They hate us because we bomb them.....

ignhvtyvbhn3rtgvbjkjbgrsdcf ertgyf uutvh54 @#dfggtr^&ijnm

Original thought there, now if only I had a way to communicate that.
 
Some day I'll realize that I'm right? Yeah I have already.

Have to admit I pegged you as an evolution guy, but it's nice seeing that you've got quite a lot of creationist in you.
 
zitothebrave said:
Original thought there, now if only I had a way to communicate that.
Click to expand...

I have to say – though I don't think he's making his point particularly well – that I agree with zito on this, at least to the extent that language is a system of arbitrated sounds and signs whose web of predetermined values prevents us from expressing anything authentically "original," just as the palimpsest of tradition(s) that forms and governs all our media (or: our modes of generating meaning) obviate any truly "original" works of art [for more on authorial indebtedness, see Eliot's Tradition and the Individual Talent].

Nonetheless, while true "originality" may be illusory, once we comprehend this issue – once we understand the inherited substrates of communication which authorize all content we pass between each other, if not the content of our very thoughts, alone as we are in the vastnesses of our ever-segregated selves – I think we can then accept some form of novelty and except, at least in casual operation, these sorts of caveats.
 
jpx7 said:
I have to say – though I don't think he's making his point particularly well – that I agree with zito on this, at least to the extent that language is a system of arbitrated sounds and signs whose web of predetermined values prevents us from expressing anything authentically "original," just as the palimpsest of tradition(s) that forms and governs all our media (or: our modes of generating meaning) obviate any truly "original" works of art [for more on authorial indebtedness, see Eliot's Tradition and the Individual Talent].

Nonetheless, while true "originality" may be illusory, once we comprehend this issue – once we understand the inherited substrates of communication which authorize all content we pass between each other, if not the content of our very thoughts, alone as we are in the vastnesses of our ever-segregated selves – I think we can then accept some form of novelty and except, at least in casual operation, these sorts of caveats.
Click to expand...

Someone reinterpret these 2 paragraphs for me like I'm a 6 year old.
 
jpx7 said:
I have to say – though I don't think he's making his point particularly well – that I agree with zito on this, at least to the extent that language is a system of arbitrated sounds and signs whose web of predetermined values prevents us from expressing anything authentically "original," just as the palimpsest of tradition(s) that forms and governs all our media (or: our modes of generating meaning) obviate any truly "original" works of art [for more on authorial indebtedness, see Eliot's Tradition and the Individual Talent].

Nonetheless, while true "originality" may be illusory, once we comprehend this issue – once we understand the inherited substrates of communication which authorize all content we pass between each other, if not the content of our very thoughts, alone as we are in the vastnesses of our ever-segregated selves – I think we can then accept some form of novelty and except, at least in casual operation, these sorts of caveats.
Click to expand...

no matter how you want to argue it

if you go back far enough

there was an original thought/idea etc
 
goldfly said:
no matter how you want to argue it

if you go back far enough

there was an original thought/idea etc
Click to expand...

Foucault would argue (and I would agree) that such an "original thought/idea etc" is anterior to discourse and therefore merely speculation on our parts; even if it seems likely – as if it simply must have been the case – its import wouldn't really be communicable because it pre-exists communication. And within my belief-system, discourse is sine qua non to meaning.
 
weso1 said:
Someone reinterpret these 2 paragraphs for me like I'm a 6 year old.
Click to expand...

Words – spoken or written – have no inherent value unto themselves: they are arbitrary designations composed, in the case of speech-acts, of arbitrary segments of the sonic spectrum or, in the case of writing, arbitrary shapes (glyphs); in either case, they are representational, and abstract "ideas" (thoughts in the sense beyond mere spatial recognition) exist within a web of these predetermined values, conditioning – at the very least – how we're able to express ideas/meaning/value, if not even how we generate our internal conscious selves as we know them. This yokes us to an index of value – communication; language in all its various forms – that inhibits or prevents pure "originality" (in the sense I believe goldfly intends); furthermore, we don't communicate in a historical vacuum, but learn patterns of language that are conditioned by the various forms we use and encounter, themselves subject to histories (tradition), all of which further complicates the notion of the "original."

If there existed or exists anything previous to these circumstances, we can't really talk about it, because talking (discourse) is how we generate meaning, comprehend ourselves and the world, and perhaps even how we possess conscious, sapient selves. We can be agnostic about its existence, but for all practical intents and purposes, it doesn't exist.

However, this is just a baseline understanding of our human condition (at least as concerns "meaning"). Obviously The Waste Land was a damn novel work of art, even if Eliot ripped off the title from a poem he'd read a few years earlier (his original choice: He Do the Policemen in Different Voices), needed Ezra Pound to massively edit it before it was publishable (hence Eliot's introductory epitaph: "For Ezra Pound: il miglior fabbro"), and moreover even if the poem itself functions as a sort of palimpsest, a referential web in which is encoded the traces and marks of the body of tradition(s) that made possible this new-seeming ordering of words and ideas. In other words: while it was constrained from "pure originality" by the modes of understanding and communication which mediate it, all of us, and all our words, are so constrained by this imposition — which, to use the same logic applied earlier in this post, means for practical intents and purposes we can disregard it.

But at times we should still remember that all things have their antecedents.
 
jpx7 said:
Foucault would argue (and I would agree) that such an "original thought/idea etc" is anterior to discourse and therefore merely speculation on our parts; even if it seems likely – as if it simply must have been the case – its import wouldn't really be communicable because it pre-exists communication. And within my belief-system, discourse is sine qua non to meaning.
Click to expand...

even if it pre-exists communication

it was an original thought/idea

of course it was speculation. none of us were alive however many millions years ago for whatever example you want to use.
 
goldfly said:
even if it pre-exists communication

it was an original thought/idea

of course it was speculation. none of us were alive however many millions years ago for whatever example you want to use.
Click to expand...

the lulz the lulz!!!

quit being ****ing stupid with absolute statements
 
zitothebrave said:
Just do the research and you'll find your answer. During the Ottoman era, Which ran for 600+ years there wasn't those kind of attacks because their interests were local. It's really quite simple. I mean if you choose not to look at history than fine. That's your choice. But saying that the reason terrorists attacked us is cause they're muslim is like saying the Civil War was fought because of fear of central government. Sure it plays a part. But just that. A part. The radical part makes them unafraid to die for their message, but the reason they're being coordinated and recruited in the way that they are has to do with our intervention.
Click to expand...

Their interests weren't merely local. You haven't read much about their history if you think that Z.
 
BedellBrave said:
Their interests weren't merely local. You haven't read much about their history if you think that Z.
Click to expand...

Holy **** that's a hell of a necro

No their interests weren't local but they weren' running terrorism runs or just conquering christian nations. They conquered as much as possible, just how they rolled.
 
zitothebrave said:
Holy **** that's a hell of a necro

No their interests weren't local but they weren' running terrorism runs or just conquering christian nations. They conquered as much as possible, just how they rolled.
Click to expand...

What's a "necro"?

So I was right.

Conquering of the Balkans

Lepanto

Battle of Vienna, I & II, etc.

And their conquering was in the name of Islam - not merely in the name of the Ottoman Empire.
 
Necro being short for necropost which is when someone posts in a thread that hasn't been posted in in ages.

And they conquered Egypt, and many other nations as well that weren't christian nations as a whole. Ottoman empire was a political entity, not a religious (not sure what word to use there)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top