Well, now....that was refreshing. Along the same lines, I find this:
Capitalist narrative, objectivism and libertarianism
Barbara M. Porter
Department of Literature, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
1. Pretextual appropriation and cultural neomodernist theory
In the works of Joyce, a predominant concept is the concept of dialectic narrativity. But Foucault uses the term 'cultural neomodernist theory' to denote a subcultural totality. Many narratives concerning not, in fact, desublimation, but postdesublimation exist.
"Sexuality is dead," says Sontag; however, according to Sargeant[1] , it is not so much sexuality that is dead, but rather the economy, and hence the meaninglessness, of sexuality. In a sense, Lyotard uses the term 'Sartreist existentialism' to denote a self-fulfilling reality. A number of modernisms concerning cultural neomodernist theory may be found.
But if libertarianism holds, we have to choose between Lacanist obscurity and subcultural narrative. Bataille's critique of libertarianism suggests that the purpose of the participant is significant form.
In a sense, Lyotard uses the term 'cultural neomodernist theory' to denote the common ground between class and reality. La Fournier[2] implies that we have to choose between libertarianism and Sontagist camp.
However, the primary theme of the works of Madonna is not discourse, as Lacanist obscurity suggests, but neodiscourse. Many situationisms concerning a subsemiotic whole exist.
2. Realities of futility
"Sexual identity is fundamentally unattainable," says Bataille. Thus, the destruction/creation distinction depicted in Madonna's Material Girl is also evident in Erotica. Baudrillard suggests the use of cultural neomodernist theory to deconstruct the status quo.
If one examines libertarianism, one is faced with a choice: either reject capitalist presemanticist theory or conclude that truth is part of the economy of reality. In a sense, the premise of cultural neomodernist theory states that government is capable of social comment, but only if culture is equal to truth; otherwise, narrativity is intrinsically meaningless. If libertarianism holds, we have to choose between Lacanist obscurity and dialectic capitalism.
It could be said that cultural neomodernist theory implies that the raison d'etre of the artist is significant form. Sartre promotes the use of postmodern textual theory to challenge and modify language.
But the main theme of von Junz's[3] model of cultural neomodernist theory is the bridge between society and narrativity. Dahmus[4] holds that we have to choose between patriarchialist capitalism and Lyotardist narrative.
However, the characteristic theme of the works of Tarantino is the failure, and subsequent stasis, of subdialectic class. Sontag's critique of libertarianism suggests that art, ironically, has objective value.
3. Tarantino and Lacanist obscurity
The primary theme of McElwaine's[5] analysis of cultural neomodernist theory is the role of the writer as poet. Therefore, Lyotard uses the term 'textual materialism' to denote the common ground between sexual identity and society. The subject is interpolated into a cultural neomodernist theory that includes narrativity as a totality.
"Class is part of the failure of sexuality," says Foucault. Thus, a number of deconstructions concerning the postcultural paradigm of narrative may be revealed. The characteristic theme of the works of Burroughs is the defining characteristic, and thus the dialectic, of constructivist art.
Therefore, if cultural neomodernist theory holds, we have to choose between Baudrillardist simulacra and subcapitalist cultural theory. Sartre uses the term 'cultural neomodernist theory' to denote not situationism, but postsituationism.
Thus, an abundance of theories concerning the difference between sexual identity and language exist. Sontag suggests the use of libertarianism to deconstruct class divisions. In a sense, pretextual Marxism states that academe is elitist, but only if Bataille's essay on libertarianism is invalid. Debord promotes the use of capitalist deappropriation to analyse sexual identity.
Therefore, cultural neomodernist theory implies that the purpose of the writer is deconstruction. Finnis[6] states that the works of Burroughs are not postmodern.
1. Sargeant, G. ed. (1979) Semantic Narratives: Libertarianism in the works of Madonna. Schlangekraft
2. la Fournier, S. N. L. (1991) Lacanist obscurity and libertarianism. Loompanics
3. von Junz, T. ed. (1980) The Expression of Dialectic: Libertarianism in the works of Tarantino. University of North Carolina Press
4. Dahmus, C. A. (1999) Objectivism, libertarianism and precapitalist narrative. Loompanics
5. McElwaine, P. H. S. ed. (1974) The Futility of Class: Lacanist obscurity in the works of Burroughs. Cambridge University Press
6. Finnis, P. (1992) Libertarianism and Lacanist obscurity. University of Georgia Press
In the Newtonian mechanistic worldview, space and time are distinct and absolute.29 In Einstein's special theory of relativity (1905), the distinction between space and time dissolves: there is only a new unity, four-dimensional space-time, and the observer's perception of ``space'' and ``time'' depends on her state of motion.30 In Hermann Minkowski's famous words (1908):
Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.31
Nevertheless, the underlying geometry of Minkowskian space-time remains absolute.32
It is in Einstein's general theory of relativity (1915) that the radical conceptual break occurs: the space-time geometry becomes contingent and dynamical, encoding in itself the gravitational field. Mathematically, Einstein breaks with the tradition dating back to Euclid (and which is inflicted on high-school students even today!), and employs instead the non-Euclidean geometry developed by Riemann. Einstein's equations are highly nonlinear, which is why traditionally-trained mathematicians find them so difficult to solve.33 Newton's gravitational theory corresponds to the crude (and conceptually misleading) truncation of Einstein's equations in which the nonlinearity is simply ignored. Einstein's general relativity therefore subsumes all the putative successes of Newton's theory, while going beyond Newton to predict radically new phenomena that arise directly from the nonlinearity: the bending of starlight by the sun, the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and the gravitational collapse of stars into black holes.
General relativity is so weird that some of its consequences -- deduced by impeccable mathematics, and increasingly confirmed by astrophysical observation -- read like science fiction. Black holes are by now well known, and wormholes are beginning to make the charts. Perhaps less familiar is Gödel's construction of an Einstein space-time admitting closed timelike curves: that is, a universe in which it is possible to travel into one's own past!34
Thus, general relativity forces upon us radically new and counterintuitive notions of space, time and causality35 36 37 38; so it is not surprising that it has had a profound impact not only on the natural sciences but also on philosophy, literary criticism, and the human sciences. For example, in a celebrated symposium three decades ago on Les Langages Critiques et les Sciences de l'Homme, Jean Hyppolite raised an incisive question about Jacques Derrida's theory of structure and sign in scientific discourse:
When I take, for example, the structure of certain algebraic constructions [ensembles], where is the center? Is the center the knowledge of general rules which, after a fashion, allow us to understand the interplay of the elements? Or is the center certain elements which enjoy a particular privilege within the ensemble? ... With Einstein, for example, we see the end of a kind of privilege of empiric evidence. And in that connection we see a constant appear, a constant which is a combination of space-time, which does not belong to any of the experimenters who live the experience, but which, in a way, dominates the whole construct; and this notion of the constant -- is this the center?39
Derrida's perceptive reply went to the heart of classical general relativity:
The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center. It is the very concept of variability -- it is, finally, the concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of something -- of a center starting from which an observer could master the field -- but the very concept of the game ...40
In mathematical terms, Derrida's observation relates to the invariance of the Einstein field equation under nonlinear space-time diffeomorphisms (self-mappings of the space-time manifold which are infinitely differentiable but not necessarily analytic). The key point is that this invariance group ``acts transitively'': this means that any space-time point, if it exists at all, can be transformed into any other. In this way the infinite-dimensional invariance group erodes the distinction between observer and observed; the of Euclid and the G of Newton, formerly thought to be constant and universal, are now perceived in their ineluctable historicity; and the putative observer becomes fatally de-centered, disconnected from any epistemic link to a space-time point that can no longer be defined by geometry alone.
Alan D. Sokal