Why half the worls is mired in chaos, and why the ancients had it backwards

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least three characters.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Has no one read "Pendejodis"? I know its dated, but surely there must be someone.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course not. Derrida and Deleuze (the so called "D&D" of poststructuralist hypercapitalists) showed that the dichotomies so bred are simply abstractions with no phenomenal reality.

We can take a leaf out of Nietzsche's book and analyze how those traditionally thought powerless have in reality dominated the intellectual landscape by creating such dichotomies, then holding them out as real and valid constructs.

I beg to differ.

Would have been nothing had it not been for his mentor the Marquis de Lilliborton.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Says xev

I'm sure you would, seeing how so mired in the practic ultra-terminations of Nietzchean philosophy you're so quick to incite.

"There were practically no Marxists among the insurgents", said Camus. By the looks of you, he lied.

Deluze was not a postcrunstructuralist as much as we was the constructivist avante guarde of post-Darwano revitalism. Derrida was a good call, I'll give you that. But Deluze was a viscious nihilist so I duly suspect his not being familiar with "in bullis".


Have you not read "Pendejodis"? You've glossed over the initial question. Does our social structure conform "in bullis" or not? Avoiding the question intentionally or otherwise, that is your call entirely comrade.

 

gendanken:

This only demonstates the depths of your ignorence. One can follow a communistic worldview and not follow Marx.

Deluze's critiques of postmodern constructivism are only intensified, not diminished intellectually, by his nihilism.

I have read the work in question, and I find the answer to be obvious. Of course our social structure conforms "in bullis".

The real issue, once one moves beyond adolescent critiques, is whether our social structure follows the dictates of Quinzubro's four-fold outline of redundant social change.

Does it?

 

That is so like you. You quote Voltaire, yet you make sound as if he ment the exact opposite of what he was saying. Lets not forget Voltaire also said "...laisser il qui mange du pain sans les souliers lance le premier rein." which flies directly in the face of everything you are attempting ( and rather poorly I might add) to say here.

Bullshit.
"..a will torn between the negative and the affirmative"? The only people that would see the state of your precious 'province sin que govermenta' that way are lunitics and convicts; just the people you are quoting here. Let's not forget the accounts from Monsieur F. G. Deparenette, in which he clearly states that there is nothing either glamerous or romantic about those events. In fact he went on to say "...les gens communs qui battent pour leurs vies aiment les singes enragés dans l'enfer." or " the common people at that time then found themselves fighting for their lives in the most hellish situations.

The funny thing is that Quinzubro himself had no love of politicts or sociology. It wasn't until Wertzkowitz, that "Pendejodis" was even looked at in that light. It was originally view to be light philosophy. With that said, I would have to say that Quinzubro's idea don't hold up anymore. They were not ment to be taken in that context to begin with, and it certainly doesn't hold up after over 100 years.

Its amazing how history can take your average man and through subtle motions turn the son of a goat herder who died in the poor house, with nothing of worth in his entire life into a genius.

The answer to your question is the main reason Quinzubro doesn't hold up. While current democratic systems may not be the best, we are moving very quickly away from the times when governments could be overthrown without military aid. The driving force behind Quinzubro's work was voids, and how man reacted to them and how he filled them. In today's society, those voids don't happen as much nor as violently.

I believed I have already answered that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Says who, you pompous prole? Isn't it just like a the personas non gratas to call the card on that one so soon? Want to jump the gun and label me ignorant? Do so having read the dilogues of Pan that so crudely put Marx to shame as far as the socialist goes. Let it eat into the time you'd rather be sitting there benchwarming calling the gendy an "ignorant".

ah....but was not Deluze the undercurrent for the social upheaval? You can't say no. Nor was he paying lip service when the Moors injected their diplomotic slants into the budding Scandanavian civilizations in Mortonia.

Pedant, thou liest. "Pendojodis" would have fucking blown your godamn mind and never would you dare have said that that it does conform to this modern age and not shoot yourself having done so.

And are you sure it was only a four-fold outline? Got your book at a flea market? Your nana's closet? What about the other two sections? Somebody's got jipped. You won't do coming up short around me Xevvie.

Mephura:

But having followed up with "sins merdis au qu'evlutions" in his later works, don't you have egg on your face thinking so? You, sir, are a fucking poser.

Mephura:

Liar. Was it not him with the stoics belching out mutinity? Was it not him that molded the pre-revolutionary scaffolding for their Weltermerz? What, pray tell, are you gabbing about?


and you too, dear sir, have failed in answering the question at hand.
"In bullis" or no?

How you sucklings skid by the issues like a mud puddle is funny, bewitching, and dumb.

 

gendanken:

The Dialogs?
*Laughs*
Inane non-liminal tripe hopelessly clouded by Fuku's bourgois leanings.

Deluze had the courage of his convictions, unlike your knavish Quinzubro.

I weary of your childishness. It does conform. If you have some actual reason for claiming that it doesn't, speak now.

 

I'll agree that our social structure conforms 'in bullis' over all, but there are specific points that I feel are coming close to crossing the line if they haven't already.
For example, what about the way societal mores no longer dictate any form of economical marketing principles. Or what about the projected natural growth and decay pattern that were said to govern not only moves between agrarian lifestyles/ethics and urban ones?

Again, social change wasn't the original intention of Quinzubro.
Wertzkowitz is actually who applied his ideas to the social platform. (Very much akin to the maxwell equations. An editor came along and snipped out what he felt were unimportant bits and basically rewrote the equations as he saw fit. Yet maxwell is still credited withthem even though he didn't actually write the incarnation we are so familiar with today.)

Despite that, I would say that Quinzubro's idea are, again outdated and dead. Sure, if you want to tweak things abit, that modern social structure cold be made to fit Q's F.F.O., but then again so could damn near any.

 

Tell that to the leppers rotting in the industrailized mess that is Africa and Borneo.

Quinzbubro's theism still holds water. Not only him but his merdic tautoligies still hold water, but not 'in bullis".

"in bullis" would be just sitting around in a forum talking about things. Not getting up and doing. We're in a sense all bulling. Pardon the pun.

 

I really don't see so, when your first example and mine were given in the same work, where as you second example was given what, about 25 to 30 years later. I'm simply saying use his words in context, not like some fun time quote book, or they cease to have any meaning, much like 90% of what you say.

Stoics? The man was a lush. A drunkard. Yeah, he drove on rebelion, mainly because his good freind the Marquis de Lilliborton had already thrown him out on his ass for boffing his niece. The man was broke and going nowhere. He was calling for public aid, not rebelion. Again you take words out of context. When he spoke of mutinity, he spoke of the government against the people, not vice versa. Yes his works were sited by many a revolutionist, but he had already fled the county to the greener pastures of Frieldichensburg by that point. He had no idea what his ideas were diong. That's what I'm gabbing about.

See my second response.

And as for your second two parts, They weren't even part of the original work. They were only added about 70 years after quinzubro's death. They were actually written about 7 years before the bulk of Pendejodis.

Now wheren't you just talking to lucy about this?

Yes, the closer conditions come to mimicing those that existed when Q. wrote Pendejodis, the more his ideas will hold water.

Like it or not, in the other 80% of the world, 'in bullis' is the rule, not the exception.

 

gendanken:

Horseshit! Admit it lass, you simply find perverse enjoyment from his discourse on the meaning of non-normative forms of dispersion and thus defend him.

 

XEV:

Look you, if we're going to beat about liminality lets at it but not here. 'Unstaid and skittish" said Shakespeare. Fuku.......what does he have to do with anything? How bout Eit Me, the Nepalese diplomat? Fuku Mod R. was a dabbler with nary a thing to add to Quinzubro.

So you want to go on about Deluze. I'm giving you the next chunk of bandwidth to dole out just why you think so. I've read
"Conseuquetal Temperings: On Revolution", mind you so don't try and pull one over on me. I've got the man down to a tee

Mephura:

Says who, knave? Beuracracies? the proletariat? Even in this globalized age of democratic liberalism and free market laissez fare do we still find ourselves tied down by social mores.

mephura

My ass. Did you not read Markwizon's biography contending Q. F.F.F.O died a shriveled up virgin? Chaste as cheeries, loverboy.

Mephura:

Uhmmm....Frieldichensburg had already been taken up by the Moors at this time love. Then came the Vandals and in the following century infused with the Mongols.....I think. I'm not too good with history. You're beginning to sound as muddled as Xevvie. Don't go there.

Mephura:

Something tells me you either haven't read Pendejodis or just breeze in general by and by.
Tell me, if you could, in the second part of the 6 (not 4) fold dialogue, the last section on 'in bullis" non grata, what did he have to say? You too have the next chunk of bandwidth to try and back up your aneimic shriekings.

Sucklings.

 

Tomorrow I would be more than happy to show you the error of your ways. As such, I am reserving this space.
ha.

Tomorrow is here and so are your answers my dear.

But would you not agree that anymore, the market of 'pop-culture' has a bigger impact on what is considered socially acceptable than cultural mores and morals have on what is popular?

While it is true that some scholars sugest that the aligations brought forth by the Marquis de Lilliborton's niece were done so only to remove him from favor so that Monsieur Jean-paul D'Aburant, her future husband and some would contend lover at the time, may take his place. While his virginity may have been iintact, the man was still a drunkard. Tales of his love of spirits and wine abound.

You're right you aren't too good with history. Though the Moors had occupied Frieldichensburg, it was two centuries before hand. At that point the city had actually quieted down quite nicely and hadn't seen any kind of fighting for a good 70 some years. (Oh and gendy, by the time the mongols got there, they were being called huns. Mainly due to the fact that they had settled in what is now Hungary some 300 years prior.

Actually, I first came across the work about 10 years ago when I was living in south carolina. I found a copy in the clemson university library (quite on accident). After reading it, I so liked Quinzubro that I, as is often the case with 'new' authors that I stumble upon, proceded to look up everything I could find on him.

As I've said before, the last two sections were actually written about 7 years befor ethe bulk of Pendejodis, at a time when Q. was more interested in social reform and society as a whole. Later, he turned his thoughts toward a more philisophic vein and wrote Pendejodis. Your confusion is understandable as I too thought it was one work when I first came across it. You see, in its original printing, it contained (what most volumes now consider) chapters 1-32. Chapters 33-47 were originally another piece called "Sulla Societá: Una mancanza completa di uso di cervello e l'inettitudine".In that piece there were an additional two chapters that have been truncated from the work we now know. Go back and reread 32-33. You will see a suden shift from talking about man kind in general to more specific arguements about government and society. The only reason it has any consistancy what so ever is because of the creative editing that Wertzkowitz and Shumacher before him took in compiling the volume.

Now then In order for me to answer your question, are you talking about the 2nd part of the first four or of the last two. Also, considering that the whole thing is what "he had to say" could you be a bit les vague in your question as I really don't want to quote and entire section of Pendejodis here.

 

Most entertaining read I've had in a while, people.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Comrades:

In spite of the heat in our discourse, look you, I'm thinking that at least we can agree on two things:

1. These discussions certainly adapt to what Deleuze termed"este poste es caca". No?

and

2. We are more and more sounding like the infamous Sir Fraggle Rocker. At times like Tiassa. Wouldn't you agree?


Mephura:

Lucy lu was a red herring. She enlightened not in the rays of Quinzubro.

Marquis:

Pucker up Marquis and give us some musings, this thread needs juicing.

Do you or do you not belive the modern age conforms to the fabulous doctrines of the impaled nazarene, the ancient sage Quinzubro? and if so....does it "in bullis"?


EDIT: in case the allusion to 'Nazarene' acquaints the reader with the mideast, I'm referring to Nazaria that was suitiated on the sandy coast of the Aegean near Minoa. "Impaled nazarene" was in no means meant to invoke Christianity.

 

Why can't I understand any of the nouns in this thread?

 

gendanken:

Yours do. I find that my own posts fit Mallarme's definition of paskatic discourse.

A dabbler? Child, it's obvious that your knowledge of this subject is profoundly superficial. Fuku's kritiques are incredibly groundbreaking.

So you've read one of his inconsequential works and you pronounce yourself an expert.

HA!

I doubt you could even begin to understand Deluze's theory of masochistic hypo-capitalism and the implications therof.

Dabbler!

 

Word.
And whats with all the ism words used in the philosophy section of sci-forums? Is that what you kids learn in your fancy philosophy schools, bah!
I'v got your mystowatsochism right here!!! *gestures towards genitals*

 

Mysetech just asked the big "why" and its because you're a wanker. Philosophy has skitted right over your head so fast and furious it gave you a hair cut.

Philosophy is everything.
It is life.
It is bread, water and wine.
Without it man is nothing. We are nothing without our philosophies. Anyone who does not see this or has not a belief system is half a man and will die lonely, confused, ill, lacking and barren.
And since the common man lacks the genius of conventional sophism to define his beliefs, its up to the super great thinkers to show us the way and up to us, you, and them to not question.

Good Dr. Lu, there's a highly enlightening piece of work circulating nowadays in philosophical circles titled "Pendejodis", akin to Plato's "Repulic" penned a few centuries later. Written by Quinzubro in the stychomythic stylings of the stoics, it deals out a 6 volumed outline of social change under a noumenal term he coined as "in bullis".
All modern minds now, from the linquist Derrida to the constructivist school of the French have been rasing a stink over this piece of work because its:

one) never been seen before and

two) it so cleverly and beautifully promises to quash the evils in modern society- and not just the daily trifles of back then. The fascinating thing about Quinzubro was that, like Nostradamus, he seems to have predicted the atomic age, down to the very silicon we use in our cellphones, humovans and microwaves. Fascinating!. He almost reads as though he were sitting at his laptop on his cellphone sipping a latee.

Now do you get it? Any more genital fingering out of you and I'll boil you.


Mephura:
Comrade, you've been bleating about consumerism having more pull on what's socially acceptable than what traditional mores have since you got here. You'd like to chalk it up to globalism , says I. You fail to realize that this "pop culture" directly reflects the same gossamer fickleness of 'morality' that's been nailed genetically since the thinking mind sought to label things right and things wrong. The sad part is that this...uhm....." thinking mind" just so happened to be a chauvanistic, misogynist, homophobic piece of shit and very much European.
Haven't noticed how curse words, blount nudity and murder are still subject to censorship, have you?

The Monsieur D'aburant was a gaylord for one and wait a sec....I had to reread your bilge to find you were mistaken. F. G. Deparanette was a criminal poet. Why would use him to as clout against "in bullis"? Asshole.

Mephura:

Sunuvabitch! Brute! Shitty......... you're right. Well met.
Why oh why do I feel spanked? Call your fool according to her folly lest she be wise in her own conceit not once but twice. How? Seems I've muddled up the first 32 chapters with his shift in the latter 4. My question concerns the last half of "Pendejodis" where his views suddenly shift from the commoner to the commonwealth. Fair?

Got your booky book at a universtity eh? I was thinking you too got your readings out of nana's closet like Xevvie. My apologies.