Bull-plop
Around essay time, I always become uneasy, and my entire knowledge base buckles around me. It's not that I actively bullshit my essays and thus make amockery of everything I purport to do, it's just that I have my doubts like any human being (at least I hope that that's what human beings do). So, to deal with my doubts, I spew off a stream of academic-sounding, dense verbiage largelly devoid of meaning. Any actual essay I write is an analytical gem by comparison.
Empty verbiage is a collective effort. I encourage readers to send their suggestion on how the following passage could have been made less accessible, or alternatively, more intimidating.
"So the matter concerns reconceptualizing the concepts that are basic to regular functioning in a socioeconomic milleu that conceptualizes and (p)(re)conceptualizes the concept of "object" as well as the concept of "action" which is arbitrarily defined by a neo-enlightenment rationalism that conceptualizes concepts as immutable and distinct without conceptual justification. We need to develop an epistemic framework from which concepts can be reconceptualized as they are deconceptualized without fear of so-called neo-"rationalist" "objections" on the grounds of self-contradiction. For of course if we reconceptualize the concept of "right"and "wrong" and foreground the de-foregrounded "excluded middle", so popular with white male logicians, contradition becomes pluralistic, it becomes open to new and positive interpretations that allow us to reconceptualize the construction of knowledge and challenge and de-privilege middle-class white male "science" and "knowledge". The liberatory and progressive potential of embracing the previously marginalized and excluded middle. The P and not-P of totalizing Aristotelian discourse becomes contextualized in its social contexts and begins to exist on the same epistemic level with the long-marginalized (P or not-P) and (P and not-P). This system, however, is inadequate to truly capture the power of reconceptualizing Aristotle's totalizing, homonormative discourse, for it naturally marginalizes Q and R. Within our (re)conceptual framework, Q and R exist on equitable grounds as equal variables, not second- or third-place holders that only come to attention when the rules of unitary, normative logical discourse are apparently "violated", exposing the system's epistemic and moral bankruptcy from the very start. In this way, radical new programs by Lacan et al (1973), Schiever and Kostyn (1981) and Germyn et al (1981) have exposed the moral bankruptcy of totalizing logical discourse as it pertains to oppression of the female impulsive and fluid nature, as it marginalizes the black body, which in racial discourse has often been termed Q, or, perhaps even more disparagingly, not-P (ibid.). However, the metatheorietical approach to liberatory logical reconceptiualization offers yet another avenue of challenging totalizing discourse, for if we accept the notion of re-reconceptualizing matamathematics, that is, that 1) symbolic logic is derived in terms of mathematical induction which is derived in terms of symbolic logic, 2) that predicate logic is an unfinished, infineitely open- ended system which not even white middle-class totalizing discourse has been able to close, we can find a site of resistance within the derivation system of predicate logic. As Germyn et al (1981b) showed, the rule of reiteration in standard first-order symbolic derivation systems is a site of racial and gender oppression, allowing the propagation and insertion of white middle-class concepts into any assumption scheme; however, Germyn et al (ibid.) also showed methods of resisting this idea by reconceptualizing the abstract symbols as sites of racial oppression and deconstructing them according to fluid standards briefly skethced by Kostyn (1977). From this discussion we can reasonably (intuitively) conclude that the notion of contradition is essential in modern capitalist society, since it greatly facilitates marginalization of the "other". In a system where absolute categories of subject and object persist without explicit acknowledgement of its roots in the Victorian upper-class epistemic paradigm. The analytical tools explicated in this essay are a glimpse of the means by which marginalized groups can assert their own limited power on the battlefield of late-capitalist epistemic assumptive heteronormalizing epistemology. The not-P of yesteryear has become the new middle-ground in a renormalized, reconceptualized and deconstructed logical terrain..."
All citations are fictional.
Consider: "the juxtaposition of infinite openness and prison-like crampedness that Russian Cosmonaut Valeri Polyakov had to endure for 437 days in space. But, in fact, he didn't leave the hug of Earth's gravity. But the psychological strain was real."
Empty verbiage is a collective effort. I encourage readers to send their suggestion on how the following passage could have been made less accessible, or alternatively, more intimidating.
"So the matter concerns reconceptualizing the concepts that are basic to regular functioning in a socioeconomic milleu that conceptualizes and (p)(re)conceptualizes the concept of "object" as well as the concept of "action" which is arbitrarily defined by a neo-enlightenment rationalism that conceptualizes concepts as immutable and distinct without conceptual justification. We need to develop an epistemic framework from which concepts can be reconceptualized as they are deconceptualized without fear of so-called neo-"rationalist" "objections" on the grounds of self-contradiction. For of course if we reconceptualize the concept of "right"and "wrong" and foreground the de-foregrounded "excluded middle", so popular with white male logicians, contradition becomes pluralistic, it becomes open to new and positive interpretations that allow us to reconceptualize the construction of knowledge and challenge and de-privilege middle-class white male "science" and "knowledge". The liberatory and progressive potential of embracing the previously marginalized and excluded middle. The P and not-P of totalizing Aristotelian discourse becomes contextualized in its social contexts and begins to exist on the same epistemic level with the long-marginalized (P or not-P) and (P and not-P). This system, however, is inadequate to truly capture the power of reconceptualizing Aristotle's totalizing, homonormative discourse, for it naturally marginalizes Q and R. Within our (re)conceptual framework, Q and R exist on equitable grounds as equal variables, not second- or third-place holders that only come to attention when the rules of unitary, normative logical discourse are apparently "violated", exposing the system's epistemic and moral bankruptcy from the very start. In this way, radical new programs by Lacan et al (1973), Schiever and Kostyn (1981) and Germyn et al (1981) have exposed the moral bankruptcy of totalizing logical discourse as it pertains to oppression of the female impulsive and fluid nature, as it marginalizes the black body, which in racial discourse has often been termed Q, or, perhaps even more disparagingly, not-P (ibid.). However, the metatheorietical approach to liberatory logical reconceptiualization offers yet another avenue of challenging totalizing discourse, for if we accept the notion of re-reconceptualizing matamathematics, that is, that 1) symbolic logic is derived in terms of mathematical induction which is derived in terms of symbolic logic, 2) that predicate logic is an unfinished, infineitely open- ended system which not even white middle-class totalizing discourse has been able to close, we can find a site of resistance within the derivation system of predicate logic. As Germyn et al (1981b) showed, the rule of reiteration in standard first-order symbolic derivation systems is a site of racial and gender oppression, allowing the propagation and insertion of white middle-class concepts into any assumption scheme; however, Germyn et al (ibid.) also showed methods of resisting this idea by reconceptualizing the abstract symbols as sites of racial oppression and deconstructing them according to fluid standards briefly skethced by Kostyn (1977). From this discussion we can reasonably (intuitively) conclude that the notion of contradition is essential in modern capitalist society, since it greatly facilitates marginalization of the "other". In a system where absolute categories of subject and object persist without explicit acknowledgement of its roots in the Victorian upper-class epistemic paradigm. The analytical tools explicated in this essay are a glimpse of the means by which marginalized groups can assert their own limited power on the battlefield of late-capitalist epistemic assumptive heteronormalizing epistemology. The not-P of yesteryear has become the new middle-ground in a renormalized, reconceptualized and deconstructed logical terrain..."
All citations are fictional.
Consider: "the juxtaposition of infinite openness and prison-like crampedness that Russian Cosmonaut Valeri Polyakov had to endure for 437 days in space. But, in fact, he didn't leave the hug of Earth's gravity. But the psychological strain was real."
posted by A. D. at 11:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home