Textkit Logo

Realism and the neosemanticist paradigm of expression

Philosophers and rhetoricians, Welcome!

Realism and the neosemanticist paradigm of expression

Postby Pete » Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:57 pm

edited by Emma on 26.10.04:

This text was created by the 'postmodernism Generator' http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern (thanks for finding that site Democritus).

The primary theme of Bailey's analysis of the postconceptual paradigm of context is a mythopoetical paradox. In a sense, Baudrillard's critique of the neosemanticist paradigm of expression holds that reality is intrinsically responsible for the status quo.

Many dedeconstructivisms concerning Lacanist obscurity may be found. But Batailleist `powerful communication' implies that consensus is a product of communication, but only if the premise of realism is valid; if that is not the case, Foucault's model of the neosemanticist paradigm of expression is one of "textual discourse", and thus elitist.

The example of Lacanist obscurity prevalent in Spelling's The Heights is also evident in Models, Inc., although in a more subcapitalist sense. Thus, Abian holds that we have to choose between Batailleist `powerful communication' and dialectic discourse. The neosemanticist paradigm of expression states that culture may be used to marginalize the underprivileged. Therefore, the main theme of the works of Spelling is the stasis of submaterialist society.

If one examines the neosemanticist paradigm of expression, one is faced with a choice: either accept Lacanist obscurity or conclude that expression is created by the collective unconscious, given that narrativity is interchangeable with art. The subject is contextualised into a realism that includes consciousness as a reality. In a sense, Sontag uses the term 'capitalist feminism' to denote not desituationism, as Lacan would have it, but predesituationism.

In the works of Spelling, a predominant concept is the concept of neomodernist culture. The characteristic theme of Sargeant's[3] analysis of Lacanist obscurity is the fatal flaw, and subsequent stasis, of material class. It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a Debordist situation that includes sexuality as a paradox.

The main theme of the works of Spelling is the common ground between society and sexual identity. The premise of Lacanist obscurity implies that the Constitution is capable of significance. However, Sartre uses the term 'postcapitalist semioticist theory' to denote not, in fact, sublimation, but subsublimation.

If one examines Lacanist obscurity, one is faced with a choice: either reject the neosemanticist paradigm of expression or conclude that culture is part of the absurdity of reality, but only if Bataille's critique of realism is invalid. Derrida promotes the use of the neosemanticist paradigm of expression to attack class divisions. In a sense, if the postdialectic paradigm of discourse holds, we have to choose between the neosemanticist paradigm of expression and capitalist neosemanticist theory.

Bataille suggests the use of realism to modify class. However, Sontag uses the term 'the cultural paradigm of expression' to denote a mythopoetical totality.

The primary theme of Brophy's analysis of Lacanist obscurity is the bridge between sexual identity and narrativity. It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a realism that includes sexuality as a whole. Bataille promotes the use of Lacanist obscurity to deconstruct the status quo. However, an abundance of narratives concerning the paradigm, and some would say the dialectic, of capitalist class exist.

In Robin's Hoods, Spelling denies realism; in Melrose Place, although, he deconstructs Lacanist obscurity. Thus, the subject is interpolated into a Debordist image that includes truth as a paradox.

Derrida suggests the use of the neosemanticist paradigm of expression to analyse and challenge society. It could be said that Reicher states that we have to choose between the capitalist paradigm of narrative and Sartreist absurdity.

The premise of realism implies that the significance of the reader is significant form. Therefore, Debord promotes the use of the neosemanticist paradigm of expression to attack archaic, colonialist perceptions of class.
User avatar
Pete
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 5:10 pm

Postby Phylax » Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:21 pm

:D Thanks, Pete! You've made that a lot clearer for me! :D

Phylax
phpbb
User avatar
Phylax
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:01 pm
Location: Lewes, East Sussex, UK

Postby EmptyMan » Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:33 pm

Foucault's model of the neosemanticist paradigm of expression is one of "textual discourse", and thus elitist.


Whoa man. All that jargon requires alot of prior knowlegde, I guess, so why not tell us who and what your talking about. Who is Bailey or Baudrillard. What is neosemanticism? A Lacanist? Either I am dumb or this post rings of elitist overtones. Which is it?
User avatar
EmptyMan
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:48 am
Location: Augusta, Georgia

Re: Realism and the neosemanticist paradigm of expression

Postby Democritus » Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:37 pm

Pete wrote:The primary theme of Bailey's analysis of the postconceptual paradigm of context is a mythopoetical paradox.


:) This is output from the Postmodernism Generator.

http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/community/postmodern.html

If you enjoy this kind of text (or if you don't enjoy it) then you might like the book Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science by Alan D. Sokal, et al.

Sokal is the man who pulled off the postmodernist parody in the journal Social Texts. Look at the first two articles listed on this page: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/.

Here's a similar fun toy: http://www.daydream.org.uk/meng/eChomsky/. Don't waste the whole day with it!
Democritus
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
Location: California

Re: Realism and the neosemanticist paradigm of expression

Postby EmptyMan » Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:43 pm

Democritus wrote:
Pete wrote:The primary theme of Bailey's analysis of the postconceptual paradigm of context is a mythopoetical paradox.


:) This is output from the Postmodernism Generator.

http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/community/postmodern.html

If you enjoy this kind of text (or if you don't enjoy it) then you might like the book Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science by Alan D. Sokal, et al.

Sokal is the man who pulled off the postmodernist parody in the journal Social Texts. Look at the first two articles listed on this page: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/.

Here's a similar fun toy: http://www.daydream.org.uk/meng/eChomsky/. Don't waste the whole day with it!


:lol: I gave up after the first site. It was just as jargonated as the Pete's post. It's like philosophers speak another language.
I guess you Pete must have had a good philosophical education to write and read that stuff. I think he sounds like Kant.
User avatar
EmptyMan
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:48 am
Location: Augusta, Georgia

Postby EmptyMan » Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:53 pm

That's how I feel about philosophers sometimes.

Edit by Emma: sorry for messing your post up... didn't mean too :oops:
User avatar
EmptyMan
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:48 am
Location: Augusta, Georgia

Re: Realism and the neosemanticist paradigm of expression

Postby Emma_85 » Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:41 am

:lol: I gave up after the first site. It was just as jargonated as the Pete's post. It's like philosophers speak another language.
I guess you Pete must have had a good philosophical education to write and read that stuff. I think he sounds like Kant.


No, what Democritus was pointing out is that the text Pete posted was generated by a programme on that site. They text you gave up on was just another example of a text created by the postmodernism Generator.

Pete may or may not have a good philosophical education, but he certainly graduated from SPAM-school with honours. :evil: :evil: :evil:
Last edited by Emma_85 on Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
phpbb
User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Postby Emma_85 » Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:52 am

That's how I feel about philosophers sometimes.


Yes, it is hardly possible to read Kant without guidance. But most proper philosophers do try to make it understandable what they are talking about, Kant did too. When you read a text full of jargon, it's likely to be someone with no ideas just trying to hide the emptiness of their ideas behind long, impressive words.
The main problem with Kant is that he uses words in their original meaning, that is their Latin meaning. Other than that he uses surprisingly little foreign words in his text, he uses more German than most other German authors.
Heidegger - he uses German words too, but I just cannot understand him, I've got to work on it before my exam on Heidegger :( .
phpbb
User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Postby Pete » Tue Oct 26, 2004 5:00 pm

Pete may or may not have a good philosophical education, but he certainly graduated from SPAM-school with honours.


I was initiating discussion of the sad state of academia today, where appearances and impressiveness can often be held higher than knowledge itself. I'm sorry that my sincere attempt has provoked from you such a bitter attack and hatred.
User avatar
Pete
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 5:10 pm

Postby Jeff Tirey » Tue Oct 26, 2004 5:40 pm

Pete,

rebuttal of spam = spam

I have wasted enough of my time dealing with your postings.

jeff
Textkit Founder
User avatar
Jeff Tirey
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 891
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 6:58 pm
Location: Strongsville, Ohio


Return to The Academy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests