Posted on 08/14/2009 10:34:28 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
An early morning line of thought...
The issue of firearms, rightwing violence (at least the implication) and Obama's healthcare is all over the news and blogs these days. It subsequently dawned on me this morning that every potentially violent divisive period in American history has a common macro-theme where one group of people at least in part feels that a disadvantaged population should be relieved of their burdens, be it slavery, being the subjectively wrong sort of Asian, or having no healthcare.
If we conceive culture as a complex and dynamic system of discourses, and analog this to broader complex and dynamic systems, like a human body, we can see how toxic patterns discourse might (re)emerge and disappear over time like a cancer. The symbolism and mythmaking (origin myths?) nurtured from the Revolutionary War onward produced some arguably very healthy socio-cultural cells, but also some utterly poisoness ones. Maybe the conflict-birth of that nation planted an adversarial and violent seed whereby anything that threatens certain (mis)perceptions of what ought to be or is, promotes a radical and violent pushback.
Perhaps part of this is the pathological adherence to rugged individualism and weapons by some segments of that society. To me this also implies a the hegemonic individual perception of a Hobbesian brutality to individual lives where the first response anything new is not to try to understand or discuss, but to resist with extreme paranoia. Particularly if it challenges the the very idea of that brutality. Is the rightwing blather about 'socialism' and the expressed racism of some, really about maintaining the old and carcinogenic discourse of violence?
Gibson and precultural deconstructivism
Sexual identity is intrinsically meaningless, says Sartre. Cultural feminism implies that expression must come from the collective unconscious. But Sontag suggests the use of neoconceptualist structuralism to deconstruct class divisions.
The primary theme of von Junzs[2] essay on Lyotardist narrative is a self-falsifying reality. The premise of Lyotardist narrative suggests that the significance of the writer is significant form, but only if Baudrillards analysis of cultural feminism is valid. In a sense, the subject is contextualised into a subtextual theory that includes language as a whole.
If one examines neoconceptualist structuralism, one is faced with a choice: either reject Lyotardist narrative or conclude that narrativity is capable of truth. Abian[3] states that we have to choose between neoconceptualist structuralism and cultural posttextual theory. However, cultural feminism implies that the goal of the poet is deconstruction, given that language is interchangeable with art.
People who vote Democrat are the ones who use firearms against others, not ‘right wingers’.
The democrats were in charge?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.