Wacky Wednesday Weading: Yesterday was Tuesday

Consensuses of Absurdity: Neodialectic textual theory in the works of Gibson

1. Gibson and subcapitalist capitalism

“Narrativity is part of the dialectic of reality,” says Bataille. It could be said that if cultural modernism holds, we have to choose between constructive Marxism and Derridaist reading. Reicher[1] implies that the works of Gibson are modernistic.

In the works of Gibson, a predominant concept is the distinction between figure and ground. However, several theories concerning neodialectic textual theory exist. Debord uses the term ‘constructive Marxism’ to denote not materialism, as Derrida would have it, but submaterialism.

It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a cultural modernism that includes art as a reality. If neodialectic textual theory holds, we have to choose between cultural modernism and dialectic capitalism.

Thus, the characteristic theme of the works of Gibson is the common ground between class and sexual identity. The subject is interpolated into a presemioticist theory that includes narrativity as a paradox.

It could be said that Marx’s model of constructive Marxism states that the task of the poet is significant form. Any number of sublimations concerning not theory, but neotheory may be revealed.

Therefore, Bataille uses the term ‘cultural modernism’ to denote a mythopoetical whole. Many narratives concerning neodialectic textual theory exist.

2. Constructive Marxism and dialectic deconstruction

The primary theme of la Fournier’s[2] critique of postconceptualist Marxism is the role of the artist as writer. In a sense, Geoffrey[3] implies that we have to choose between dialectic deconstruction and submaterialist rationalism. The premise of neodialectic textual theory holds that sexuality has intrinsic meaning.

If one examines constructive Marxism, one is faced with a choice: either reject dialectic deconstruction or conclude that the Constitution is capable of intention. Therefore, Debord uses the term ‘constructive Marxism’ to denote the failure, and some would say the absurdity, of cultural sexual identity. Lyotard suggests the use of dialectic deconstruction to read language.

It could be said that neodialectic textual theory suggests that culture may be used to disempower the underprivileged, given that art is distinct from truth. Any number of theories concerning the bridge between sexual identity and society may be found.

In a sense, Sontag’s essay on dialectic deconstruction states that sexual identity, ironically, has significance. If posttextual narrative holds, we have to choose between neodialectic textual theory and capitalist prepatriarchialist theory.

Thus, constructive Marxism implies that discourse comes from the masses, but only if Marx’s model of neodialectic textual theory is valid; if that is not the case, Lyotard’s model of structural materialism is one of “Marxist class”, and thus elitist. Lacan uses the term ‘dialectic deconstruction’ to denote not dematerialism, as neodialectic textual theory suggests, but postdematerialism.

3. Gibson and dialectic deconstruction

The characteristic theme of the works of Gibson is the failure, and subsequent fatal flaw, of neopatriarchialist class. Therefore, the main theme of d’Erlette’s[4] essay on neodialectic textual theory is the difference between society and class. Several desublimations concerning constructive Marxism exist.

In a sense, the subject is contextualised into a posttextual socialism that includes reality as a totality. The premise of constructive Marxism holds that culture is intrinsically responsible for capitalism.

But Parry[5] implies that we have to choose between dialectic deconstruction and the conceptual paradigm of consensus. Foucault uses the term ‘precultural dialectic theory’ to denote the paradigm, and some would say the stasis, of neocapitalist sexual identity.

Thus, the subject is interpolated into a dialectic deconstruction that includes art as a reality. Bataille uses the term ‘constructive Marxism’ to denote the role of the participant as reader.

1. Reicher, M. (1971) Constructive Marxism, libertarianism and the pretextual paradigm of expression. Cambridge University Press

2. la Fournier, Y. W. B. ed. (1993) The Absurdity of Society: Constructive Marxism in the works of Fellini. Oxford University Press

3. Geoffrey, R. I. (1981) Constructive Marxism and neodialectic textual theory. Panic Button Books

4. d’Erlette, Y. ed. (1995) Structural Theories: Neodialectic textual theory in the works of Tarantino. And/Or Press

5. Parry, E. I. (1984) Constructive Marxism in the works of Rushdie. Yale University Press

List Tuesday: I'm Your Charity Case

Potential Purposes Behind Nefarious Chemtrails

1. "To implement the New World Order (NWO) by eliminating society s "useless eaters" and the infirm and/or to reduce the population to a support level for the 'elite'". [source]


2. To block out the sun with the aim of reducing global warming. [source]
   


3. Weather control/cloud control


4. Top Secret Next Generation quantum computing communication encryption technology [source] UPDATE: LINK REMOVED BY DARPA


5. Radar Visualization Project


6. An addictive chemical that makes you crave for it nightly [source]


7. Mind control causing many to purchase vast amounts of gifts and other commercial goods to bestow upon family and friends around December 25th. [source]

If you would like more details on any of these possibilities, please contact me using your personal 128 bit PGP encryption key on my website here. .mil readers will be forbidden, man.

Random Picture Friday: 'Cause Worryin's a Waste of My Time

Pictures with no commentary.


Wait, just a little commentary. That guy on the left in picture one is a huge dude. I think his hair only makes it worse.

Sometimes It's Harder to Leave

So, I haven't been writing much around here lately. That's because I'm working on other things having to do with this blog, like making new logos, see?



That's way more fun anyway. But I'm not done yet either. I'm categorizing all my posts and such so there may not be much new in the next week or so. I'm just saying.

Also, if you subscribe to my RSS feed (I know there's at least 1 (or 25%) of you that do), well, HA HA HA HA HA!

Loaded Like A Freight Train

Welcome to the (not)ALL-NEW A Ton of Bricks!

The content is the same, but the look is slightly different!

You know us:

form before function.
style before substance.
looks before learning.
trends before tradition.

Bad Photoetry Thursday: I Miss the Firefight

Click pictures for source

We Take it Day By Day

There comes a time in every man's life in which he must needs pick a conspiracy theory to espouse. That time is now. That man is me. But I don't know what conspiracy theory to believe in. Also, the options aren't looking good.

1. 9/11 Conspiracies: I'm on record as thinking these are a load of internet crap. Literally. I don't believe that they are created by any individual but instead by the internet itself as it continuously devours and digests all that information. 9/11 conspiracies are the sold waste product of that process (aka: poop). MySpace is the liquid waste product.



2. Zionist Global Domination: Historically, the grandaddy of them all, plus believing in it would put me in the same raft as Kareem-Abdul Admindenihajabidad or whatever that Iranian guy is called. He is a world-class conspiratist. Still, it doesn't scream "21st century!!!one!!" loudly enough. More like "16th century."



3. Peak Oil Apocalypticism: Oooh, this one is very appealing. Imminent (but not too close) destruction of our way of life, oil company bashing, middle east involvement, the Bushes, nuclear war, this one really has it all. But I've got no faith in it. There are too many people with too much money riding on this to have it come true. THEY won't let it happen.



4. AIDS was created in a Lab to control the black population. By the CIA: Patently absurd. Which makes it a perfect conspiracy actually. Nah, too weird for my tastes. And too loaded with racial stuff. I'm on record as not believing in the existence of races.



5. The Moon Landing Never Happened, Man: If there hadn't been a movie (starring The Juice, by the way) made about something really similar, this would be it. But there was. So it's not.



6. The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy: You know, how all all airplane manufacturers make the right wing slightly heavier than the left which in turn actually affects the rotation of the earth so that more sunlight hours are given to solar power stations run by Halliburton.



7. Chemtrails: Yep. This is it. I will become a dyed-in-the-wool chemtrail apologist. What's not to like?
   
   
   • Chemicals of unknown origin and purpose? CHECK
   
   
   • Potential mind control by powers unknown? CHECK
   
   
   • Involvement by the Japanese mafia, also known as the Yakuza? PROBABLY
   
   
   • Wikipedia entry to which I can point unbelievers (to have them thoroughly convinced that I am definitively wrong? DOUBLE CHECK.
   
   
   • And last, but certainly not least, websites devoted to LETTING THE MASSES SEE FOR THEMSELVES with unsubstantiated rumors/claims and only slightly modified pictures? CHECK MATE!
   
   

Also, please note that I am done delaying the obvious (thanks Rusty) in that my next twelve (inclusive of this one) post titles will be quotations from GnR's fantastic Appetite for Destruction album

Not Lost, But Gone Before

I don't know how to say this, but, well, this post is going to be brief reviews of stuffs. I can't rob you of that.

Paul Simon - Surprise: YAY! A new Paul Simon album! Boo. It kind of stinks. He's an old dude trying to sound "relevant." That's never going to end well. Plus, Paul Simon and electronica are != unsucky. However, there is one song called "How Can You Live in the Northeast?" Amen Paul. Two months and I am outta here.

The Who - The Endless Wire: Yay! A new Who album! They're old dudes NOT trying to be really relevant. It ends pretty well. I mean, this is no Who's Next, but come on, what is? Plus, there's a line in "The Mike Post Theme" that goes like this, it goes: "There comes a time in every little punks life when he has to write a song for his common law wife." Brilliant songwriting. Plus it comes with a bonus DVD that I'll never watch. Plus it has a tri-fold case which is cool. Plus it weighs less than a regular CD because it's printed on paper. Plus, when you play it backwards it synchronizes exactly with The Wizard of Oz played backwards starting from the point where Dorothy meets the Wizard. Neither one makes any sense whatsoever!

Little Miss Sunshine: I laughed. I cried. I hurled.

Oh wait, no, that was Wayne's World. This one there was no hurling. It was pretty good with funny parts and sad parts and maybe superfluous parts (the part with the cop) a some neo-neo-realistic parts. But that's just my opinion. Here is the opinion of this other dude (it's always a dude) on Amazon dot com ("It's dot net!") presented in its beautiful entirety. Best. Amazondotcomreview. Evearh. With. Added. Links.

The cognoscenti of today's cultural mafia would have us believe - once again, at the risk of our otherwise being branded as rank philistines - that this is a brilliant movie, one that cuts right through the muck and unmasks reality without restraint (we've now got to "keep it real" at all costs, and of course restraint is most unfashionable). Yet Little Miss Sunshine is actually no more than another tired exercise in postmodernist banality, and it couldn't be less authentic. Inauthenticity in the name of authenticity is the real order of day (e.g., the tattoo phenomenon; Oprahism). Really, hasn't this juvenile drivel become boring yet? Apparently not to most. We now live in a state of mass permanent adolescence where entertainment capacity is the supreme measure of value. Friends, the Brave New World is indeed upon us. Little Miss Sunshine is thus certain to win Oscar gold, or at least garner some nominations. Yes, it's come to this, it's that dreadful.

I suspect that many profess to like this movie for the sole reason that they feel obligated to like it. One must give our cognoscenti and their dictatorship of relativism credit: they've convinced the many that there is really no better and worse, but only difference. There is no truth, only opinion. Thus all becomes equally worthy of celebration, including dysfunction. Here we see some of this regime's diabolical mendacity, for sickness requires treatment, not applause.

Having been instructed that this is a wonderful movie, I rented the DVD and dutifully performed the familiar ritual of this Brave New World: I pressed Play. Less than two minutes passed before I divined exactly what this movie would be, what pseudo-philosophy drives it. This is how transparent today's deconstructionist dross has become for those with eyes to see.

As a grad student, I lived in a house where the owner rented out every room. Over several years, three film students lived there. Through them, I was exposed to many more film students of both the undergrad and grad student variety. Almost without exception, all of them were entirely vacuous (this extraordinary correlation between film students and vacuity must remain a subject for another time). Is it even necessary at this point to mention that virtually all of them subscribed to today's reigning orthodoxy - that is, almost all of them were faithful subjects of today's dictatorship of relativism and had absorbed (consciously or unconsciously, usually unconsciously) its adolescent pseudo-philosophy of postmodernism/deconstructionism with its cheapened pre-Socratic flux worldview? They were also very chic, in today's shameless vulgarian sort of way of course. For example, virtually all of them had at least one tattoo (a herd of "individuals"!), and all felt that they were eminently authentic (ah yes, "authenticity" - got to "keep it real"). In short, they were all very fashionably ironic, yet blissfully unaware of the depths - rather, the shallows - of their irony.

Why do I mention these film students? Because Little Miss Sunshine reeks not only of today's chic pseudo-philosophical adolescent barbarity, but also of amateurism (some cinematic antidotes: the films of Bresson, Bergman, Kurosawa, and Tarkovsky - here there are truly authentic depths).

The characters are completely typical of this slick amateurism's taste for decay:

-Son: a 15-year-old waifish (thus fashionably effeminate) caricature of a Nietzschean who's taken a vow of silence until he enters flight school as a means (obviously, though unstated in the movie) of exercising his frustrated will to power. (This caricature, incidentally, is yet another slap to Nietzsche's face born of a typically superficial (mis)understanding of his philosophy - Nietzsche would despise him and his creators).

-Uncle: A suicidal homosexual Proust scholar. Very likeable, of course, among the least repulsive of the characters.

-Grandfather: An unbridled vulgarian and heroin addict. The sum total of his life's wisdom? "F**k as many women as you can," he instructs his pseudo-Nietzschean grandson. I kid you not.

-Father: A failed motivational speaker. Of course, we're meant to note the tremendous - tremendous! - irony in the relationship between his Oprahist self-esteem program and his wreck of a life. (Incidentally, have you noticed how some form of Oprahism is now almost unavoidable in every field? In religion, syncretism and ecumenism; in education, self-esteem building, etc. etc. etc.)

-Mother: A somewhat rode-hard-and-put-up-wet shell of a woman who can barely contain her disdain for her husband. A rather defeated and ghostly figure, though with (ironically!) some semblance of her maternal instincts intact.

-Daughter: The one character whom the filmmakers would have us believe is unstained by the dysfunction in which she's immersed. She has a wonderful smile, likes ice cream, wears nerdy glasses, and is pudgy - thus in the abyssmal world of this film, on these bases alone she qualifies as Little Miss Sunshine (these flimsy bases subtly indicate this film's rank poverty, by the way). Yet - ironically! - even this seemingly angelic figure also reeks of the odor of corruption: She's attracted to the wildly twisted world of beauty pageants populated by prepubescent girls made-up and dressed as adolescent strumpets (the filmmakers obviously wished to evoke JonBenet Ramsey here - nothing is sacred). What's Little Miss Sunshine's dance routine music, inspired by her vulgarian grandfather? Superfreak by Rick James, the magnum opus that famously captures Mr. James at the height of his poetic artistry: "She's a very kinky girl / The kind you don't take home to mother." No need to describe the predictably salacious gyrations this artistry inspires in Little Miss Sunshine. But wait - most ironically! - her filthy routine ignites a scandal at the pageant, itself a model of sanctimonious filth!

Dysfunction, disorder all around. Yes, very fashionable. No, not at all cutting edge; to be on the cutting edge today actually requires a complete rejection of all of this nonsense.

Just what is all this? Is it simply meant to entertain us? I have no doubt that to get themselves off the hook, the filmmakers would say so. After all, in the Brave New World, this alone is a sufficient ground to serve up any kind of dreck at all. But is it really possible that a movie suffused with so much dysfunction, so much existential disorder and confusion, all presented as comedic, isn't meant to communicate something more than mere entertainment? Do you know anyone with such a grim view of life who is satisfied merely to entertain when presenting this view? Could it be that presenting such dark dysfunction in a comedic fashion is itself a philosophical statement? (We're not dealing here with the lighthearted - yet infinitely more profound - comedy of the Marx Brothers variety).

This is nihilism; more precisely, today's cavalier, chic nihilism where absurdity, meaninglessness, decay, disorder, and dysfunction of every variety are - ironically! - treated as norms and indeed prescribed as such. Unorthodoxy is the new orthodoxy (Sooooo ironic! Yay!).

This is a coarsened, vulgarized, film student version of pre-Socratic flux philosophy (unconsciously, of course). All is chaos, movement, and instability - yet not in a cosmic sense as for the pre-Socratics, but inwardly. And all of this is presented - here we return to today's debonair nihilism - cheerfully! The not so subtle message: There really is no order attainable in our lives. The most we can hope for is manageable dysfunction. We must accept it and indeed come to see dysfunction as our normal condition (the irony!). There is no real transcendence possible in this life, not at all.

The filmmakers would no doubt retort: "No no no! You've got it all wrong. It's an uplifting story, a story of hope...." No. Each character's life is a disaser, a model of disorder, and remains so through the end of the story. It seems otherwise, but to go into how this is so I'd have to continue much longer.... Suffice it to say that, in spite of appearances, there is no redemption possible in this bleak world. Defeatism is at the very core of this movie, and this defeatism is itself at the very core of nihilism, which is itself at the core of today's postmodernism/deconstructionism, which is itself at the root of today's consumerist dictatorship of relativism....

I'd give this movie zero stars if I could, but I suppose one star is okay since it does contain two healthy streams of dialogue (though the healthy counsel contained here is given by - ironically, of course! - models of decline).

In the end, the makers of Little Miss Sunshine (such an ironic title!) give us cause to once again quote Shakespeare's epitaph for this age:

"O shame, where is thy blush?"

Pirates of the Carrriibbeeaann Part 2: The Curse of the Black Pearl Part 2: The Curse of the Deadman's Chest Part 1: In Which Piglet Sees a Heffalump: What a disappointment. Basically the only good thing in this whole movie was when Winnie-the-Pooh got eaten by the Kraken (that's 'Kray-ken,' not Crack-hen.' You can ask my son. He will correct you). Well, that and the part where the natives were portrayed as cannibalistic savages.


This post has 184 links.

Bad Photoetry Thursday: I Want to Stay Here and Sleep in My Own Bed

Call it what you will, tagging, whatever, but don't call it a meme. It's not a meme. "Luke, I am your father," might be a meme. The Epic of Gilgamesh is probably a meme. 5 Things You Don't Know About Me is not a meme. If 50 years from now everyone knows what 5TYDKAM is, then you can call it a meme.







I tag every single person in the universe. Except Ted S. Preston, Esq.