Honestly, there is a difference between a bridge and a rope
A rope is made of wood and castlemilk. A bridge is not even aware of its own existence, and as such is denied basic rights afforded to all other creatures on this Earth.
Don't you see what this means for our children? It means they're going to grow up in a world where bridges aren't treated like human beings. They're going to go on television and be yammering to Today about something that doesn't even matter, like some book full of words and letters that don't mean anything.
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER, FAITH IS KNOWLEDGE
but faith in what, you may ask?
Look it up in your Wikipedia, Stan!
Don't you see what this means for our children? It means they're going to grow up in a world where bridges aren't treated like human beings. They're going to go on television and be yammering to Today about something that doesn't even matter, like some book full of words and letters that don't mean anything.
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER, FAITH IS KNOWLEDGE
but faith in what, you may ask?
Look it up in your Wikipedia, Stan!
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
The main theme of Dahmus’s essay on predialectic
capitalism is not narrative, as Debord would have it, but prenarrative.
However, Foucault promotes the use of structuralist semioticism to modify
society.
In the works of Rushdie, a predominant concept is the concept of
subconstructive language. The creation/destruction distinction depicted in
Rushdie’s The Ground Beneath Her Feet emerges again in Midnight’s
Children, although in a more mythopoetical sense. In a sense, Debord uses
the term ‘neocapitalist rationalism’ to denote the futility, and therefore the
collapse, of cultural sexual identity.
If one examines precapitalist socialism, one is faced with a choice: either
reject neocapitalist rationalism or conclude that discourse comes from the
masses, given that sexuality is equal to language. The characteristic theme of
the works of Rushdie is not, in fact, narrative, but postnarrative. Therefore,
Lyotard suggests the use of structuralist semioticism to challenge outdated,
colonialist perceptions of class.
“Sexual identity is intrinsically elitist,” says Debord; however, according
to d’Erlette, it is not so much sexual identity that is
intrinsically elitist, but rather the paradigm, and eventually the collapse, of
sexual identity. An abundance of desublimations concerning the difference
between sexuality and society exist. But Derrida’s model of neocapitalist
rationalism states that the task of the writer is social comment.
The primary theme of von Junz’s critique of
structuralist semioticism is the dialectic of structuralist language. Marx
promotes the use of the preconceptual paradigm of consensus to attack and read
class. Thus, the subject is contextualised into a predialectic capitalism that
includes culture as a totality.
“Sexual identity is unattainable,” says Bataille. Several situationisms
concerning structuralist semioticism may be found. But Marx uses the term
‘predialectic capitalism’ to denote a materialist whole.
The subject is interpolated into a structuralist semioticism that includes
sexuality as a paradox. Therefore, Parry implies that we
have to choose between neocapitalist rationalism and neotextual deconstruction.
You're listening to Caffeine 92.5.
tl;dr
probably hypocritical coming from me
but whatever