Academic writing - let's write a book!

But in contradistinction to Borring and Dulle's problematized [i]a priori[/i] intersection, the exigent social paradigm mobilizes an emerging eschatological matrix in which previously held discursive impulses in protofeminist and post-Gramscian thought (cf. Crawdick 1980b, 1983) disperse to undermine the incipient problematization. In short, Borring and Dulle's problematized discourse becomes double coded: a problematized problematization in which competing ontologies conflict with necessary eschatologies, thus careening into ineluctable modality of aporetic indeterminacy (cf. "Michelle Insults my Life, vol. 2" [2008] and "She's probably right" [ibid]).

Weltanschauung, not withstanding, one must differentiate between Schadenfreunde intrinsic to the problematized paradigm and the existential objective tableau extrinsically observed (Krafft 1963)

[ 08 April 2008: Message edited by: Caissa ]

While Borring and Dulle's work has been groundbreaking, one must not ignore the significance of the thesis of scholar R. Relevant, entitled "Signifying the Signified: A Sign of Contra-Indicality" in which the argument is posited that intersectionality and cross-sectorology are both linked and not linked, signifying both, each other, neither, and all.

How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable seem to me all the uses of this world.

These are all great, but Stephen and Catchfire those are cuttingly good. I swear I've read those before!

My turn.

Borring and Dulle's analysis re-conceptualizes the role of non-text in textual analysis; the non-written which underpins [i]sentence[/i]. In depriviliging that which is said (text), that which is not-said (or assumed to be not-said) may be incorporated, liberating text from both authorship and readership.

It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the - if he - if "is" means is and never has been, that is not - that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
[b]

Borring and Dulle's analysis re-conceptualizes the role of non-text in textual analysis; the non-written which underpins [i]sentence[/i]. In depriviliging that which is said (text), that which is not-said (or assumed to be not-said) may be incorporated, liberating text from both authorship and readership.[/b]

---

This is obviously written by a U of S grad. You sound just like my old thesis supervisor.

As for Caissa's mocking of the use of "Weltanschauung," I actually worked at finding a way to use that word, as well as "fougasse" into my thesis, just for kicks.

I didn't do so well at nailing the academic writing style, though, since the most prominent comment made following my defence was that my thesis was "eminently readable." I think this was intended as a slur, given my simple, unpretentious use of language.

I wonder if those caricatures are merely in representation. I often feel that I am living one in sexual interactions, inasmuch as I have been accultured by a pornographic culture. Could it be that "male sexual desire" - if a generalization is possible and I fear it is - is itelf caricatural?
The (safer) notion of "distortion in representation" suggests an undistorted reality, bumpy as you say, diverse as you claim, but real and somehow preceding acculturation and representation.
Isn't this an idealist view, keeping at bay the notion that male sexual desire itself could be as we observe it - and I am not making a biologist argument! - fashioned by culture as simplistic, caricatural in its obsession with power and none too concerned with the values we tend to dress it up in?

Double meanings are funny?

quote:

---

Amusement, and particularly quiet amusement, functions by engaging in sustained analyses of particular texts. It is committed to the rigorous analysis of the literal meaning of a text, and yet also to finding within that meaning, perhaps in the satirical corners of the text, internal observations that actually point towards alternative meanings. Sly notations must hence establish a methodology that pays close attention to these apparently contradictory imperatives (plagurism and satire) and a reading of any al-Qa'bong text can only reaffirm this dual aspect.

---

[ 01 November 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
[b]Double meanings are funny?

[ 01 November 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ][/b]

---

One of the great elements of humour, like magic, is the art of missdirection. A stand up comedian, for example, frequently leads the audience's mind to think in one direction, but the punch line comes from another direction.

Physical humour does this too. Oliver Hardy steps off the sidewalk into what appears to be a small puddle on the street. Stan Laurel tries to stop him, and Hardy shrugs him off and derides his concern. The next thing we see is Hardy sinking over his head, leaving only his bowler floating on the surface. A more current example might be Homer Simpson putting gallons of barbeque starter on the grill. Anticipation mounts as he squeezes the fluid, and squeezes.... pauses to think, then squeezes some more.... and more... then throws a match on the grill, and, counterintuitively, a nice, small fire erupts in a controlled manner.

Related to missdirection is the "inside joke" which demands of the audience some shared observation to understand the humour. Sometimes a comedian will share this knowledge early, then refer to it later in his act. (See Carson, Johnny, McMahon, Ed. and "done to death" Letterman, David)

An added element to both missdirection and the inside joke is the double meaning. Double meanings can be obvious, crass, and childish (see Hill, Benny) or obscure. ( see Miller, Dennis). It may also depend upon a reservoir of knowledge. (See 'bong, al-Qa, above.)

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]