poo!
Published Monday, May 19, 2008 by stina inWhy do the readings for net comm have to be so difficult? Man I'd hate to be a scholar. This is an excerpt of what I am attempting to read:
'Nomadic Power and Cultural Resistance
The term that best describes the present social condition is liquescence. The once unquestioned markers of stability, such as God or Nature, have dropped into the black hole of sceptism, dissolving positioned identification of subject or object. Meaning simultaneously flows through a process of proliferation and condensation, at once drifting, slipping, speeding into the antinomies of apocalypse and utopia.'
It's like, I understand it (if i read it about 5 times), and it's actually interesting once I understand it, and it's nice to know that you have good english, but do you HAVE to write like that?? Wouldn't it just be better (and less douche-bag like) if you wrote:
'Everything is changing. Nothing is stable. Everyone's a skeptic. Our world, meaning and information is topsy turvy. This can be good or bad.'
Don't you want to make my life easier, author of this ridiculous article? And I don't want your metaphors about 'drowning in the pool of liquid power' or 'rolling the dice of postmodernism.' Go away. It's no wonder I hate uni.
Under the framework of a postmodernist, this electronic message will deconstruct your post into its multiplicities of syntagmatic chains. This will serve to demonstrate that meaning can be decoded to derive oppositional, preferred and negotiated readings. Furthermore, this analysis will serve to reveal that your text is,in fact polysemic in nature. Using the work of Saussure and Hall, your post will be further deconstructed to its basic semiotic components, which are embodied through visual cues or signs.
And I think I just wrote the biggest load of bullshit ever right there ahah.
Sean.