[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
All I have to say is that the masses must become dialecticians and inscribe their thought in practice! [/quote]
Would it have been so hard for you to say “people need to walk the walk instead of talk the talk”?
Seriously, you’re harder to understand than Bill Roberts.
It’s rare that I say this but people who try to sound smart are attention whores.
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
Given the conditions of modern society I wouldn’t dare participate in anything as meaningless or idiotic as a “lofty-intellectual feat”, either in the ideological factory of interpellation that is academia or elsewhere [/quote]
Language changes, and so should you. No one who ever spoke English spoke like this.
The whole point of language is to communicate. Communication should be readily understood. This takes deep thought to decipher.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
All I have to say is that the masses must become dialecticians and inscribe their thought in practice! [/quote]
"Karado, if that IS you? Knock it off. One of you is enough.
In other words, yup.[/quote]
I pretty sure he is not Karado.
Because i’m pretty sure that Karado could not come up with this kind of phraseology to save his life.
Tyrone is probably just someone who have read a few dangerous books.
Books i probably read too.
Books most of you would label as “far left propaganda”.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t label it “Religion”, I label it wishful thinking as a replacement for truth and reality.[/quote]
Aren’t you playing with words my dear!
In spite of the fact that this pathetic festival of reification-bulwarked interpellation has been quite entertaining, I will leave now.
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
All I have to say is that the masses must become dialecticians and inscribe their thought in practice! [/quote]
"Karado, if that IS you? Knock it off. One of you is enough.
In other words, yup.[/quote]
I pretty sure he is not Karado.
Because i’m pretty sure that Karado could not come up with this kind of phraseology to save his life.
Tyrone is probably just someone who have read a few dangerous books.
Books i probably read too.
Books most of you would label as “far left propaganda”.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t label it “Religion”, I label it wishful thinking as a replacement for truth and reality.[/quote]
Aren’t you playing with words my dear!
In spite of the fact that this pathetic festival of reification-bulwarked interpellation has been quite entertaining, I will leave now.
[/quote]
mmmm-hmmm.
I wasn’t playing. Leftist theory, or theology depending on your level of commitment has not only failed in theory but it really failed in practice. Nothing in history has failed worse. That’s just a cold hard fact.
At worst you can say religious philosophy is unproven, at best you can say leftist philosophy has failed every test, ethical, logical and practical. It has nothing to offer save for failure.
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
All I have to say is that the masses must become dialecticians and inscribe their thought in practice! [/quote]
Would it have been so hard for you to say “people need to walk the walk instead of talk the talk”?
Seriously, you’re harder to understand than Bill Roberts.
It’s rare that I say this but people who try to sound smart are attention whores.[/quote]
It’s sad when it’s this transparent.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
Given the conditions of modern society I wouldn’t dare participate in anything as meaningless or idiotic as a “lofty-intellectual feat”, either in the ideological factory of interpellation that is academia or elsewhere [/quote]I’m becoming increasingly persuaded that the pointlessness of these posts is your point.
[/quote]
What you perceive as polite, I perceive as deeply sarcastic.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
All I have to say is that the masses must become dialecticians and inscribe their thought in practice! [/quote]
"Karado, if that IS you? Knock it off. One of you is enough.
In other words, yup.[/quote]
I pretty sure he is not Karado.
Because i’m pretty sure that Karado could not come up with this kind of phraseology to save his life.
Tyrone is probably just someone who have read a few dangerous books.
Books i probably read too.
Books most of you would label as “far left propaganda”.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t label it “Religion”, I label it wishful thinking as a replacement for truth and reality.[/quote]
Aren’t you playing with words my dear!
In spite of the fact that this pathetic festival of reification-bulwarked interpellation has been quite entertaining, I will leave now.
[/quote]
mmmm-hmmm.
I wasn’t playing. Leftist theory, or theology depending on your level of commitment has not only failed in theory but it really failed in practice. Nothing in history has failed worse. That’s just a cold hard fact.
At worst you can say religious philosophy is unproven, at best you can say leftist philosophy has failed every test, ethical, logical and practical. It has nothing to offer save for failure. [/quote]
The phrase “leftist theory” is meaningless and has no application to the present discussion.
History is an activity. The entire corpus of religious philosophy as it exists today is the dried semen of a particular form of obsolesced social domination.
An individual, as you yourself have persistently and with all the tenacity of a pomaceously-entranced barbarian-of-the-episteme demonstrated, is capable of saying whatever he/she would like regardless of the disgustingly profane level of perversity embedded within the statement at hand.
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
The phrase “leftist theory” is meaningless and has no application to the present discussion.
History is an activity. The entire corpus of religious philosophy as it exists today is the dried semen of a particular form of obsolesced social domination.
An individual, as you yourself have persistently and with all the tenacity of a pomaceously-entranced barbarian-of-the-episteme demonstrated, is capable of saying whatever he/she would like regardless of the disgustingly profane level of perversity embedded within the statement at hand.
[/quote]
I think several of us have completely forgotten about the original topic and are now entirely focused on why you take so long to say so little.
“Religion is an antiquated and obsolete form of social control”
and
“You and I both have freedom of speech”
Is that not all you said?
[quote]
“Religion is an antiquated and obsolete form of social control”[/quote]
This is not what he said.
his statement implies that philosophy (and not religion) has no universal value, no real objectivity, and no direct causal power : it’s only, and always, the ideological/superstructural reflection of the infrastructure.
[quote]
“You and I both have freedom of speech”[/quote]
Again, i don’t think his statement has anything to do with “freedom of speech”.
More to do with what Marx called “false consciousness”.
[photo]38377[/photo]
Maybe he accepted a new role?
[quote]kamui wrote:[quote]csulli says TyroneSlothrop means:“Religion is an antiquated and obsolete form of social control”[/quote]This is not what he said.his statement implies that philosophy (and not religion) has no universal value, no real objectivity, and no direct causal power : it’s only, and always, the ideological/superstructural reflection of the infrastructure. >>>[/quote]If that is what he actually said, there is a dialect of English the existence of which I was entirely unaware until this very minute. I would have never in one million years gotten that out of what this guy said. Actually to be honest I thought csulli had it. [quote]kamui wrote:[quote]csulli says TyroneSlothrop means:“You and I both have freedom of speech”[/quote]Again, i don’t think his statement has anything to do with “freedom of speech”.
More to do with what Marx called “false consciousness”[/quote]And if this is true then any vestige of regret I may have possibly had at my not having ever read much Marx has just evaporated forever. He would be interesting to knock around a bit in one of our discussions though.
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
the ideological factory of interpellation that is academia [/quote]
Redundant - “interpellation” in a marxist context presupposes “ideology.” Factory of interpellation would have sufficed, but you have this strange affinity for ambiguous and verbose genitive constructions.
Alright Alright everyone, enough with these pretentious Grey Poupon words,
It is causing rheum as read it prior to my abaction so I may
save one from being pumped full of hormones.
LOL, grey poupon words. Not bad Karado, that was pretty funny.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< ambiguous and verbose genitive constructions. [/quote]Not to Kamui. My ol pal Francois there seems to understand him just fine, which makes me wonder if he’s smarter or weirder than I am.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
the ideological factory of interpellation that is academia [/quote]
Redundant - “interpellation” in a marxist context presupposes “ideology.” Factory of interpellation would have sufficed, but you have this strange affinity for ambiguous and verbose genitive constructions. [/quote]
That it does, but I wished to imply that the production of false consciousness as a general material and institutional deception of the proletariat is in the case of certain individuals participating in this discussion directly related to the “factory of interpellation that is academia” and their presumably past subjugation therein
Had I simply stated “factory of interpellation that is academia”, I would have stated that academia is a mode of producing the process by which ideology confronts and produces the subject.
Is that a picture of you in your avatar?
BTW, are you implying that my education is what accounts for my proletariat false consciousness? (I’ll play a little longer)
.
…
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]
“Religion is an antiquated and obsolete form of social control”[/quote]
This is not what he said.
his statement implies that philosophy (and not religion) has no universal value, no real objectivity, and no direct causal power : it’s only, and always, the ideological/superstructural reflection of the infrastructure.
No I think you’re wrong. Let’s look at the words he used sans some of the adjectives and prepositional phrases.
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
The corpus of religious philosophy as it exists today is the dried semen of a particular form of obsolesced social domination.[/quote]
The body of religious philosophy today is the remnant (I guess that’s what he was going for with dried semen) of a kind of social control which is becoming increasingly obsolete.
So yea, I still think he was basically calling religion an obsolete form of social control. What you said is mostly philosophical bullshit.
[quote]TyroneSlothrop wrote:
An individual is capable of saying whatever he/she would like.[/quote]
That is literally all he said. So yeah that’s basically freedom of speech. The entire rest of that bit was just prepositional phrases taking shots at pat.
So again, you’re full of it.
