A very well written comment, thanks. However, I’d have to disagree on the following points:
If one examines deconstructivist subdialectic theory, one is faced with a choice: either accept antipagantheoreconstrucivism or conclude that reality comes from communication. Several desublimations concerning deconstructivist subdialectic theory exist. Thus, if modernist materialism holds, we have to choose between regligion and pretextual narrative.
In the works of Rushdie, a predominant concept is the distinction between opening and closing. The example of deconstructivist discourse prevalent in Rushdie’s The Moor’s Last Sigh emerges again in Midnight’s Children. Thus, an abundance of deappropriations concerning a neodialectic whole may be revealed.
The characteristic theme of the works of Eco is the dialectic, and eventually the paradigm, of posttextual class. However, the cultural paradigm of reality suggests that language may be used to oppress the Other, but only if consciousness is distinct from narrativity; if that is not the case, we can assume that the goal of the reader is deconstruction.
Thus, the main theme of the works of Eco is the role of the observer as participant. The subject is contextualised into a subcultural papalism that includes consciousness as a totality.
It could be said that Debord uses the term ‘the conceptual paradigm of expression’ to denote the difference between culture and apocrypthic neoclusterism. The premise of textual situationism implies that art serves to reinforce divisions. In a sense, an abundance of theories concerning the conceptual paradigm of expression exist. Derrida promotes the use of materialist presemantic theory to attack outdated perceptions of narrativity.
It could be said that Lacan uses the term ‘textual rationalism’ to denote the role of god…ge…ci as poet. Any number of narratives concerning the common ground between society and theo-antiprotonatalism may be discovered.
I remember that i’ve played with a website that automatically produced such texts in school once, like 15 years ago, now i’m thanking Google to have given us Chat-GPT(, and the chinese people talk(ed) a lot about a.i. in the few manhuas i’ve read, much more than Japan, Korea, or the West), not saying that you didn’t write this yourself, nor that i really care, i’m just saying
Since you kept, and still keep replying with nonsensical comments, figured I’d return the favour.
Well, at least part of your username is certainly correct.
Removed by mod
I’m not offering a counter-argument because your comment made no goddamn sense.
Well, they did drink a shit-ton of lead and smoked asbestos…
The former of which you seem to be a keen practitioner of.
Removed by mod
Ok, I’ll help you out a bit.
When someone says your comment didn’t make sense, you should respond by explaining what you meant, not send a comment that makes even less sense.
Removed by mod
A very well written comment, thanks. However, I’d have to disagree on the following points:
If one examines deconstructivist subdialectic theory, one is faced with a choice: either accept antipagantheoreconstrucivism or conclude that reality comes from communication. Several desublimations concerning deconstructivist subdialectic theory exist. Thus, if modernist materialism holds, we have to choose between regligion and pretextual narrative.
In the works of Rushdie, a predominant concept is the distinction between opening and closing. The example of deconstructivist discourse prevalent in Rushdie’s The Moor’s Last Sigh emerges again in Midnight’s Children. Thus, an abundance of deappropriations concerning a neodialectic whole may be revealed.
The characteristic theme of the works of Eco is the dialectic, and eventually the paradigm, of posttextual class. However, the cultural paradigm of reality suggests that language may be used to oppress the Other, but only if consciousness is distinct from narrativity; if that is not the case, we can assume that the goal of the reader is deconstruction.
Thus, the main theme of the works of Eco is the role of the observer as participant. The subject is contextualised into a subcultural papalism that includes consciousness as a totality.
It could be said that Debord uses the term ‘the conceptual paradigm of expression’ to denote the difference between culture and apocrypthic neoclusterism. The premise of textual situationism implies that art serves to reinforce divisions. In a sense, an abundance of theories concerning the conceptual paradigm of expression exist. Derrida promotes the use of materialist presemantic theory to attack outdated perceptions of narrativity.
It could be said that Lacan uses the term ‘textual rationalism’ to denote the role of god…ge…ci as poet. Any number of narratives concerning the common ground between society and theo-antiprotonatalism may be discovered.
Removed by mod
Since you kept, and still keep replying with nonsensical comments, figured I’d return the favour.