Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   intentional fallacy is a pseudu-archetype of proto-facsitic imperatives   (elsewhere.org) divider line 52
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

2639 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Dec 2001 at 5:16 PM (13 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2001-12-02 05:19:17 PM  
"pseudu" should read "pseudo" but lets just call the typo a "sublimation of latent anxieties of influence w/r/t to the canonical constructs, et al"
 
2001-12-02 05:19:27 PM  
boobies

WTF does that title mean?
 
2001-12-02 05:20:57 PM  
A wise guy, eh?
 
2001-12-02 05:21:04 PM  
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE TITLE?! moron!
hehe
 
2001-12-02 05:23:09 PM  
the fascistic prescreptivist linguist would not be proud of these typos
 
2001-12-02 05:23:24 PM  
i wouldn't mind someone explaining the title to me, no i wouldn't. so go ahead, make the less obvious obvious. please? someone?
 
2001-12-02 05:25:08 PM  
i want someone to hand one of these in (changing the authorship) and see what grade they get

i hate liberal arts
 
2001-12-02 05:26:00 PM  
Also known as the "Al Sharpton Quote Generator." Always glad to help people out with these sorts of problems.
 
2001-12-02 05:26:42 PM  
they would get a farking F unless they went to one of a handfull of theory heavy institutions...but none of these make any sense really (they.are.not."real".)
 
2001-12-02 05:29:52 PM  
In this day and age of persiflage and pedagogic agitprop, there exists no shortage of corpusant leaders and existential zymologists. All of whom propogate the bumptious iconoclast.
 
2001-12-02 05:44:03 PM  
EXCREMENT TRANSPIRES
 
2001-12-02 05:48:32 PM  
Worst. Link. Ever.
 
2001-12-02 05:48:43 PM  
I can't find facsitic in the dictionary, but seeing how the headline is about intentional mistakes.. that word is probably an intentional mistake, I just don't know what for.
 
2001-12-02 05:50:22 PM  
BigPhilly
"Worst. Link. Ever."

BigPhilly. Doesn't. Get. It.
 
2001-12-02 05:55:22 PM  
Now I understand how Woody Allen writes his movies !
 
2001-12-02 05:59:42 PM  
Waffle, it should read "fascistic," as it alludes to the vaguely fascist qualities of whatever the hell this guy is talking about. But really, the whole essay is lexical masturbation.
 
2001-12-02 06:03:06 PM  
Need_for_Tweed: Like the University of Chicago?
 
2001-12-02 06:04:35 PM  
uh, there is going to be post-posting regrets when some people understand what it's all about
 
fb-
2001-12-02 06:04:55 PM  
It's not fark, it's shiatty submissions being approved by somebody with absolutely no sense of humor.

THIS SUCKS.
 
2001-12-02 06:06:06 PM  
Greg head hurts. Greg go sleepy now
 
2001-12-02 06:09:02 PM  
This is just a thread to make people feel more intelligent than they really are because they understood something that others didn't.
 
2001-12-02 06:09:33 PM  
yyyyyup
 
2001-12-02 06:16:13 PM  
Where was this when I was writing my term papers!?
 
2001-12-02 06:18:20 PM  
Bootysama et al:

GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LINKED PAGE AND READ WHAT IT IS REALLY ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
2001-12-02 06:19:42 PM  
Try http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/murphy/436/pomo.htm for a brief outline, but it'll still make your head hurt. Mainly because just about everything to do with po-mo is utter b****cks.
 
2001-12-02 06:21:49 PM  
Oh, and its largely based on the works of French 'intellectuals'
 
2001-12-02 06:42:12 PM  
On the contrary, Blumf... I "get" it. It just sucks. I derived no amusement from it.
 
2001-12-02 06:43:02 PM  
This guy is so prententious it hurts.
 
2001-12-02 06:48:51 PM  
BigPhilly
"On the contrary, Blumf... I "get" it. It just sucks. I derived no amusement from it."

Fair e'nuff. Thought the page is spot on about po-mo BS.
 
2001-12-02 06:56:28 PM  
in the occular organ of a porcine omnivore. ;)
 
2001-12-02 07:04:37 PM  
El Poo Poo Grande
 
2001-12-02 07:05:44 PM  
People. Please. Learn to read.

"The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this link. If you like this particular essay and would like to return to it, follow this link for a bookmarkable page."

AND, everyone is seeing a different "essay". Try clicking on the link twice.
 
2001-12-02 07:10:08 PM  
LordWatson -

thanks mate, now I can sleep easy knowing that I really was wasting my time. Some people have far too much time on their hands or puds
 
2001-12-02 07:17:29 PM  
I think this is pretty cool. I may have to turn one of these in.
 
2001-12-02 07:19:39 PM  
The url should read postmortem, ^
not postmodern.
 
2001-12-02 07:26:25 PM  
i am actually quite impressed by the generator. it is a simple idea but must have been hard to implement aas well as they did. but then the language makes it difficult to discern whether or not it's 'good'

i also like the way they say: "the essay you have just seen..." as opposed to read.

bravo!
 
2001-12-02 07:37:30 PM  
Hey, is this guy related to L. Ron Hubbard?
 
2001-12-02 07:40:02 PM  
^
^
^
I got an essay by John L. Hubbard or something, before I read the fine print.
 
2001-12-02 09:07:48 PM  
I'm at a loss for words....hehe
 
2001-12-02 09:13:14 PM  
eh? france surrenders..
 
2001-12-02 10:11:47 PM  
Ignoring spelling... "intentional fallacy is a pseudu-archetype of proto-facsitic imperatives" should be: "intentional fallacy is an archetype of proto-facsitic imperatives." Take the "pseudu[o]" part out and it makes much more sense... ;c)
 
2001-12-02 10:28:42 PM  
errrrr ok there Shuh I'll take your word on it.
 
2001-12-02 10:55:04 PM  
eschew obfuscation.
and stuff.
(and bring back the article on "how to be a hitman"... I must complete my training)
 
2001-12-02 11:18:21 PM  
Hey ... if you don't like what the treatise expounds go back to the top of the page and refresh (F5). Still not satisfied? F5 again hahahhahahhaaaa....

I love it... my head hurts from reading it.
 
2001-12-03 01:30:14 AM  
what gets me is that in order to come up with this, somebody must know at least a little something about literary-theoretical jargon, but this doesn't actually even make fun of "postmodernism."

the jargon you see here (as far as it makes sense in any context) belongs more to New Historicism, or more specifically, Cultural Materialism. this stuff parodies "postmodernism" only in the generic and fuzzy non-specialist use of the term to mean "new and weird and hard to understand." it doesn't even make sense to say that you'll "generate postmodernism." that's like saying you're going to "generate capitalism."

not that very many people here would care about the difference, but i just wanted to make that point.

and there was a famous scandal in the 80's where someone sent a leading critical review a bogus pack of jargonistic verbiage disguised as real lit-crit, and they bought it and printed it. but any decent prof would instantly spot this stuff as fake.

because, Blumf, it's just like any other jargon. once you understand it, it's a shortcut, and it saves a whole lot of time. but if you're on the outside of it, it looks like "b****cks." that is, by the way, one way the legitimacy of a dialect (jargon isn't technically a dialect, but this works the same way) -- when speakers of it can identify incorrect usage for that dialect. i can see instantly that this stuff is fake, therefore there is such a thing as meaningful use of lit-crit jargon (as if that shouldn't be obvious -- otherwise you really believe intelligent people go around speaking total nonsense and never knowing it, which is pretty arrogant of you to think).

so, this is good fun and all, even if it fulfils the hegemonic desire to misconstruct the other through institutional practices of
programmatically elisive re-presentation of emic discourse, in a hierarchical logomachy of etic, socially centripetal parody.

that would be, as we all know, opposite in motive to Bakhtinian carnivalism, which works centrifugally to open discourse for heteroglossic speech practice.

pah.
 
2001-12-03 01:40:48 AM  
I've always loved the Three Tenets of Burger Time
 
2001-12-03 09:01:04 AM  
Carwin the Biloquist
"and there was a famous scandal in the 80's where someone sent a leading critical review a bogus pack of jargonistic verbiage disguised as real lit-crit, and they bought it and printed it. but any decent prof would instantly spot this stuff as fake.

because, Blumf, it's just like any other jargon.
"

If you'd check on that famous scandal you'd see that the guy who sent in the bogus article went on to back up his point by showing the inconsistencies of a large collection of po-mo writing. It isn't jargon just plain crap dressed up to obfuscate it.

But if you can find a good piece of po-mo writing that has had a positive effect outside of the ivory towers of academia please share it.
 
2001-12-03 11:57:57 AM  
This bogus essay you guys are alluding to is something that two French scientists wrote about in response to the missuse by Lacan and Derrida (among others) of mathematical phenomena to prove various positions in their writings. the french guys wrote a book which systematically showed the falcity of all these people's ascertians.

and secondly, this certainly isn't really a sending up of PostModernism per se, but rather a mocking of various off shoots of postmodernism such as deconstructionist theory and semiotics.

now i'm sure Flux with his Cornell lit background and DFW Infinite Jest quotes could really weigh in on all this...
 
2001-12-03 01:29:26 PM  
Where's William F. Buckley when you need him??

-he who stacks pork
 
2001-12-03 02:43:03 PM  
Need_For_Tweed: no, that's not what we're referring to. it was a journal article, i promise you. if you really want a citation, i can find it for you.

and, you are correct that this isn't a send-up of "postmodernism." as i said, it really makes fun of hacks who try their hand at cultural materialism. there isn't anything of deconstruction in there, nor much of semiotics. do you see anything in there about signs, referents, or aporias (of course, maybe your version of the page was different from my two...)?


Blumf: of course there are "inconsistencies in a large collection of po-mo writing," granting of course that there is a definable thing called "po-mo writing." there are inconsistencies in any discourse, jargonistic or not. whatever business you're in, I'm sure you've identified BS coming your way in verbal form on more than one occasion. i suppose this invalidates everything possible to be said in the language of your field?

as i said, to write off all "postmodern" theoretical writing as meaningless is arrogant, not to mention ignorant. you don't have to practice it, or even like it. but you should respect people who have taken the time and made the effort to acculturate themselves to a set of practices -- and yes, jargon -- that is useful to them in their scholarly work.

it is true that one of the functions of jargon is socially exlusive. it takes the daunting form it does, in part, to create an intellectual cost of admission to the community of scholars involved in a given field. in addition to creating shortcuts to greater precision and shared context between two practitioners of related ideas, it keeps out those who haven't paid their dues. there's nothing wrong with that. a good working knowledge of the jargon of a field serves as a badge of credibility. it shows you've done the reading.

there are forums for discussion of literature, for example, outside the journals of theory and criticism. no-one will stop you from talking about David Foster Wallace, for example, as little more than a "cool, fvcked up book that took me a month to read, and has a lot of pot-smoking in it, dude." just not in Critical Inquiry.

as for "a good piece of po-mo writing that has had a positive effect outside of the ivory towers of academia," I will have to define "po-mo writing" more specifically, since as I've already stated, there is no definable thing called "po-mo writing," so I hope this answer meets with your approval.


two examples...

for liberals: the de-centering effect of poststructural practice reinforced the anti-hierarchical movement of the late sixties, giving a philosophical basis, apart from ethics, for the overturning of self-established authority. in America this meant, for the most part, the further intellectual validation in the 70's of feminism, and the induction of the women's movement into the university curriculum. terms such as "marginalization," and the current idea of "recovering" silenced voices of marginal groups originates from poststructural thought. that this trend has broader implications for culture at all levels should be obvious. you can't create a major shift in the perception of the supposed "inevitability" of power without sending all kinds of ripples. a key text: Derrida's "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences."

for conservatives: semiotics has afforded Madison Avenue a science of images. Roland Barthes wrote some very entertaining, as well as edifying, essays on advertisement which were meant for the critique of the cultural code which gave them their affective power, but his ideas have since been appropriated as much in service of advertisement as in critique of it. a key text: Barthes's _Mythologies_

now, if you are going to insist on an individual piece of writing that has been widely read outside the "ivory towers," I have already implied why that would be disingenuous. this stuff is not written for Joe Sixpack. it is not published in People or Entertainment Weekly. it works on a "trickle down" principle. those who are trained in the academy are strongly influenced by the theory of their field (mostly in aggregate; occasionally a single essay proves especially influential, but it will always be related to an overall discourse). those people disseminate that theory in more digestible forms. say, in the case of literary theory, in fiction (DFW or Dave Eggers or Umberto Eco), or in film (Pulp Fiction or Run Lola Run or a lot of Woody Allen), or on TV (the rampant self-consciousness of a lot of shows, or so-called Reality TV).

there, with all that said (at greater length than I intended, sorry), let me just add that I have written this in an honest attempt to explain this stuff. hopefully it didn't come off as pissy or pompous. it's hard not to get a little edgy when people write off what you do without making much effort to understand it.
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report