let me know.
Well child me up. For the last time: some are theoretical statements — some are meant in irony. THAT is like something a child would ask. How does anyone know anything is ironic? By a knowledge of the material psychoanalysis, linguistics etc. As to your being unable to find anything on Irigaray and irony, you must be fairly inept at using Google. Since my earliest years, hardly a morning has passed without me wondering what I could do to discredit Luce Irigaray. My father was the same.
He never ceased plotting her downfall. Is Bock being ironic? How can I tell? Want the google link for that? Why is debate always personal? Irigaray should have stuck to simple psycho babble oops sorry bad faith coming through , as any ironic theoretical comparisons to Einstein are nonsensical to the field of psychoanalysis because:. Would you like a wikipedia link to explain how irony works? Try Erikson too..
You are a monkey-brained fool who cannot articulate himself properly. Your best post so far has been a crude attempt at mimicking me is there a compliment implicit there? I know how irony works… I was being ironic. Awe shucks Phil, my knees are wobbling here with the thrill of your attention. Too kind of you to take the time to reply. Did you say nuance.. I think you meant nuisance. FME — Plonker hurt… but those pathetic plays on words… they just finished me. After hearing you speak your meaningless drivel I no longer want to live — seriously its meaningless, read what you said again:.
An ape. A big hairy ape with a small brain. By the way, I thought Tesco made their full-timers work Saturdays. Are you pulling a sickie? Where did I say this? Not content with reading my mind, putting words in my mouth you are now making up quotes. Will I take it that all of her critiques of science are jokes?
As for the malicious intentions, I was just adding to the debate but it does seem like everyone is out to get you. Are you now berating me for not taking you at face value? Forgetting the fact that you were trying to tell me that it was my mistake for taking her at face value at comment As for asking questions, whats wrong with that, unless there is something wrong with the answer.
If I was in court, bad faith…is this the court where you are the judge as above?! But of course I said that her jokes were ironic, so…. I maintain that she is joking. I gave you a link which explains that postmodernists often use irony.
What can I do? These are the best facts I have…. For the last time: no one is out to get me, but you do — from your previous arguments — seem intent on taking Irigaray down a notch.
Are you denying this? Awe sorry Phil.. You no longer want to live. Hang out at those fundamentalist Christian sites you mentioned a while longer. FME — Do you know what the funniest thing about you is? I really am a big hairy ape that acquired the ability to type.. I told you I learned it at Uni.. Stick to the humour from the likes of Irigaray Phil. Why have you conflated them? To score cheap points? There were no facts in this discussion — only opinions and interpretations. A fact goes something like: the sky is blue. And opinion more like: I think Irigaray was being serious.
So where are the facts?
Or is this just another cheap rhetorical trick? You have your opinion I have mine. If its tongue in cheek so be it. Any and every kind of charlatan should be exposed. I use good faith sparingly Phil, in everyday life. If something is out of place or missing I am immediately suspicious, whatever the claims in the abstract. There are people out there who will make a claim and lie about the evidence. Whatever the agenda. Opinion: Phil is in fact an idiot. Fact: Phil is an idiot.. Proof: Context of original post and the subsequent comments from Phil. Irigaray is a follower of the psychoanalyst Lacan.
Lacan often parodied science in his lectures. I believe that Irigaray — being a follower of Lacan — follows him in this respect. Now, Lacan said it a few times directly on record if you will. If you want total proof go to a library and pick up the book. Best I can do. I got the copying and pasting after much repetition on year four I think it was Phil, when did you get it down? EIther contribute to the conversation or piss off will you? Piss off you say.. And since you seem to be remarkably common I thought you might understand it.
You seem to like this type of idiom. You could probably succeed in driving someone mad if you were left with them long enough. Awe shucks Phil.. I wonder who decided piss was even a word? Who decided it was therefore a noun and not a verb at the given moment they came up with it? Think about that one Phil. To urinate is actually a verb you twit. Urine is a noun. So you mean to say I should go urine off is it? Audience shouts..
But still congratulations. You win. Piss is, in fact, also a verb. Give him a hand everyone. Gold star. Piss is a verb and a noun. My little thought experiment?.. Might be new to you though. Now I have to go and hang out with my other monkey friends and pollute my brain with as much alcohol as possible so I can try to forget this conversation.
Phil, the majority of your references are from Wikepedia, do you imagine that any academic would accept references from Wikepedia in any paper? If so, why do you continue to reference Wikipedia? I only ask this because you seem happy to assume the mantle of academia to lend more weights to your thoughts. You state that Irigaray is being ironic. Triple points if you can find a reference where she states directly that she was being ironic in the sense you say she was. Maybe she even sent you an email saying that she was being ironic here?
I only ask this because you seem happy to assume the mantle of academia to lend more weight to your thoughts. As you are more than happy to quote psychoanlaytic theory, are you aware of the concept of projection? Because to me it seems to a layman like me, that a lot of your posts, especially aimed at FME, exhibit this tendency. FME — Alcohol? No way… Cool man!
Because getting drunk is cool, right? Hey man, do you do drugs too? Because drugs are cool, man. But good one. Incidentally, can I call your integrity into question for a moment? Why do you stragtegically align yourself with idiots when it suits, while denouncing this to no end in your posts? Read the comments policy. It applies to you the same as everyone else. Debate in an adult way. No more calling people idiots and fools.
People are free to rant and rave here as much as they like, including the use of whatever vulgar and foul language takes their fancy. They can make sweeping generalisations, pass offensive remarks and fling derogatory comments of any kind whatsoever, as long as those derogatory comments are aimed at the content and not at the people themselves.
Show some respect and play the ball not the man. I will put forward the notion of compactness. Nothing is more compact than a fracture; clearly, the intersection of everything that closes being admitted as existing on an infinite number of sets, it follows that the intersection implies this infinite number. It is the very definition of compactness. Perhaps, but one is then left wondering why their writings are so stupefyingly boring. More tellingly, if they are only joking around, why do they react with such shrieks of dismay when somebody plays a joke at their expense. The genesis of Intellectual Impostures was a brilliant hoax perpetrated by Alan Sokal, and the stunning success of his coup was not greeted with the chuckles of delight that one might have hoped for after such a feat of deconstructive game playing.
Post-modernists use a language that no-one else understands. Also, whether there is anything to truly understand in any of the kind of language it seems you defend, such understanding nevertheless contributes nothing of value to the world. In other words, if it forms any cogent part of any whole, the whole itself is useless.
The world would not miss it if it simply ceased to exist, and I for one would be overjoyed. Or we should. I read Heidegger in the context of a Philosophy seminar and frankly it helps having access to secondary sources for help. On a more positive note, Heidegger has only been called postmodernist in retrospect.
At the time he was producing these essays and writings, there was no postmodernist jargon to lean on. So his writings are pleasantly free of words that only help to obscure. Can you point to any philosophy papers that are useful?
I'll admit to throwing a paper out the window for including the phrase "occluded feminine matrix", but I expect things I haven't studied to be hard to understand. Focusing in computer science has some unexpected dividends in related fields math, physics, even economics , but that doesn't mean every field must have synergy with our career choice. Is the idea that postmodern literary criticism is hard to read because we're untrained really that toxic? I have a graduate degree in literature and, for what it's worth, can assure you that even with years of training I find a lot of that stuff unintelligible.
At the time it struck me as a classic emporer's-new-clothes situation. I would occasionally amuse myself by tossing out completely bogus sentences that sounded just like, say, Derrida, and watch people nod vacuously.
That being said, I applaud your open-mindedness. Postmodern criticism is full of the most unbelievable bullshit, but in retrospect I'm no longer willing to dismiss the whole thing. This sympathy would probably instantly vaporize if I were forced to read those papers again, mind you. But I've learned about two things in the meantime that are reminiscent of postmodernism and which I do take seriously. There are a great many such findings and from what I've gleaned, they consistently refute our concept of ourselves as rational actors making controlled decisions as we move through objective reality.
I'm still waiting for someone to write a good general survey of this material. There's a crying need for one, though it might not be very popular. The other is the history of religious and spiritual ideas, which I was astonished to find contain many of the same teachings about how our identities are constructed and conditioned.
If you read any Vedantic literature, for example, the first thing you run across is "you are not who you think you are". Similar concepts are found in Western traditions. This skepticism about the artifacts of the conditioned mind is very postmodern in a way. But there is also a profound difference: while spiritual teachings are all about connection with something beyond mental constructs, the postmodernists deny any such beyond.
Regardless of one's position on religion etc. It's inevitable that you end up with a profusion of arbitrary language, a.