|
5 members (texritter, bennash, Michael W. Brown, Guy E. Trepanier, 1 invisible),
44,929
guests, and
5,711
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Welcome to the Just Plain Folks forums! You are currently viewing our forums as a Guest which gives you limited access to most of our discussions and to other features.
By joining our free community you will have access to post and respond to topics, communicate privately with our users (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other features. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free; so please join our community today!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,845
Top 100 Poster
|
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,845 |
Yeah but when you attempt to put a Foucaultian spin on a Gadamerian hermeneutical model, you run into the possibility of negating the objects ontology though sublimation by power/knowledge.
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent...
Rock On! Hah, great response Greg, quoting the early Wittgenstein! I think this is true, as postmodern language theory (which was my reference) tend to reduce everything ontological (matters of the physical realms) to epistemology (matters of perceptual realms). My reading of Foucault would be more realist, though, and the dichotomy of ontology vs. epistemology is a creation in realist theory, postmodern theory attempts to challenge the validity of. For non tech readers this means, that everything in language in the radical sense of these theories, is reduced to language only, thus not acknowledging that eg a hammer, actually has a physical form and prescence. This is a sort of ridicule of the theory, though, and the proper response would be that you cannot subdivide a hammer into physical and perceptual properties - that would be a false dichotomy in the first place, therefore the critique is false, and it is the ridicule that is the ridiculous Im sure nobody in here cares about this discussion, though. Allthough I believ we could have some fun discussions about modern vs. postmodern art, which could be interesting and practical in authoring lyrics, songs and music. In practice the crit means in this case, that my point could be negating a possible fact that Tom's song actually IS rubbish, I guess :-) And the Wittgenstein quote, that we sure knows good writing when we see it :-) To remain potent in this discussion, I must therefore inhabit the position, that this is possible too (not negating the negation, by setting up another dichotomy) :-) Sorry, Im babbling on, but Im just saying that Tom's rejection might be an impossible situation, as he has analyzed the Taylor Swift songs and try to match his writing to that analysis - then a Taxi screener tells him, that he must converge to the rules of their game to get a forward. If he does, he might get the forward from Taxi, but not the cut with Taylor! We still know little about the actual song, though, so everything remains speculation (theoretical).
|
|
|
|
We would like to keep the membership in Just Plain Folks FREE! Your donation helps support the many programs we offer including Road Trips and the Music Awards.
|
|
|
Forums118
Topics128,884
Posts1,185,198
Members21,479
| |
Most Online236,505 Jul 1st, 2026
|
|
|
"Learn the "tried and true" rules, then break them with premeditated malice!" -Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
|
|