So, what is the Deal with post-modernism? Isn’t right now modern? How can we be post-modern? Isn’t that just the future?

Unfortunately, due entirely to dipshits who decided to name an era that occurred now nearly 80 years ago as the “modern era” without any shred of foresight as to the fact that time (not real, by the way) would continue to march on, and that every year after 19fucking30 or whatever would be “post-modern”, we’re stuck using ridiculously stupid prefixes better saved for music genres to describe ridiculously stupid philosophical beliefs.

Does that actually answer any of your questions? No? Good. That’s post-modernism.

“But Coach”, you’re asking yourself out loud, because for some reason you like to speak to my articles, “Is post-modernism really a bad thing?” Well, This Incredibly Long List Of Buzzwords Strung Together By Markov Chain May Contain The Answer!

So, what’s the deal Post-Modernism anyway? You see it all time here, I’m sure. Is it good? Is it bad?

You don’t really know, but that’s okay. Nobody does. But maybe the answer to your question is in this completely randomly generated post-modernist essay? Go ahead and take a look.

1. Smith and the capitalist paradigm of narrative

“Society is responsible for capitalism,” says Sontag; however, according to
Scuglia[1] , it is not so much society that is responsible
for capitalism, but rather the fatal flaw, and subsequent rubicon, of society.
But the subject is contextualised into a neodialectic desituationism that
includes truth as a reality.

In A Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man, Joyce affirms textual
socialism; in Finnegan’s Wake, however, he denies neodialectic
desituationism. However, subsemantic objectivism holds that government is
intrinsically meaningless, but only if Baudrillard’s essay on Derridaist
reading is invalid.

An abundance of discourses concerning neodialectic desituationism may be
revealed. Thus, von Ludwig[2] implies that we have to choose
between postcapitalist deconstruction and Sontagist camp.

2. Contexts of dialectic

“Sexual identity is impossible,” says Sartre. Marx uses the term
‘neodialectic desituationism’ to denote the role of the writer as observer. It
could be said that if subsemantic objectivism holds, we have to choose between
cultural subcapitalist theory and cultural objectivism.

The characteristic theme of the works of Joyce is the fatal flaw, and some
would say the defining characteristic, of neodialectic consciousness. The
subject is interpolated into a subsemantic objectivism that includes sexuality
as a totality. Thus, the premise of Derridaist reading holds that discourse
comes from communication.

If one examines Derridaist reading, one is faced with a choice: either
reject cultural Marxism or conclude that the goal of the writer is social
comment, given that culture is interchangeable with truth. The main theme of la
Tournier’s[3] analysis of neodialectic desituationism is the
difference between class and sexual identity. However, Baudrillard suggests the
use of Derridaist reading to read society.

The masculine/feminine distinction depicted in Joyce’s Dubliners is
also evident in A Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man, although in a
more mythopoetical sense. In a sense, the characteristic theme of the works of
Joyce is the role of the artist as reader.

In Ulysses, Joyce deconstructs subsemantic objectivism; in
Finnegan’s Wake, although, he examines neodialectic desituationism.
Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a subsemantic objectivism that
includes language as a reality.

The primary theme of Wilson’s[4] model of Derridaist
reading is not theory per se, but subtheory. Thus, Lyotard uses the term
‘neodialectic desituationism’ to denote the futility, and subsequent failure,
of pretextual sexuality.

The subject is interpolated into a subsemantic objectivism that includes
language as a totality. However, the characteristic theme of the works of Joyce
is the bridge between sexual identity and society.

3. Joyce and Derridaist reading

“Sexual identity is part of the fatal flaw of culture,” says Marx. Debord
promotes the use of the conceptual paradigm of expression to attack outmoded
perceptions of truth. Thus, the subject is contextualised into a subsemantic
objectivism that includes sexuality as a whole.

In the works of Joyce, a predominant concept is the concept of neodialectic
reality. McElwaine[5] implies that we have to choose between
Derridaist reading and posttextual situationism. However, Baudrillard’s
analysis of subsemantic objectivism holds that truth is dead.

“Society is part of the rubicon of reality,” says Foucault; however,
according to Hubbard[6] , it is not so much society that is
part of the rubicon of reality, but rather the meaninglessness, and some would
say the dialectic, of society. The paradigm, and eventually the futility, of
the material paradigm of context prevalent in Burroughs’s The Last Words of
Dutch Schultz emerges again in Junky. Thus, Baudrillard suggests the
use of subsemantic objectivism to modify and analyse sexual identity.

The primary theme of de Selby’s[7] critique of
subconceptualist nihilism is not theory, but posttheory. The main theme of the
works of Burroughs is the stasis of textual society. But Debord uses the term
‘subsemantic objectivism’ to denote the difference between narrativity and
society.

In Naked Lunch, Burroughs deconstructs neodialectic desituationism;
in The Last Words of Dutch Schultz he reiterates Derridaist reading.
However, the primary theme of Buxton’s[8] model of
precapitalist dialectic theory is the role of the poet as participant.

If Derridaist reading holds, we have to choose between subsemantic
objectivism and neocapitalist deconstruction. In a sense, the main theme of the
works of Pynchon is not discourse, but prediscourse.

The subject is interpolated into a neodialectic desituationism that includes
sexuality as a paradox. But Humphrey[9] states that the
works of Pynchon are not postmodern.

Many desublimations concerning the common ground between class and reality
exist. Thus, the subject is contextualised into a subsemantic objectivism that
includes narrativity as a reality.

If postcapitalist theory holds, we have to choose between subsemantic
objectivism and the dialectic paradigm of expression. Therefore, in
Vineland, Pynchon examines Derridaist reading; in The Crying of Lot
49, although, he denies neodialectic desituationism.

The premise of precapitalist objectivism suggests that class has objective
value, but only if Lacan’s essay on Derridaist reading is valid; if that is not
the case, we can assume that the media is capable of deconstruction. But
Sargeant[10] implies that we have to choose between
neodialectic desituationism and Baudrillardist simulacra.

4. Subsemantic objectivism and dialectic narrative

If one examines neodialectic desituationism, one is faced with a choice:
either accept Lacanist obscurity or conclude that consciousness serves to
exploit the proletariat. The premise of subsemantic objectivism states that art
is elitist. Thus, Bataille promotes the use of dialectic narrative to
deconstruct capitalism.

In the works of Pynchon, a predominant concept is the distinction between
feminine and masculine. If neodialectic desituationism holds, we have to choose
between dialectic narrative and neocultural theory. However, Derrida’s critique
of neodialectic desituationism suggests that the raison d’etre of the artist is
social comment, but only if narrativity is distinct from sexuality; otherwise,
Sontag’s model of subsemantic objectivism is one of “capitalist rationalism”,
and hence fundamentally a legal fiction.

Scuglia[11] implies that the works of Pynchon are
postmodern. In a sense, Lacan suggests the use of the pretextual paradigm of
discourse to challenge class.

The premise of subsemantic objectivism holds that the law is meaningless.
Thus, if dialectic narrative holds, we have to choose between subsemantic
objectivism and cultural deconstruction.

Derrida promotes the use of neodialectic desituationism to attack sexism.
But Porter[12] implies that we have to choose between
semantic prestructuralist theory and the semiotic paradigm of context.

Subsemantic objectivism suggests that narrativity may be used to reinforce
class divisions. In a sense, if postdeconstructivist theory holds, we have to
choose between neodialectic desituationism and the textual paradigm of
narrative.

5. Consensuses of absurdity

“Sexuality is intrinsically used in the service of hierarchy,” says
Foucault. The characteristic theme of Brophy’s[13] model of
dialectic narrative is a self-supporting paradox. Thus, Dietrich[14] implies that we have to choose between subsemantic
objectivism and neosemioticist narrative.

If one examines neodialectic desituationism, one is faced with a choice:
either reject dialectic narrative or conclude that sexual identity, somewhat
ironically, has significance. A number of discourses concerning subsemantic
objectivism may be discovered. However, the main theme of the works of Pynchon
is the paradigm, and eventually the economy, of patriarchial society.

Baudrillard’s analysis of dialectic narrative suggests that reality is a
product of the masses, but only if postcultural modern theory is invalid; if
that is not the case, art is part of the rubicon of culture. But if subsemantic
objectivism holds, we have to choose between predeconstructivist sublimation
and Lyotardist narrative.

The example of subsemantic objectivism which is a central theme of Pynchon’s
Vineland is also evident in The Crying of Lot 49, although in a
more cultural sense. However, Bataille’s essay on neodialectic desituationism
holds that language has intrinsic meaning.

Several narratives concerning the role of the poet as artist exist. Thus,
dialectic narrative states that discourse is created by the collective
unconscious.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here