Eliezer Yudkowsky shows how far you can go when you're not hanging out with experts and you're pretending to understand the very hardest sciences.
The answer is "forever"
it's also funny because the idea of "the" deconstruction (?) being inextricable from "the self" makes as little sense as any of his other examples. it is randall after all
once when i was about 13 or 14 i fell semi-asleep with this song playing and had an extremely vivid (lucid?) dream where i could see a physical manifestation of the music. it was like a transparent four-dimensional pyramid and had the texture of jelly on its "surface" with a kind of viscous liquid beneath. also it was several colours at once. supremely weird dream. yntkt
Eliezer Yudkowsky shows how far you can go when you're not hanging out with experts and you're pretending to understand the very hardest sciences.
The answer is "forever"
it's also funny because the idea of "the" deconstruction (?) being inextricable from "the self" makes as little sense as any of his other examples. it is randall after all
This is surprising to me since i had more or less the opposite response - that Randall had accidentally stated something that's fairly trivially true, rather than nonsense. But you definitely understand theory stuff better than i do. Perhaps you could clarify this for me?
See i was thinking, the phrasing is weird, but the text is often considered to be always-already deconstructed, in Heideggerian terms. One way of rephrasing that is that once it has been deconstructed, the deconstruction is inextricable from it, so you cannot consider the pre-deconstructed text.
With that in mind, consider Lacan's treatment of the mind itself as a text, maybe? Just kinda throwing this out there.
idk though. i never really got Lacan, if you think it really is just nonsense then i'll defer to you.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
he's just bolted together three ridiculously broad concepts and said 'aha alll these three things are interlinked' but with zero context or anything. it sounds like the kind of nonsense someone in a first-year theory seminar on derrida would trot out when they hadn't been listening to anything and the tutor asks them a question. it sounds like someone talking out of their ass basically
deconstruction probably is inextricable from the text in the way that you have covered but 'deconstruction is inextricable from the self' is meaningless. the self isnt the same thing as the mind, so i think we don't need to deal with lacan too much here. is he sugggesting we can deconstruct people? that we can deconstruct the concept of the self? whose self is it, the author's? the critic's? the reader's? is he suggesting that the deconstruction is linked to "who" is doing it or "who" is being deconstructed? how is this suppposed to relate to the way in which deconstruction is inextricable from the text? that kinda statement makes the sort of connection between individual "selves" and individual discrete texts that deconstruction seems fairly diametrically opposed to. it just sounds as dumb to me as a literary critic as the first three statements do
he's just bolted together three ridiculously broad concepts and said 'aha alll these three things are interlinked' but with zero context or anything. it sounds like the kind of nonsense someone in a first-year theory seminar on derrida would trot out when they hadn't been listening to anything and the tutor asks them a question. it sounds like someone talking out of their ass basically
deconstruction probably is inextricable from the text in the way that you have covered but 'deconstruction is inextricable from the self' is meaningless. the self isnt the same thing as the mind, so i think we don't need to deal with lacan too much here. is he sugggesting we can deconstruct people? that we can deconstruct the concept of the self? whose self is it, the author's? the critic's? the reader's? is he suggesting that the deconstruction is linked to "who" is doing it or "who" is being deconstructed? how is this suppposed to relate to the way in which deconstruction is inextricable from the text? that kinda statement makes the sort of connection between individual "selves" and individual discrete texts that deconstruction seems fairly diametrically opposed to. it just sounds as dumb to me as a literary critic as the first three statements do
your explanation of texts as always-already deconstructed was very clear btw and certainly a lot clearer than the way some of my theory lecturers talk about stuff like that ._.
your explanation of texts as always-already deconstructed was very clear btw and certainly a lot clearer than the way some of my theory lecturers talk about stuff like that ._.
Thanks.
i should definitely like to learn more about this stuff . . . like i think i said before, i felt we moved through this stuff fairly quickly at uni, and i'm not the fastest reader.
The first Digimon Series, is about a group of 7 "Chosen Children" Who are sent to an internet based otherworldly plane of existance known as "Za Digitaru Warudo" ("The Digital World")
"The contemporary audience is predominantly composed of people who do not even know how to watch a film. Born and raised on the undemanding medium of television, and subscribing to the Star Wars/Matrix/Transformers school of movies as merchandising blockbuster events, the bulk of the ADHD audience lacks the essential tools to process anything less than hyperkinetic pacing. About the only thing that pre-exists them that they can approach isStar Wars (1977). That is because this is where the rot set in. With this invention of a shameless George Lucas, movies as an entertaining art form received their first deathblow. It is no accident that the only film from the Star Wars franchise that holds up well as a film is the one that Lucas did not himself direct, The Empire Strikes Back, by Irvin Kershner. As expected, most people tend to forget that, because Lucas takes the lion’s share of credit."
if you think the tumblr discourse is bad wait until you get a load of the “50 year old man talking about iggy azalea and cultural appropriation” discourse
"The contemporary audience is predominantly composed of people who do not even know how to watch a film. Born and raised on the undemanding medium of television, and subscribing to the Star Wars/Matrix/Transformers school of movies as merchandising blockbuster events, the bulk of the ADHD audience lacks the essential tools to process anything less than hyperkinetic pacing. About the only thing that pre-exists them that they can approach isStar Wars (1977). That is because this is where the rot set in. With this invention of a shameless George Lucas, movies as an entertaining art form received their first deathblow. It is no accident that the only film from the Star Wars franchise that holds up well as a film is the one that Lucas did not himself direct, The Empire Strikes Back, by Irvin Kershner. As expected, most people tend to forget that, because Lucas takes the lion’s share of credit."
I bet this commenter thinks Gerry is pure genius. :P
Comments
Finally.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=khm0fdto843mn37yx2uanhae&page=13891#347253
(there are a few posts above this one that are relevant to it)
i googled this and found that every report of it was from 2-3 years ago
I cried. Again.
once when i was about 13 or 14 i fell semi-asleep with this song playing and had an extremely vivid (lucid?) dream where i could see a physical manifestation of the music. it was like a transparent four-dimensional pyramid and had the texture of jelly on its "surface" with a kind of viscous liquid beneath. also it was several colours at once. supremely weird dream. yntkt
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Also he has a better understanding of free speech than math nerds are capable of.
deconstruction probably is inextricable from the text in the way that you have covered but 'deconstruction is inextricable from the self' is meaningless. the self isnt the same thing as the mind, so i think we don't need to deal with lacan too much here. is he sugggesting we can deconstruct people? that we can deconstruct the concept of the self? whose self is it, the author's? the critic's? the reader's? is he suggesting that the deconstruction is linked to "who" is doing it or "who" is being deconstructed? how is this suppposed to relate to the way in which deconstruction is inextricable from the text? that kinda statement makes the sort of connection between individual "selves" and individual discrete texts that deconstruction seems fairly diametrically opposed to. it just sounds as dumb to me as a literary critic as the first three statements do
Better than that Mark Fisher one, where he made up the idea that nerds were complaining about Star Wars selling out in order to be smug about things.
I know you know