Neocapitalist constructive theory and surrealism

[TheReasoner]

An interesting read! (all nonsense until the credits)

generated by http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
non-nonsensical question follows.


N. Ludwig Buxton
Department of Literature, University of Illinois

1. Expressions of collapse

The characteristic theme of the works of Eco is the stasis, and subsequent failure, of textual class. However, several desublimations concerning not theory, but neotheory may be discovered. The primary theme of Long’s[1] critique of Marxist capitalism is the common ground between consciousness and class.

If one examines subconceptual discourse, one is faced with a choice: either accept surrealism or conclude that society, perhaps surprisingly, has significance. But von Ludwig[2] holds that we have to choose between subconceptual discourse and modern deconstructivism. If surrealism holds, the works of Eco are not postmodern.

Thus, the main theme of the works of Eco is not deappropriation as such, but subdeappropriation. Baudrillard uses the term ‘neocapitalist constructive theory’ to denote the paradigm, and some would say the fatal flaw, of postdialectic class.

However, the primary theme of Drucker’s[3] analysis of the constructive paradigm of reality is the role of the writer as artist. D’Erlette[4] states that we have to choose between neocapitalist constructive theory and dialectic theory.

But Marx’s essay on the pretextual paradigm of narrative suggests that art is capable of intent, given that reality is equal to consciousness. If surrealism holds, we have to choose between dialectic desublimation and Debordist image.

2. Eco and neocapitalist constructive theory

The characteristic theme of the works of Eco is not, in fact, narrative, but neonarrative. Thus, the premise of surrealism implies that the task of the writer is deconstruction. A number of materialisms concerning neocapitalist constructive theory exist.

In the works of Eco, a predominant concept is the concept of subconceptual reality. But Lyotard’s critique of subconceptual discourse holds that the establishment is capable of truth. The primary theme of la Tournier’s[5] model of neosemantic narrative is the dialectic, and subsequent absurdity, of capitalist art.

Thus, von Junz[6] states that we have to choose between neocapitalist constructive theory and postdialectic structuralist theory. The main theme of the works of Eco is the difference between class and sexual identity.

Therefore, the premise of surrealism implies that consciousness is intrinsically elitist. In The Aesthetics of Thomas Aquinas, Eco affirms subconceptual discourse; in The Name of the Rose, however, he denies Sartreist existentialism.

Thus, the characteristic theme of Buxton’s[7] critique of surrealism is the role of the poet as reader. Many sublimations concerning not desituationism, as Debord would have it, but subdesituationism may be revealed.

3. Subconceptual discourse and textual narrative

“Culture is part of the rubicon of truth,” says Baudrillard; however, according to Cameron[8] , it is not so much culture that is part of the rubicon of truth, but rather the collapse, and eventually the failure, of culture. It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a surrealism that includes truth as a whole. Derrida uses the term ‘textual narrative’ to denote the common ground between sexual identity and class.

Thus, an abundance of constructions concerning surrealism exist. The subject is contextualised into a precapitalist discourse that includes language as a totality.

Therefore, the dialectic, and subsequent paradigm, of textual narrative depicted in Smith’s Clerks emerges again in Dogma, although in a more mythopoetical sense. The main theme of the works of Smith is not destructuralism, but postdestructuralism.

In a sense, Sontag uses the term ‘Foucaultist power relations’ to denote the bridge between narrativity and class. If textual narrative holds, we have to choose between deconstructive construction and subdialectic capitalist theory.

1. Long, E. (1988) Reinventing Socialist realism: Surrealism in the works of Koons. Cambridge University Press

2. von Ludwig, T. P. ed. (1971) Surrealism and neocapitalist constructive theory. Loompanics

3. Drucker, F. T. I. (1982) Cultural Theories: Neocapitalist constructive theory and surrealism. O’Reilly & Associates

4. d’Erlette, V. E. ed. (1975) Surrealism, Marxism and neocapitalist narrative. University of Illinois Press

5. la Tournier, F. (1993) Reassessing Social realism: Surrealism and neocapitalist constructive theory. Harvard University Press

6. von Junz, W. R. ed. (1986) Surrealism in the works of Joyce. University of North Carolina Press

7. Buxton, B. D. P. (1992) Reading Lyotard: Neocapitalist constructive theory and surrealism. University of Michigan Press

8. Cameron, F. ed. (1973) Neocapitalist constructive theory in the works of Smith. O’Reilly & Associates




Of course it's complete nonsense. However, this generator hit the news a while back as a student actually used the generator that made this in an exam, and got a C. Of course, he should have failed. And while this should have been a once in a lifetime example of epic failure from the university in question, I know multiple engineering and science students who take classes in their respective universities' humanities departments and more or less write gibberish on their exams getting passing grades, thereby earning points to trick various systems into thinking they have studied more and harder than everyone else. I myself took a philosophy course and without studying got a B. Granted, I have read the republic, confessions, das kapital, the communist manifesto and a number of other philosophy books on my spare time - it interests me. (Note about the grade: Here the average is forcibly set to a C, and the distribution is normal on courses with a "large" number of students. n>100.)

My question thus goes out to you philosophy buffs on here, some of who most likely have a degree in philosophy: How easy IS it really - in your university - to get a passing grade, or a good grade, in philosophy and other areas within the humanities. Do any of you have any cross-discipline experience to relate?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I have never taken a philosophy exam. I study to inform myself, so producing randomised nonsense would in most contexts be a pointless exercise. As for postmodern philosophy, I think it may have had a some benign influence somewhere if we are looking for some good. For instance - if I understand it rightly - in ideas of the linguistic construction of the self or in the idea which might undermine any essentialist accounts of what we are. And that the teaching of "truth" can be a political tool rather then a neutral epistemic exercise. Also it seems possible that reversing binary oppositions might be a bad, wicked, chilling thing to do, which kind of inverted talk pleases some people and parhaps "liberates" them from "oppressive" moral discourse. But i haven't read any of the major PoMo writers cover to cover, so maybe I am not that well qualified to comment.

 

[AlexBP]

I majored in computer science, so I only took one class in philosophy and one class in sociology. I view the professors in both classes as a little bit kooky but I wouldn't classify either of them as stupid. I doubt that anyone be able to sneak a paper of pure nonsense past either of them. At the same time, there's no doubt in my mind that some folks in the academic world have a screw loose. The best analysis I've ever read on the topic is Chip Morningstar's essay How to Deconstruct Almost Anything, which you can read at this link:

How to Deconstruct Almost Anything

Though he's addressing literary criticism the phenomenon is basically the same as for philosophy and sociology. His conclusion is:

I earlier stated that my quest was to learn if there was any content to this stuff and if it was or was not bogus. Well, my assessment is that there is indeed some content, much of it interesting. The question of bogosity, however, is a little more difficult. It is clear that the forms used by academicians writing in this area go right off the bogosity scale, pegging my bogometer until it breaks. The quality of the actual analysis of various literary works varies tremendously and must be judged on a case-by-case basis, but I find most of it highly questionable. Buried in the muck, however, are a set of important and interesting ideas: that in reading a work it is illuminating to consider the contrast between what is said and what is not said, between what is explicit and what is assumed, and that popular notions of truth and value depend to a disturbingly high degree on the reader's credulity and willingness to accept the text's own claims as to its validity.

Looking at the field of contemporary literary criticism as a whole also yields some valuable insights. It is a cautionary lesson about the consequences of allowing a branch of academia that has been entrusted with the study of important problems to become isolated and inbred. The Pseudo Politically Correct term that I would use to describe the mind set of postmodernism is "epistemologically challenged": a constitutional inability to adopt a reasonable way to tell the good stuff from the bad stuff. The language and idea space of the field have become so convoluted that they have confused even themselves. But the tangle offers a safe refuge for the academics. It erects a wall between them and the rest of the world. It immunizes them against having to confront their own failings, since any genuine criticism can simply be absorbed into the morass and made indistinguishable from all the other verbiage. Intellectual tools that might help prune the thicket are systematically ignored or discredited. This is why, for example, science, psychology and economics are represented in the literary world by theories that were abandoned by practicing scientists, psychologists and economists fifty or a hundred years ago. The field is absorbed in triviality. Deconstruction is an idea that would make a worthy topic for some bright graduate student's Ph.D. dissertation but has instead spawned an entire subfield. Ideas that would merit a good solid evening or afternoon of argument and debate and perhaps a paper or two instead become the focus of entire careers.

Engineering and the sciences have, to a greater degree, been spared this isolation and genetic drift because of crass commercial necessity. The constraints of the physical world and the actual needs and wants of the actual population have provided a grounding that is difficult to dodge. However, in academia the pressures for isolation are enormous. It is clear to me that the humanities are not going to emerge from the jungle on their own. I think that the task of outreach is left to those of us who retain some connection, however tenuous, to what we laughingly call reality. We have to go into the jungle after them and rescue what we can. Just remember to hang on to your sense of humor and don't let them intimidate you.
​

And that would summarize how I feel as well.