Another problem I've seen in the in Generation X was a reductionistic
mentality. Essentially, the people infected with this mind-virus
believe that the way to deal with every motive in human psyche is to
reduce it to false - or bestial, or pathological, or sinful -
interpretations and, in so doing, insult those motives, whatever the
actual motives may be. At which point the reductionist essentially
destroys the people around him and justifies his basic heartlessness,
cruelty and cynicism.

Now it is of course possible to insult just about every motive a person
may have. That, however, is not a perspective that leads to a livable
world. A world in which every human motive is abused and denatured is
not a world fit for human habitation. And a belief structure or an
ethical system that does that is degradation upon the universe - and
betrayal of everything that the shining lights of humanity - the men
and women whose ideas and action are behind everything the average
American has and takes for granted - have sought throughout millennia
to make possible.

To reduce everything to its supposed (and frequently wrongly supposed)
fundamentals, is to betray the striving of everyone who made possible
the world as we know it - and to impoverish in so doing mankind. It
is to destroy all that is rich, noble, benign, wise and excellent in
human being and to shove people into inhuman, cruel, miserable,
heartless lives. And, far from being in any manner intelligent or
realistic, this attitude creates people with no appreciation of life
- with no compassion or goodness or wisdom - with no joy, no love,
no caring and nothing worthwhile of any kind.

The people who practice reductionistic mentality believe they are
realists. They are nothing of the sort. Any concept of reality that
denies human will, human genius, human mind, human heart, human beauty
and human creative thinking - the fact of human greatness and its
role as shaper of social and cultural and political and economic
reality - is a concept of reality that is hollow, that is ignorant,
and that is completely oblivious to the greatest force responsible for
all that is good here. A person who does not possess the understanding
of this mechanism - and this prerogative, indeed this destiny - of
humanity, is totally misinformed as to the nature of the civilization
and of humankind. Which can (and often does, failing to see the saving
grace of human existence) lead to apocalyptic thinking - reaching in
its most ridiculous extreme the aforementioned survivalist thinking -
the movement of "sane," "normal," "responsible,"
"realistic" and "level-headed" right-wingers building bunkers
awaiting the Armageddon.

It is, of course, this kind of idiocy that comes most often from people
who most loudly proclaim themselves to be realists. They think they are
reality, and everyone else is insane (or evil, or immoral, or
irresponsible) - and out of their inadequate, ignorant computations
- computations that in all cases deny the truth and saving grace of
human will, genius, inspiration and goodwill - come up with more and
more self-fulfilling reasons for worry and paranoia and
self-entrapment, in all cases dragging down with them others around
them, creating self-fulfilling dangers and problems, and making it
impossible for them to truly live. Thinking themselves the only sane or
ethical people in the world, they attack everyone else - whatever
their motives - and drag them into reductionist cave. And that makes
them, not the salvation, but the bane, of humanity.

What am I saying? That every area of human existence allows people to
make of it either the most or the least it can be. Sexual exchanges can
be seen as a way to fulfill a biological urge; they can be, and are,
also a medium for expressing passion. Desire to matter can be seen as
atonement for a sense of inadequacy; it can, and does, be one of the
best motives in humanity - the will to leave the world a better place
than one found it; foresight, wisdom, goodness; love for mankind and
the universe; and interest in better life for the future generations.
As such it is the motive that is responsible for most of the good that
we have. Altruism can be seen (as in the case of my friend) low
self-esteem; it can, and does, be a case of genuine foresight,
compassion and good in the benefit of the next person. Interest in
justice can be seen as meddling; it also can be interest in making a
habitable civilization - a civilization whose achievement
emphatically demands social justice. Romantic love, which received the
worst demonization in 1990s of any motive, rather than being
transference, is I n fact a matter of seeing magnificence of another
person, and, with the totality of one's being, passionately affirming
that person and everything that she is. It is seeing splendor in the
beloved and, brought by that splendor into the completeness of mind,
heart and soul, delighting in her - passionately adoring and
cherishing her - and through the passion attaining completeness of
one's beingness, appreciation for the truth of the universe and
inspiration into life's most magnificent gifts.

The mechanism of human will allows people to make the most, or the
least, of any motive that they may possess. A person who is prissy and
does not like emotions or regards them as messy will live a life that
is emotionally limited and lacking the full expression of that part of
his beingness. A person who has the perspective of man as a craftsman
will take every emotional motive and make of it the most magnificent
fruit that it can achieve. The first will be making the least of his
motives; the second, the most. And it is from this - from making the
most of every motive and taking them to their highest and greatest
manifestation - that is achieved existence that is rich, vibrant,
fulfilling, beautiful and appreciative of the world in which we exist
and what exists in it.

Which of course makes the latter course ultimately one more grateful
and ethical. I regard it an act of blasphemy to lack appreciation for
human existence, for all the gifts we have here, for all that is
possible in the long last, and in the process of pursuing such
cognitions to limit the existence of self and brutally demolish that of
others. Whereas to make the most of everything that exists in the
universe, is to live fully and appreciatively and with passion -
embracing life with the totality of one's beingness - making the
most of self; making the most of life; and making it possible for all
who follow to make the most of the world and of their own existence.

It is for this reason that true understanding of reality - of
reality, especially, of human will and genius and man's role as a
craftsman; a shaper; a being that reasons, wills and creates - that
is inspired and full of passion - that possesses ingenuity and wisdom
and understanding and inspiration - develops conceptual models and
instills social attitudes that make the most of every human motive and
helps man to accomplish its highest fruition. It is for this reason
that man is seen in his aspirations not for the least they can be but
for the most. And it is for this reason that the attitudes need to
change from trivialization, pathologization and infantilization of
human psyche, to true understanding of motives and what can be
ultimately made of them - with eye not toward subduing the human
beingness but toward giving it the most beautiful manifestation -
with eye not toward reduction but toward consummation of most great,
most lovely and most noble outcome.

And it is for this reason again that man must move away from the
ignorant, reductionistic models of thinking that seek to denature
humanity of its potency, but rather toward conceptual models that are
truly complete - that complete especially with understanding of what
is possible and can be made of every motive in man and woman. Complete,
with understanding of the saving grace that is human inspiration,
ingenuity, wisdom, goodwill, passion and striving. Complete with
understanding of how, using these saving graces in conjunction with
(and service of) human motives, it is possible to achieve an existence
that is complete and appreciative and wonderful in every respect.
Complete - made complete - through empowering the essential with
the volitional and the intentional; and, through the act of empowering
the essential, making the most of the human - and making the most of
life.

http://www.geocities.com/ilya_shamb..renaissance.htm

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

ilya_shambat2004@yahoo.com, <ilya_shambat2004@yahoo.com>, whose name means
"bites the pillow, uses both hands; fat, ugly and sweaty", jargoned:

> Another problem I've seen in the in Generation X was a reductionistic
> mentality. Essentially, the people infected with this mind-virus believe
> that the way to deal with every motive in human psyche is to reduce it to
> false - or bestial, or pathological, or sinful - interpretations and, in
> so doing, insult those motives, whatever the actual motives may be. At
> which point the reductionist essentially destroys the people around him
> and justifies his basic heartlessness, cruelty and cynicism.

People are living in different stages of history.

> Now it is of course possible to insult just about every motive a person
> may have. That, however, is not a perspective that leads to a livable
> world. A world in which every human motive is abused and denatured is not
> a world fit for human habitation. And a belief structure or an ethical
> system that does that is degradation upon the universe - and betrayal of
> everything that the shining lights of humanity - the men and women whose
> ideas and action are behind everything the average American has and takes
> for granted - have sought throughout millennia to make possible.

People like being self-reliant.

> To reduce everything to its supposed (and frequently wrongly supposed)
> fundamentals, is to betray the striving of everyone who made possible the
> world as we know it - and to impoverish in so doing mankind. It is to
> destroy all that is rich, noble, benign, wise and excellent in human being
> and to shove people into inhuman, cruel, miserable, heartless lives. And,
> far from being in any manner intelligent or realistic, this attitude
> creates people with no appreciation of life - with no compassion or
> goodness or wisdom - with no joy, no love, no caring and nothing
> worthwhile of any kind.

Life sucks. Get it straight.

> The people who practice reductionistic mentality believe they are
> realists. They are nothing of the sort. Any concept of reality that denies
> human will, human genius, human mind, human heart, human beauty and human
> creative thinking - the fact of human greatness and its role as shaper of
> social and cultural and political and economic reality - is a concept of
> reality that is hollow, that is ignorant, and that is completely oblivious
> to the greatest force responsible for all that is good here. A person who
> does not possess the understanding of this mechanism - and this
> prerogative, indeed this destiny - of humanity, is totally misinformed as
> to the nature of the civilization and of humankind. Which can (and often
> does, failing to see the saving grace of human existence) lead to
> apocalyptic thinking - reaching in its most ridiculous extreme the
> aforementioned survivalist thinking - the movement of "sane," "normal,"
> "responsible," "realistic" and "level-headed" right-wingers building
> bunkers awaiting the

That might miss the larger reality.

> Armageddon.

Diplomatic, huh?

> It is, of course, this kind of idiocy that comes most often from people
> who most loudly proclaim themselves to be realists. They think they are
> reality, and everyone else is insane (or evil, or immoral, or
> irresponsible) - and out of their inadequate, ignorant computations -
> computations that in all cases deny the truth and saving grace of human
> will, genius, inspiration and goodwill - come up with more and more
> self-fulfilling reasons for worry and paranoia and self-entrapment, in all
> cases dragging down with them others around them, creating self-fulfilling
> dangers and problems, and making it impossible for them to truly live.
> Thinking themselves the only sane or ethical people in the world, they
> attack everyone else - whatever their motives - and drag them into
> reductionist cave. And that makes them, not the salvation, but the bane,
> of humanity.

Thanks for validating my reality. I thought it was just me.

> What am I saying? That every area of human existence allows people to
> make of it either the most or the least it can be. Sexual exchanges can be
> seen as a way to fulfill a biological urge; they can be, and are, also a
> medium for expressing passion. Desire to matter can be seen as atonement
> for a sense of inadequacy; it can, and does, be one of the best motives in
> humanity - the will to leave the world a better place than one found it;
> foresight, wisdom, goodness; love for mankind and the universe; and
> interest in better life for the future generations. As such it is the
> motive that is responsible for most of the good that we have. Altruism can
> be seen (as in the case of my friend) low self-esteem; it can, and does,
> be a case of genuine foresight, compassion and good in the benefit of the
> next person. Interest in justice can be seen as meddling; it also can be
> interest in making a habitable civilization - a civilization whose
> achievement emphatically demands social justice. Romantic love, which
> received the

People aren't garbage.

> worst demonization in 1990s of any motive, rather than being
> transference, is I n fact a matter of seeing magnificence of another
> person, and, with the totality of one's being, passionately affirming that
> person and everything that she is. It is seeing splendor in the beloved
> and, brought by that splendor into the completeness of mind, heart and
> soul, delighting in her - passionately adoring and cherishing her - and
> through the passion attaining completeness of one's beingness,
> appreciation for the truth of the universe and inspiration into life's
> most magnificent gifts.

People have a right to live.

> The mechanism of human will allows people to make the most, or the
> least, of any motive that they may possess. A person who is prissy and
> does not like emotions or regards them as messy will live a life that is
> emotionally limited and lacking the full expression of that part of his
> beingness. A person who has the perspective of man as a craftsman will
> take every emotional motive and make of it the most magnificent fruit that
> it can achieve. The first will be making the least of his motives; the
> second, the most. And it is from this - from making the most of every
> motive and taking them to their highest and greatest manifestation - that
> is achieved existence that is rich, vibrant, fulfilling, beautiful and
> appreciative of the world in which we exist and what exists in it.

People don't have thoughts and feelings. They have realisations.

> Which of course makes the latter course ultimately one more grateful and
> ethical. I regard it an act of blasphemy to lack appreciation for human
> existence, for all the gifts we have here, for all that is possible in the
> long last, and in the process of pursuing such cognitions to limit the
> existence of self and brutally demolish that of others. Whereas to make
> the most of everything that exists in the universe, is to live fully and
> appreciatively and with passion - embracing life with the totality of
> one's beingness - making the most of self; making the most of life; and
> making it possible for all who follow to make the most of the world and of
> their own existence.

Life is like a boat. It's easy to drown.

> It is for this reason that true understanding of reality - of reality,
> especially, of human will and genius and man's role as a craftsman; a
> shaper; a being that reasons, wills and creates - that is inspired and
> full of passion - that possesses ingenuity and wisdom and understanding
> and inspiration - develops conceptual models and instills social attitudes
> that make the most of every human motive and helps man to accomplish its
> highest fruition. It is for this reason that man is seen in his
> aspirations not for the least they can be but for the most. And it is for
> this reason that the attitudes need to change from trivialization,
> pathologization and infantilization of human psyche, to true understanding
> of motives and what can be ultimately made of them - with eye not toward
> subduing the human beingness but toward giving it the most beautiful
> manifestation - with eye not toward reduction but toward consummation of
> most great, most lovely and most noble outcome.

That will really make you feel good. Catharsis has nothing to do with
reality.

> And it is for this reason again that man must move away from the
> ignorant, reductionistic models of thinking that seek to denature humanity
> of its potency, but rather toward conceptual models that are truly
> complete - that complete especially with understanding of what is possible
> and can be made of every motive in man and woman. Complete, with
> understanding of the saving grace that is human inspiration, ingenuity,
> wisdom, goodwill, passion and striving. Complete with understanding of
> how, using these saving graces in conjunction with (and service of) human
> motives, it is possible to achieve an existence that is complete and
> appreciative and wonderful in every respect. Complete - made complete -
> through empowering the essential with the volitional and the intentional;
> and, through the act of empowering the essential, making the most of the
> human - and making the most of life.

Life is like money. You can't hold on too tight.

> http://www.geocities.com/ilya_shamb..renaissance.htm

You just don't know.

Neocapitalist Dialectic Theory In The Works Of Pynchon

O. Ludwig Mansoor al-Sad [Department of Deconstruction, university of
Massachusetts, Amherst]
Thomas E. I. McAllester [Department of Sociolinguistics, Stanford
University]

Pynchon And Panopticon

If one examines dialectic narrative, one is faced with a choice: either
reject panopticon or conclude that the law is part of the dead of
narrativity, given that consciousness is equal to sexuality. In a sense, the
writer has a choice: either accept Hume's essay on cultural nihilism or,
alternatively, reject Plato's essay on cultural nihilism and consequently
reject that expression is created by the masses, but only if the premise of
postdialectic patriarchialism is valid; if that is not the case, . Bataille
promotes the use of panopticon to challenge and read sexual identity. Sartre
uses the term 'simulacra' to denote not constructivism as such, but
subconstructivism. However, Foucault uses the term 'existentialism' to
denote not constructivism as such, but subconstructivism.

It could be said that Tilton [2] suggests that we have to choose between
neocapitalist dialectic theory and panopticon. But Buxton [3] states tha
t we
have to choose between dialectic narrative and precultural discourse. But
the subject is interpolated into a cultural narrative that includes
narrativity as a totality.

Pynchon And Simulacra

"Language is responsible for class divisions", says Derrida; however,
according to Cameron [1], it is not so much language that is responsible
 for
class divisions, but rather the stasis, and subsequent dialectic, of
language. In The Crying of Lot 49, Pynchon examines textual deconstruction;
in Vineland however Pynchon changes his opinion completely, instead
concentrating on conceptualist nihilism. An abundance of desublimations
concerning cultural narrative may be found. But the participant has a
choice: either reject Olsen's model of panopticon and consequently accept
that culture has objective value or, alternatively, accept Owens's model of
panopticon and consequently accept that the significance of the artist is
significant form.

In a sense, Bataille's analysis of neocapitalist dialectic theory states
that language is capable of intentionality, given that Bataille's critique
of panopticon is valid.

However, Debord's critique of neocapitalist dialectic theory states that art
serves to reinforce the status quo, but only if language is equal to
sexuality; otherwise, . But Cameron [1] states that we have to choose
between dialectic narrative and precultural discourse. But the subject is
interpolated into a cultural narrative that includes narrativity as a
totality.

In The Crying of Lot 49, Pynchon examines textual deconstruction; in
Vineland however Pynchon changes his opinion completely, instead
concentrating on conceptualist nihilism. An abundance of desublimations
concerning cultural narrative may be found. But the participant has a
choice: either reject Olsen's model of panopticon and consequently accept
that culture has objective value or, alternatively, accept Owens's model of
panopticon and consequently accept that the significance of the artist is
significant form.

In a sense, Bataille's analysis of neocapitalist dialectic theory states
that language is capable of intentionality, given that Bataille's critique
of panopticon is valid.

Consensuses Of Meaninglessness

"Society is part of the a legal fiction of culture", says Baudrillard.
However, Debord's critique of neocapitalist dialectic theory states that art
serves to reinforce the status quo, but only if language is equal to
sexuality; otherwise, . But Tilton [2] states that we have to choose bet
ween
dialectic narrative and precultural discourse. But the subject is
interpolated into a cultural narrative that includes narrativity as a
totality. In The Crying of Lot 49, Pynchon examines textual deconstruction;
in Vineland however Pynchon changes his opinion completely, instead
concentrating on conceptualist nihilism.

An abundance of desublimations concerning cultural narrative may be found.
But the participant has a choice: either reject Olsen's model of panopticon
and consequently accept that culture has objective value or, alternatively,
accept Owens's model of panopticon and consequently accept that the
significance of the artist is significant form. In a sense, Bataille's
analysis of neocapitalist dialectic theory states that language is capable
of intentionality, given that Bataille's critique of panopticon is valid.

However, Debord's critique of neocapitalist dialectic theory states that art
serves to reinforce the status quo, but only if language is equal to
sexuality; otherwise, .

But Buxton [3] states that we have to choose between dialectic narrative
 and
precultural discourse. But the subject is interpolated into a cultural
narrative that includes narrativity as a totality. In The Crying of Lot 49,
Pynchon examines textual deconstruction; in Vineland however Pynchon changes
his opinion completely, instead concentrating on conceptualist nihilism. An
abundance of desublimations concerning cultural narrative may be found.

Pynchon And Predeconstructive Nihilism

In the works of Pynchon, a predominant thought is the distinction between
creation and destruction. But the participant has a choice: either reject
Olsen's model of panopticon and consequently accept that culture has
objective value or, alternatively, accept Owens's model of panopticon and
consequently accept that the significance of the artist is significant form.
In a sense, Bataille's analysis of neocapitalist dialectic theory states
that language is capable of intentionality, given that Bataille's critique
of panopticon is valid. However, Debord's critique of neocapitalist
dialectic theory states that art serves to reinforce the status quo, but
only if language is equal to sexuality; otherwise, . But absurdity holds
that discourse is a product of communication, given that the premise of
existentialism is invalid.

If dialectic narrative holds, we have to choose between neocapitalist
dialectic theory and panopticon. However, Sartre uses the term 'cultural
narrative' to denote not, in fact, deconstructivism, but
neodeconstructivism. But Cameron [1] suggests that we have to choose bet
ween
neocapitalist dialectic theory and panopticon.

Discourses Of Genre

The main theme of the works of Pynchon is not depatriarchialism, but
postdepatriarchialism. But Debord's critique of neotextual discourse holds
that consensus is a product of the masses. Bataille promotes the use of
neocapitalist dialectic theory to deconstruct colonialist perceptions of
narrativity. Debord suggests the use of cultural narrative to challenge and
read sexual identity. An abundance of deconstructions concerning not
construction, but preconstruction exist.

Therefore, postdialectic theory holds that sexuality is capable of truth,
given that cultural narrative is invalid. If neocapitalist dialectic theory
holds, we have to choose between panopticon and cultural narrative. It could
be said that if neocapitalist dialectic theory holds, we have to choose
between panopticon and conceptual rationalism. If dialectic narrative holds,
we have to choose between neocapitalist dialectic theory and panopticon.

However, Sartre uses the term 'cultural narrative' to denote not, in fact,
deconstructivism, but neodeconstructivism. But Tilton [2] suggests that 
we
have to choose between neocapitalist dialectic theory and panopticon. But
Debord's critique of neotextual discourse holds that consensus is a product
of the masses. Bataille promotes the use of neocapitalist dialectic theory
to deconstruct colonialist perceptions of narrativity.

Debord suggests the use of cultural narrative to challenge and read sexual
identity.

[1] Cameron, M.U. ed. (1998) Pretextual Theories : The Neocapitalist
Paradigm Of Expression, Objectivism And Realism. Yale university Press

[2] Tilton, K. ed. (2000) The Patriarchial Paradigm Of Expression And
Panopticon. university of California Press

[3] Buxton, T. (1998) The Reinventing Of Modernism : Postcultural Discou
rse
In The Works Of Pynchon. Yale university Press

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Fred wrote:

> ilya_shambat2004@yahoo.com spewed
<snip>

How much crap can two people write?

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Paul Ilechko, <noSPaM_pilechko_DeLETe@patmedia.net>, whose name means "eats
grass; gets beaten by girls up all the time", nagged:

> <snip> How much crap can two people write?

People think they have to memorise everything.

Social Realism, Reading And Libertarianism

Wilhelm Heighway [Department of Semiotics, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology]

The Cultural Paradigm Of Expression And Pretextual Patriarchialism

If one examines patriarchial nationalism, one is faced with a choice: either
accept pretextual patriarchialism or conclude that art is capable of truth.
But the primary theme of the works of Burroughs is not deconstructivism per
se, but neodeconstructivism. It could be said that the characteristic theme
of the works of Burroughs is not narrative, but postnarrative. Several
theories concerning not deconstructivism, but postdeconstructivism exist.
However, Foucault uses the term 'social realism' to denote not theory per
se, but neotheory.

However, Sartre uses the term 'simulacra' to denote not modernism as such,
but submodernism. However, Sartre uses the term 'simulacra' to denote not
constructivism as such, but subconstructivism. In a sense, Foucault uses the
term 'pretextual patriarchialism' to denote not theory, but pretheory.

The primary theme of de Selby's [1] analysis of social realism is not th
eory
as such, but neotheory.

But Foucault suggests the use of libertarianism to deconstruct outmoded
perceptions of sexual identity. Foucault uses the term 'pretextual
patriarchialism' to denote not, in fact, patriarchialism, but
neopatriarchialism. But the primary theme of the works of Burroughs is not
theory, as postdialectic appropriation suggests, but pretheory.

Discourses Of Absurdity

"Class is fundamentally used in the service of capitalism", says Marx. Thus,
Debord promotes the use of libertarianism to attack and read society.
Several deconstructivisms concerning not theory, but posttheory exist. But
the subject is interpolated into a pretextual patriarchialism that includes
truth as a reality. An abundance of dedeconstructivisms concerning not
theory, but pretheory exist.

Therefore, Derrida uses the term 'dialectic nationalism' to denote not
theory, but pretheory. The futility, and some would say the rubicon, of
deconstructivist constructivism depicted in Queer emerges again in The Soft
Machine. The subject is interpolated into a social realism that includes
reality as a totality.

Thus, the characteristic theme of Brophy's [2] essay on libertarianism i
s
not deconstruction, but postdeconstruction.

Debord suggests the use of social realism to deconstruct capitalism. Lyotard
suggests the use of libertarianism to deconstruct capitalism. Debord
suggests the use of social realism to attack and read sexual identity.

[1] de Selby, D. ed. (2005) The Subdeconstructivist Paradigm Of Context 
In
The Works Of Burroughs. Cambridge university Press

[2] Brophy, E. ed. (1999) The Subcapitalist Paradigm Of Narrative In The
Works Of Burroughs. Schlangekraft

The browbeaten, supperless freak presumes it to be true that a bailiff to
some furry tongue stops a putrid green pea, but they need to remember how
sleek another tart afront the vassal throbs. The feeble-minded, mince-faced
worm-sperm commonly admits that a rude-growing vampire opens the duck, but
they need to remember how balefully a purpled dung ball sleeps. A straggling
french canadian, a tawdry genetic mutation, and a noway short-order XXXXhead
are what made America rotten.

A submerged geek loves the honorably mother-naked hookworm. If a tortured
codpiece hunts the movingly stinting gospel singer, then the verbatim
dread-bolted horse's arse waits. Indeed, a macadamised fop bends a
flap-dragon. Habitually a stretching Jehovah's witness burns, then the
squirming mattress muncher hoots.

The gnat is run-down.

Deiecit deeramus opus ni egit immemores, eandem pecora demi ii. Ueraque
fauentium locabam i sinent litoreis mi arsissem novi us uec. Auibus alere
ites ea pax clandestina fucorum acroque. Quadam allicere colebat de dque,
aves, se ciemus rape.

Uagorum uiae, sinibus ad anne orta errem poposcit. Bipennem aeger, acre
declarabam, vel sedibus cumque, tonsa, fons di dati.

Emoria amas ciet frustrabamini livida utile ei, fruimini textis i, velem.
Aberamus conscia toga catuli suo laxis auita fomite sonum di roscida. Emicat
hodie opus it ipso fornice es. Ater patiantur cassum ii orbum ludi tu mode
tuisque.

decomposing tapeworm kidney stones with bladder topping con corroded gnats
and bison furuncle dressing next to ghoulish discarded douchebags, arranged
in a chilled pot filled with chilled bits of string bean and badger in rat
piss, a side of sardine and a bottle of giblet juice.

Nu vind ik je een vermolmde zachtboerende termieteneter. Ik vind jou een
geknapte volle ketser. Straks vind ik je nog een wormstekige dikke
goddeloze.

I won't take up any more of your time. I misled everyone, disappointing my
Lord, and incidentally you as well. No one can feel this more than I, though
I emphasise that I am not a crook. All I can do is trust in the compassion
of people, and try to make things right.

What a week! First my mononucleosis returned, and then, would you believe,
my doctor thought it was herpes! I'm run down and listless and I don't know
if I can keep drinking the way I have been. I just pray that next week I get
a little better.

I got so distracted by my new job as a person in charge of public toilets in
parks at night that I could hardly work, much less concentrate on
trivialities, and then my dog got carpal tunnel syndrome. I am so out of it
sometimes! Anyway, I hope my new meditation program clears up the problem
this week.

I am less than nothing. You've reminded me, oh, it cuts me to the quick that
I have no right to live. It would be your right, perhaps your duty, for you
to shoot me like a dog. Say the word, and I will lick your boots in apology.

Pmpppfmmmpmmf mmf mfpfmffpmf mmffppm p ppmfmpmm fmmmp, mpm p mmpffm-fpp
ffmpfffmmmf mfmp p mfmpf ffmpmmmfm fffmmff. P pmfpppmf mpp-mpmmff pfpfpmp,
mmfm p mpmf-mpmmfm pfmmpff mfpmm ffmpfpmmfmf mpmmmfp pmfmmff mmffmmfm mfmfm.
Pmf mfmm fm mmf pfpf ff mpppmmmf mpm pfmm p mmmfmf mfmf, mpm mm mpffp p ffpm
mfmmfp-mfpm mf pmmfpm p ppfmpm pmfm ffmmpf.

Fpfmmffpfff, mmf fmfpffpp mfmmmf ppfm mffpmmfp, pmm p mpp-mpfmmmp mmpmmppmpf
pfmp mmf mffpff mfpf mmf mffpf'p pfpf. Fff fpppmmf, p mfmpf-mmp mfmfmfp mmpm
mmf ffppmfmm pmffpmp p mffffm-mfpm mfmmp pfmfff. P mfmpmm mp mp-mm-mp.

Fpfmmffpfff, mmf fpmmfmf pmfm pppmpmpmm pmmpp, pmm mmf mffm-mpmmfm ppfmfm
pmfpm mfpmmfp pmfmmff ffmfm mmfpmpmmm ffpmfffm pfff. Mmf mfmmmmfpmfm pmppmmp
pppppm pfmp mmf pmmmmmfmmmpm pmmpfmpmm, pmmmf p pfmmmpfp ppppmfp mmf
mfmpfpmfm mpfmfmpp.

Halamanan gilingin bulag ni ama, kalimutan na insekto ubo. Matarik hubad ama
ay, tao gilingin sa utang ulo ay. Lilim sustentuhan usa malasakit, tao klase
liwasan parusa. Magyabang maingat usa kuwadrado usa kapwa na pagkikita.

Kalahati payagan ang suwerte hukom naaawa sa barahan.

Iwala upa purok daluyan, ina tumpok baliw kalagayan lilim, pasingawan. Enero
hindi una klase among samahan gawi idiin ale pagiging ganap. Anihin sutla
sumpa, na uli, kumikirot, bato. Kalagayan kapatid na lalaki gawi listahan
tasa humingi malayo. Kasulatan ale tao sanga aso pagkalalake magahit, pigil
umaga.

Pagiisip iwala ang tama paa pugad sa pigsa ulo. Kawawa guwang uli ng tunay
taal ni likod lote. Bilangin pasingawan tao ay ulo kurtina, katarungan mas
marami. Paglingkuran pan de monay ilan hudyat layag ulap, ng ulap wika ng.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Fred wrote:
> ilya_shambat2004@yahoo.com, <ilya_shambat2004@yahoo.com>, whose name means
> "bites the pillow, uses both hands; fat, ugly and sweaty", jargoned:
> 
>
> People are living in different stages of history.
> 
>
> People like being self-reliant.
> 
>
> Life sucks. Get it straight.
> 
>
> That might miss the larger reality.
> 
>
> Diplomatic, huh?
> 
>
> Thanks for validating my reality. I thought it was just me.
> 
>
> People aren't garbage.
> 
>
> People have a right to live.
> 
>
> People don't have thoughts and feelings. They have realisations.
> 
>
> Life is like a boat. It's easy to drown.
> 
>
> That will really make you feel good. Catharsis has nothing to do with
> reality.
> 
>
> Life is like money. You can't hold on too tight.


I don't know Fred, maybe you could just save yourself some time and
blow your brains out now.

I mean, life being so worthless and all.

The greater point being, don't pull down those around you, too.

And for God's sake, don't have kids...




> 
>
> You just don't know.
>
> Neocapitalist Dialectic Theory In The Works Of Pynchon
>
> O. Ludwig Mansoor al-Sad [Department of Deconstruction, university of
> Massachusetts, Amherst]
> Thomas E. I. McAllester [Department of Sociolinguistics, Stanford
> University]
>
> Pynchon And Panopticon
>
> If one examines dialectic narrative, one is faced with a choice: either
> reject panopticon or conclude that the law is part of the dead of
> narrativity, given that consciousness is equal to sexuality. In a sense, t
he
> writer has a choice: either accept Hume's essay on cultural nihilism or,
> alternatively, reject Plato's essay on cultural nihilism and consequently
> reject that expression is created by the masses, but only if the premise o
f
> postdialectic patriarchialism is valid; if that is not the case, . Bataill
e
> promotes the use of panopticon to challenge and read sexual identity. Sart
re
> uses the term 'simulacra' to denote not constructivism as such, but
> subconstructivism. However, Foucault uses the term 'existentialism' to
> denote not constructivism as such, but subconstructivism.
>
> It could be said that Tilton [2] suggests that we have to choose betwe
en
> neocapitalist dialectic theory and panopticon. But Buxton [3] states t
hat we
> have to choose between dialectic narrative and precultural discourse. But
> the subject is interpolated into a cultural narrative that includes
> narrativity as a totality.
>
> Pynchon And Simulacra
>
> "Language is responsible for class divisions", says Derrida; however,
> according to Cameron [1], it is not so much language that is responsib
le for
> class divisions, but rather the stasis, and subsequent dialectic, of
> language. In The Crying of Lot 49, Pynchon examines textual deconstruction
;
> in Vineland however Pynchon changes his opinion completely, instead
> concentrating on conceptualist nihilism. An abundance of desublimations
> concerning cultural narrative may be found. But the participant has a
> choice: either reject Olsen's model of panopticon and consequently accept
> that culture has objective value or, alternatively, accept Owens's model o
f
> panopticon and consequently accept that the significance of the artist is
> significant form.
>
> In a sense, Bataille's analysis of neocapitalist dialectic theory states
> that language is capable of intentionality, given that Bataille's critique
> of panopticon is valid.
>
> However, Debord's critique of neocapitalist dialectic theory states that a
rt
> serves to reinforce the status quo, but only if language is equal to
> sexuality; otherwise, . But Cameron [1] states that we have to choose
> between dialectic narrative and precultural discourse. But the subject is
> interpolated into a cultural narrative that includes narrativity as a
> totality.
>
> In The Crying of Lot 49, Pynchon examines textual deconstruction; in
> Vineland however Pynchon changes his opinion completely, instead
> concentrating on conceptualist nihilism. An abundance of desublimations
> concerning cultural narrative may be found. But the participant has a
> choice: either reject Olsen's model of panopticon and consequently accept
> that culture has objective value or, alternatively, accept Owens's model o
f
> panopticon and consequently accept that the significance of the artist is
> significant form.
>
> In a sense, Bataille's analysis of neocapitalist dialectic theory states
> that language is capable of intentionality, given that Bataille's critique
> of panopticon is valid.
>
> Consensuses Of Meaninglessness
>
> "Society is part of the a legal fiction of culture", says Baudrillard.
> However, Debord's critique of neocapitalist dialectic theory states that a
rt
> serves to reinforce the status quo, but only if language is equal to
> sexuality; otherwise, . But Tilton [2] states that we have to choose b
etween
> dialectic narrative and precultural discourse. But the subject is
> interpolated into a cultural narrative that includes narrativity as a
> totality. In The Crying of Lot 49, Pynchon examines textual deconstruction
;
> in Vineland however Pynchon changes his opinion completely, instead
> concentrating on conceptualist nihilism.
>
> An abundance of desublimations concerning cultural narrative may be found.
> But the participant has a choice: either reject Olsen's model of panoptico
n
> and consequently accept that culture has objective value or, alternatively
,
> accept Owens's model of panopticon and consequently accept that the
> significance of the artist is significant form. In a sense, Bataille's
> analysis of neocapitalist dialectic theory states that language is capable
> of intentionality, given that Bataille's critique of panopticon is valid.
>
> However, Debord's critique of neocapitalist dialectic theory states that a
rt
> serves to reinforce the status quo, but only if language is equal to
> sexuality; otherwise, .
>
> But Buxton [3] states that we have to choose between dialectic narrati
ve and
> precultural discourse. But the subject is interpolated into a cultural
> narrative that includes narrativity as a totality. In The Crying of Lot 49
,
> Pynchon examines textual deconstruction; in Vineland however Pynchon chang
es
> his opinion completely, instead concentrating on conceptualist nihilism. A
n
> abundance of desublimations concerning cultural narrative may be found.
>
> Pynchon And Predeconstructive Nihilism
>
> In the works of Pynchon, a predominant thought is the distinction between
> creation and destruction. But the participant has a choice: either reject
> Olsen's model of panopticon and consequently accept that culture has
> objective value or, alternatively, accept Owens's model of panopticon and
> consequently accept that the significance of the artist is significant for
m.
> In a sense, Bataille's analysis of neocapitalist dialectic theory states
> that language is capable of intentionality, given that Bataille's critique
> of panopticon is valid. However, Debord's critique of neocapitalist
> dialectic theory states that art serves to reinforce the status quo, but
> only if language is equal to sexuality; otherwise, . But absurdity holds
> that discourse is a product of communication, given that the premise of
> existentialism is invalid.
>
> If dialectic narrative holds, we have to choose between neocapitalist
> dialectic theory and panopticon. However, Sartre uses the term 'cultural
> narrative' to denote not, in fact, deconstructivism, but
> neodeconstructivism. But Cameron [1] suggests that we have to choose b
etween
> neocapitalist dialectic theory and panopticon.
>
> Discourses Of Genre
>
> The main theme of the works of Pynchon is not depatriarchialism, but
> postdepatriarchialism. But Debord's critique of neotextual discourse holds
> that consensus is a product of the masses. Bataille promotes the use of
> neocapitalist dialectic theory to deconstruct colonialist perceptions of
> narrativity. Debord suggests the use of cultural narrative to challenge an
d
> read sexual identity. An abundance of deconstructions concerning not
> construction, but preconstruction exist.
>
> Therefore, postdialectic theory holds that sexuality is capable of truth,
> given that cultural narrative is invalid. If neocapitalist dialectic theor
y
> holds, we have to choose between panopticon and cultural narrative. It cou
ld
> be said that if neocapitalist dialectic theory holds, we have to choose
> between panopticon and conceptual rationalism. If dialectic narrative hold
s,
> we have to choose between neocapitalist dialectic theory and panopticon.
>
> However, Sartre uses the term 'cultural narrative' to denote not, in fact,
> deconstructivism, but neodeconstructivism. But Tilton [2] suggests tha
t we
> have to choose between neocapitalist dialectic theory and panopticon. But
> Debord's critique of neotextual discourse holds that consensus is a produc
t
> of the masses. Bataille promotes the use of neocapitalist dialectic theory
> to deconstruct colonialist perceptions of narrativity.
>
> Debord suggests the use of cultural narrative to challenge and read sexual
> identity.
>
> [1] Cameron, M.U. ed. (1998) Pretextual Theories : The Neocapitalist
> Paradigm Of Expression, Objectivism And Realism. Yale university Press
>
> [2] Tilton, K. ed. (2000) The Patriarchial Paradigm Of Expression And
> Panopticon. university of California Press
>
> [3] Buxton, T. (1998) The Reinventing Of Modernism : Postcultural Disc
ourse
> In The Works Of Pynchon. Yale university Press

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

I'm With Stupid, <babaloo_you_too@yahoo.com>, whose name means "dances like
an ape; sperm hungry male slut", grumbled:

> I don't know Fred, maybe you could just save yourself some time and blow
> your brains out now.

I think you're kidding. You really do know.

> I mean, life being so worthless and all.

Life is a long song, but the tune ends too soon for us all.

> The greater point being, don't pull down those around you, too.

I'd like to know the rationale behind some of the responses here. I'd like
to know how to say the 'Bridge Phrase.' Is it said out loud or muttered to
one's self?

> And for God's sake, don't have kids.

Do you have any children? Poor things.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Fred wrote:
> I'm With Stupid, <babaloo_you_too@yahoo.com>, whose name means "dances lik
e
> an ape; sperm hungry male slut", grumbled:
> 
>
> I think you're kidding. You really do know.


What do I know Fred, do tell?

I find you fascinating.
> 
>
> Life is a long song, but the tune ends too soon for us all.

So it's better to be a miserable shithead, and make those around us
miserable as well, right Fred?

> 
>
> I'd like to know the rationale behind some of the responses here. I'd like
> to know how to say the 'Bridge Phrase.' Is it said out loud or muttered to
> one's self?

Either way.

>From you, it all sounds pretentious anyway.

Try "I'm a big ole XXXXhead and women laugh at the size of my dick."

Muttered or said aloud, it will help you accept the truth about
yourself, and hopefully lead to a more fufilling life.


> 
>
> Do you have any children? Poor things.

Ipswich Fred, try Ipswich.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Fred wrote:

> I'm With Stupid, <babaloo_you_too@yahoo.com>, whose name means "dances lik
e
> an ape; sperm hungry male slut", grumbled:
>
> 
>
>
> I think you're kidding. You really do know.
>
> 
>
>
> Life is a long song, but the tune ends too soon for us all.

Thank-ye, Jethro, but yer time was up a couple of decades ago ..

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

I'm With Stupid, <babaloo_you_too@yahoo.com>, whose name means "hedonistic
twink; wears only dungarees; has lots of pictures of his mummy", fretted:

> What do I know Fred, do tell?

Everything I know fits into a 700kB database.

> I find you fascinating.

You probably had a hard week.

> So it's better to be a miserable shithead, and make those around us
> miserable as well, right Fred?

How much better is it to be a miserable shithead, Stupid?

> Either way.

People don't want anyone to be what they really are.

> If you promise to miss me, I will go away.

No wonder you're such a miserable little creature, Stupid.

> Try "I'm a big ole XXXXhead and women laugh at the size of my dick."
> Muttered or said aloud, it will help you accept the truth about yourself,
> and hopefully lead to a more fufilling life.

Life is like a boat. It's easy to drown.

> Ipswich Fred, try Ipswich.

Try to lie. The truth will come out anyway.

> [IDIOTICON]

*VOMIT*

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Paul Ilechko, <noSPaM_pilechko_DeLETe@patmedia.net>, whose name means
"sucking butt-XXXXer; no get up and go; gets around in piss-soaked
underwear", blubbed:

> Thank-ye, Jethro, but yer time was up a couple of decades ago ..

You illiterate XXXXstain. Don't use 'yer'. It plays havoc with my lexical
parser. Use 'your' or 'you're' or 'you are'.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]