joi, 17 decembrie 2015
miercuri, 16 decembrie 2015
Farmecul discret al 'dragostei de piatza'
in citate preluate din
Introducerea lui Fausto Antonini la
"Metafizica sexului" a lui Julius Evola
Dragostea
<<Iţi vine aproape să râzi ori mai degrabă să plângi când te gândeşti ce a devenit raportul .dintre sexe — aşa cum Evola arată încă din 1958 — în ziua de azi: un lucru mizerabil şi sărac, o mixtură de înşelăciuni, de trădări, de eşecuri, de exerciţii ridicole, de ingerări de pilule, de poţiuni şi de injecţii spre a obţine erecţii de foarte lungădurată şi orgasme absolut lipsite de orice valoare, deoarece sânt lipsite de spirit, de arhetipalitate, de adevăr.>>[p.2]
Farmecul
<<Evola nu s-a resemnat, nu se , putea resemna: trăiesc şi eu aceeaşi senzaţie în cercul meu restrâns, la cursurile mele universitare, când încerc să introduc idei care-mi aparţin — fiind totodată şi idei evoliene — despre diagnosticul şi terapia ipotetică şi imposibilă a racilelor lumii contemporane. Nu s-a resemnat fiindcă ceea ce el numea „demonia economiei" se combină cu o voluptate a degradării, abrutizării, a promiscuităţii, a preferinţei pentru tot ce e mai rău, fapt care constituie tragedia cea mai teribilă a lumii contemporane. Un proverb negru spune:
„Mai răul face să le bată inima fetelor." Şi poveşti adevărate precum [...] demonstrează cât de adevărată e observaţia. Ea ar putea părea banală: dar câţi băieţi buni, într-un sens deloc mărginit şi burghez, ci real şi profund, nu-şi dau seama că sunt dispreţuiţi de fete, şi câţi pui de lele, ca să mă exprim delicat şi eufemistic, nu sunt asaltaţi de izmenite care-şi oferă gura şi sexul, entuziasmate de atmosfera aceea delincvento-drogato-degradato-profanato-porcoaso-fetido-dezgustătoare?>>[p.3]
Piatza
Introducerea lui Fausto Antonini la
"Metafizica sexului" a lui Julius Evola
Dragostea
<<Iţi vine aproape să râzi ori mai degrabă să plângi când te gândeşti ce a devenit raportul .dintre sexe — aşa cum Evola arată încă din 1958 — în ziua de azi: un lucru mizerabil şi sărac, o mixtură de înşelăciuni, de trădări, de eşecuri, de exerciţii ridicole, de ingerări de pilule, de poţiuni şi de injecţii spre a obţine erecţii de foarte lungădurată şi orgasme absolut lipsite de orice valoare, deoarece sânt lipsite de spirit, de arhetipalitate, de adevăr.>>[p.2]
Farmecul
<<Evola nu s-a resemnat, nu se , putea resemna: trăiesc şi eu aceeaşi senzaţie în cercul meu restrâns, la cursurile mele universitare, când încerc să introduc idei care-mi aparţin — fiind totodată şi idei evoliene — despre diagnosticul şi terapia ipotetică şi imposibilă a racilelor lumii contemporane. Nu s-a resemnat fiindcă ceea ce el numea „demonia economiei" se combină cu o voluptate a degradării, abrutizării, a promiscuităţii, a preferinţei pentru tot ce e mai rău, fapt care constituie tragedia cea mai teribilă a lumii contemporane. Un proverb negru spune:
„Mai răul face să le bată inima fetelor." Şi poveşti adevărate precum [...] demonstrează cât de adevărată e observaţia. Ea ar putea părea banală: dar câţi băieţi buni, într-un sens deloc mărginit şi burghez, ci real şi profund, nu-şi dau seama că sunt dispreţuiţi de fete, şi câţi pui de lele, ca să mă exprim delicat şi eufemistic, nu sunt asaltaţi de izmenite care-şi oferă gura şi sexul, entuziasmate de atmosfera aceea delincvento-drogato-degradato-profanato-porcoaso-fetido-dezgustătoare?>>[p.3]
Piatza
<<Logica puterii şi logica pieţei sunt nemiloase, dar sunt neutre: teoretic ele ar fi putut fi puse şi în slujba apărării dragostei sau cel puţin ar fi putut sluji la apărarea structurilor ce-ar fi putut îngădui reedificarea dragostei. Aşa ceva nu e însă cu putinţă, pentru că puterea s-a născut în definitiv spre a se opune posibilităţii de a iubi. Nu e o întîmplare faptul că puţinele comunităţi libere din punct devedere sexual, trobriandienii din Pacific, muriaşii din centrul Indiei, viaroaşii din pădurea amazoniană — chiar dacă toţi aceştia mai există încă — sunt situaţi în afara marilor drumuri ale expansiunii etnice. Etruscii pacifici şi erotici au fost eliminaţi de către romanii duri, şi Sparta s-a impus în dauna Atenei: dar dacă în acest caz e vorba de o palmă de pămînt, în realitate întreaga planetă a fost invadată de o furie posesivă, achizitivă, etnocentrică, patricentrică, belicoasă, distructivă, exaltînd agresivitatea, şi care va continua şi pe viitor să se acumuleze tot mai mult din cauza represiunii înseşi şi a cercului vicios pervers, trosnind acur şi în sens fizic, ecologic, sub loviturile non-vieţii.
Toţi exaltă astăzi viaţa, dar continuă să exalte şi ceea ce distruge viaţa, şi anume sciziunea schizofrenică dintre sex şi sentiment, dintre dragostea sacră şi dragostea profană, dintre puterea orgasmului cosmic şi puterea extazului divin.
Matriarhatul în care ne aflăm prezintă acest paradox: şi anume că femeile care-l comandă nu sunt în esenţa lor femei, ci avortoane stîngace de bărbaţi rataţi, a căror definiţie nu e chiar inexact atribuită lui Freud.>>[p.9]
sursa:
joi, 10 decembrie 2015
Farmece - de shobolani, de raie shi de albastru
Nea Mărin și farmecele
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmsVLnhIJ88
shi dupa cum ii data aici pilda,
asha sa li se intample;
ca daca nu li se intampla lor
fac ei sa ni se intample noua
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmsVLnhIJ88
shi dupa cum ii data aici pilda,
asha sa li se intample;
ca daca nu li se intampla lor
fac ei sa ni se intample noua
'Bismarck' cu 'Zaibar'
Sa ridem cu Amza Pellea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SykdW2CX5ts
sau cum sa plimbi curcanu' prin gara
shi sa storci zaibar prin gaura cheii
[metode de guvernare imperiala]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SykdW2CX5ts
sau cum sa plimbi curcanu' prin gara
shi sa storci zaibar prin gaura cheii
[metode de guvernare imperiala]
Hocus-pocus pe buget, shlibovitza sau fernet
Dem Rădulescu și Jean Constantin - Șliboviță sau fernet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI3AxVBt46M
sau
cum sa bei de la buget
pe banii lu' sarman bugetar;
de mai iei shi la plasa
pentru acasa
[exemplu de dialog social :D]
Proverbul bugetului soroshit, iohanit shi cioloshit
Dem Rădulescu şi Mişu Ştefănescu - Oul şi boul (1977)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocWeTEo28SQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocWeTEo28SQ
miercuri, 9 decembrie 2015
Cameron's Glorious Deeds of Arms and of Something Else
http://rightdishonourable.com/2015/09/piggate-did-david-cameron-actually-give-a-dead-pig-a-good-porking/
David Cameron in Sex Scandal With Dead Pig
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Zpn50m5_8c
Jonathan Pie: Reporter rants about David Cameron the "pig f***er"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w230hyek5Bc
John Oliver - Piggate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEUD_mMos28
hmm, maybe The Little White Cammy decided its the ripe time to repeat the courageous deed from his days of glory
David Cameron Downfall Parody #piggate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg2r9QSMzl8
with two of the dead pigs comfortable lodged by their master here at Cotroceni and Victoria palace,
maybe plotting of turning them into genuine war pigs
like him
David Cameron roasted over Pig-Gate!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l_Onul5NE8
not just plain ol' rotten, stinky, useless dead pigs that they are now
hmm, we'll see about that after seeing and hearing the dead pigs barf in public.
up until then, lets remember a tune:
Black Sabbath ~ War Pigs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQUXuQ6Zd9w
http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=1299
http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?lyrics=1299
P.S.:
or maybe just something similar to what is described here
<< The latest revelations concern Radosław Sikorski, Poland’s Oxford-educated foreign minister, who was caught dismissing Poland’s relationship with the United States as “worthless.”
“Complete bullshit. We'll get in conflict with the Germans, Russians, and we'll think that everything is super because we gave the Americans a blow job,” he allegedly says in the recording from January 2014, published in Wprost on June 23. “Losers. Complete losers.” >>
Source: http://www.vice.com/read/polands-wiretapping-scandal-government-radek-sikorski-USA-090
happened as well and and perhaps deserves an hymn:
The Exploited - Sexual Favours (Official Video 1987)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QA5Mw6o0Fchttp://listenmusicfm.net/track/Sexual-Favours-%28dub-version%29-by-The-Exploited-with-lyrics-3255702
think we'll know soon
Quite a Bargain - courtesy Monster Madge & The Gang
and it goes kile this:
trucks of oil for buses of children
as we're begining to se now
well let's see:
John Pilger - Paying the Price - Killing the Children of Iraq [2000]
sâmbătă, 5 decembrie 2015
iohanishu' , cioloshu', soroshu', probabil shi etc - o incercare de diagnoza comportamentala din perspectiva politico-mitologica, multi- shi chiar poli-culturala - courtesy "Die Antwoord"
-Schitza de analiza nefinalizata, din pacate -
I.
printr-o anterioara vb de un soi de 'ciolosh'
shi fiind pe aici in mari dileme shi probleme, shi dileme
in a-i determina natura shi functzia
(cu inteligentza ne-a cam lamurit )
am dat peste un material de studiu antropologic ce
ne-a parut revelator
Die antwoord - Tokoloshe (FULL) ('NEW')
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCGDNrrl0Zo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupilaq
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikoloshe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchimayen
III.
o privire mai atenta asupra cioloshului
deosebirea anatomica fundamentala fatza de Tokoloshe
ilustrata in arta murala contemporana
Sursa: pe undeva prin Bucureshti
I.
printr-o anterioara vb de un soi de 'ciolosh'
shi fiind pe aici in mari dileme shi probleme, shi dileme
in a-i determina natura shi functzia
(cu inteligentza ne-a cam lamurit )
am dat peste un material de studiu antropologic ce
ne-a parut revelator
Die antwoord - Tokoloshe (FULL) ('NEW')
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCGDNrrl0Zo
II.
Incercare de clasificare in ordine, a formelor de manifestare listate prin titulatura
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupilaq
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikoloshe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchimayen
III.
o privire mai atenta asupra cioloshului
deosebirea anatomica fundamentala fatza de Tokoloshe
ilustrata in arta murala contemporana
Sursa: pe undeva prin Bucureshti
IV.
analogia functzionala a organului lingual de ciolosh cu cel mai de jos la Tokoloshe
(de fapt se poate observa din ilustratzie ca pe langa impresionanta limba - ideala pentru lins bineintzeles, cioloshul mai este echipat shi cu fix doi coltzishori vampiriceshti, hmm ceea ce-l face probabil shi un redutabil sugator, hmm, hmm deci probabil mult mai periculos decat insushi Tokoloshe , dc se poate concepe asha ceva
ce ne ingrijoreaza ar fi (pe langa)
[ochishorii in forma de virgulitza, eminamente batracieni
shi petele de sange in care sa balaceshe aproape fericit
spun aproape pentru ca din cate sea poate observa orificiul bucal in forma de "O"
pare a fi deschis, semn ca nu e tocmai satul
ma intreb daca asta ar fi vreodata posibil
anatomic vb nu prea pare]
hmm fesuletele , oare ce arme teribile ar ascunde shi pe acolo?
Hmm da
V.
posibile conexiuni translingvistice ( mai spre profan de data aceasta )
TICĂLÓS, -OÁSĂ, ticăloși, -oase, adj. 1. Care face fapte reprobabile; josnic prin manifestările lui; nemernic, păcătos, mîrșav. Vezi dumneata, mătușă, cît îi de ticăloasă lumea ! SADOVEANU, O. VIII 219. Sătul de a face mereu de pomană meseria ticăloasă de martor mincinos, își ceru seama de la stăpîn. ODOBESCU, S. III 44. Soră ticăloasă, soră păcătoasă, Spune la tustrei, Care moarte vrei ? ALECSANDRI, P. P. 117. ◊ Fig. E mai bine acasă decît prin toate rîpile, pe asemenea ticăloasă vreme. SADOVEANU, O. VIII 199. ◊ (Substantivat) Îl apucă deodată ura împotriva ticăloșilor cu care se înhăitase. DUMITRIU, N. 216. A fost mare ticălos la viața lui și multe a făcut pe nedrept. POPA, V. 87. Ei, lasă, ticăloaselor, că v-oi dobzăla eu de-acu nainte. CREANGĂ, P. 12. 2. (Astăzi rar) Care se găsește într-o stare jalnică; vrednic de milă, sărman, nenorocit. Săraca de mine ! Dar de unde să vă dau eu bani, cînd sînt o ticăloasă văduvă ! SADOVEANU, D. P. 145. M-am deprins a tîrî după mine o viață ticăloasă.CREANGĂ, P. 234. Ființă ticăloasă ce sînt ! Adormeam pe nădejdea făgăduințelor lui. NEGRUZZI, S. I 52. ◊ (Adverbial) Din cînd în cînd, pe drum, începea să plîngă înăbușit, ticălos, parcă mugea. DUMITRIU, N. 58. ♦ (Rar, despre obiecte concrete) Deteriorat, uzat, sărăcăcios. Frumusețile și minunățiile ce văzură cei trei frați născuți într-o colibă ticăloasă îi făcură să rămîie cu gura căscată. POPESCU, B. II 61.
Sursa: DLRLC (1955-1957) | Adăugată de LauraGellner | Semnalează o greșeală | Permalink
joi, 26 noiembrie 2015
For the Whoever, However, Whatever; courtesy MM
Marilyn Manson - The Beautiful People
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypkv0HeUvTc
MARILYN MANSON LYRICS
And I don't want you and I don't need you
Don't bother to resist, or I'll beat you
It's not your fault that you're always wrong
The weak ones are there to justify the strong
The beautiful people, the beautiful people
It's all relative to the size of your steeple
You can't see the forest for the trees
You can't smell your own shit on your knees
There's no time to discriminate,
Hate every motherfucker
That's in your way
[Chorus:]
Hey you, what do you see?
Something beautiful, something free?
Hey you, are you trying to be mean?
If you live with apes man, it's hard to be clean
The worms will live in every host
It's hard to pick which one they eat most
The horrible people, the horrible people
It's as anatomic as the size of your steeple
Capitalism has made it this way,
Old-fashioned fascism will take it away
[Chorus]
There's no time to discriminate,
Hate every motherfucker
That's in your way
The beautiful people
The beautiful people (aahh) [x4]
[Chorus x2]
The beautiful people [x8]
Don't bother to resist, or I'll beat you
It's not your fault that you're always wrong
The weak ones are there to justify the strong
The beautiful people, the beautiful people
It's all relative to the size of your steeple
You can't see the forest for the trees
You can't smell your own shit on your knees
There's no time to discriminate,
Hate every motherfucker
That's in your way
[Chorus:]
Hey you, what do you see?
Something beautiful, something free?
Hey you, are you trying to be mean?
If you live with apes man, it's hard to be clean
The worms will live in every host
It's hard to pick which one they eat most
The horrible people, the horrible people
It's as anatomic as the size of your steeple
Capitalism has made it this way,
Old-fashioned fascism will take it away
[Chorus]
There's no time to discriminate,
Hate every motherfucker
That's in your way
The beautiful people
The beautiful people (aahh) [x4]
[Chorus x2]
The beautiful people [x8]
Marilyn Manson - Disposable Teens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKkiCFOE-Ic
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/marilynmanson/disposableteens.html
Marilyn Manson - The Nobodies (OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF-QqKiT1bI
MARILYN MANSON LYRICS
[2x]
Today I'm dirty
I want to be pretty
Tomorrow, I know, I'm just dirt
[2x]
We're the nobodies
Wanna be somebodies
We're dead,
We know just who we are
[2x]
Yesterday I was dirty
Wanted to be pretty
I know now that I'm forever dirt
[2x]
We're the nobodies
Wanna be somebodies
We're dead,
We know just who we are
[2x]
Some children died the other day
We fed machines and then we prayed
Puked up and down in morbid faith
You should have seen the ratings that day
[4x]
We're the nobodies
Wanna be somebodies
We're dead,
We know just who we are
Today I'm dirty
I want to be pretty
Tomorrow, I know, I'm just dirt
[2x]
We're the nobodies
Wanna be somebodies
We're dead,
We know just who we are
[2x]
Yesterday I was dirty
Wanted to be pretty
I know now that I'm forever dirt
[2x]
We're the nobodies
Wanna be somebodies
We're dead,
We know just who we are
[2x]
Some children died the other day
We fed machines and then we prayed
Puked up and down in morbid faith
You should have seen the ratings that day
[4x]
We're the nobodies
Wanna be somebodies
We're dead,
We know just who we are
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/marilynmanson/thenobodies.html
Marilyn Manson - mOBSCENE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdwZV4Y95Nw
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/marilynmanson/mobscene.html
Marilyn Manson - This Is The New *hit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u21aTl7lmHw
MARILYN MANSON LYRICS
Everything has been said before
There's nothing left to say anymore
When it's all the same
You can ask for it by name
Babble babble bitch bitch
Rebel rebel party party
Sex sex sex and don't forget the "violence"
Blah blah blah got your lovey-dovey sad-and-lonely
Stick your STUPID SLOGAN in:
Everybody sing along.
Babble babble bitch bitch
Rebel rebel party party
Sex sex sex and don't forget the "violence"
Blah blah blah got your lovey-dovey sad-and-lonely
Stick your STUPID SLOGAN in:
Everybody sing along,
Are you motherfuckers ready
For the new shit?
Stand up and admit,
tomorrow's never coming.
This is the new shit.
Stand up and admit.
Do we get it? No.
Do we want it? Yeah.
This is the new shit,
Stand up and admit.
Babble babble bitch bitch
Rebel rebel party party
Sex sex sex and don't forget the "violence"
Blah blah blah got your lovey-dovey sad-and-lonely
Stick your STUPID SLOGAN in:
Everybody sing along.
Everything has been said before
There's nothing left to say anymore
When it's all the same
You can ask for it by name,
Are you motherfuckers ready
For the new shit?
Stand up and admit,
tomorrow's never coming.
This is the new shit.
Stand up and admit.
Do we get it? No.
Do we want it? Yeah.
This is the new shit,
Stand up and admit.
And now it's "you know who"
I got the "you know what"
I stick it "you know where"
You know why, you don't care.
And now it's "you know who"
I got the "you know what"
I stick it "you know where"
You know why, you don't care.
Babble babble bitch bitch
Rebel rebel party party
Sex sex sex and don't forget the "violence"
Blah blah blah got your lovey-dovey sad-and-lonely
Stick your STUPID SLOGAN in:
Everybody sing along,
Are you motherfuckers ready
For the new shit?
Stand up and admit,
tomorrow's never coming.
This is the new shit.
Stand up and admit.
Do we get it? No.
Do we want it? Yeah.
This is the new shit,
Stand up and admit.
So,
LET US ENTERTAIN YOU
LET US ENTERTAIN YOU...
Blah blah blah blah everybody sing along.
There's nothing left to say anymore
When it's all the same
You can ask for it by name
Babble babble bitch bitch
Rebel rebel party party
Sex sex sex and don't forget the "violence"
Blah blah blah got your lovey-dovey sad-and-lonely
Stick your STUPID SLOGAN in:
Everybody sing along.
Babble babble bitch bitch
Rebel rebel party party
Sex sex sex and don't forget the "violence"
Blah blah blah got your lovey-dovey sad-and-lonely
Stick your STUPID SLOGAN in:
Everybody sing along,
Are you motherfuckers ready
For the new shit?
Stand up and admit,
tomorrow's never coming.
This is the new shit.
Stand up and admit.
Do we get it? No.
Do we want it? Yeah.
This is the new shit,
Stand up and admit.
Babble babble bitch bitch
Rebel rebel party party
Sex sex sex and don't forget the "violence"
Blah blah blah got your lovey-dovey sad-and-lonely
Stick your STUPID SLOGAN in:
Everybody sing along.
Everything has been said before
There's nothing left to say anymore
When it's all the same
You can ask for it by name,
Are you motherfuckers ready
For the new shit?
Stand up and admit,
tomorrow's never coming.
This is the new shit.
Stand up and admit.
Do we get it? No.
Do we want it? Yeah.
This is the new shit,
Stand up and admit.
And now it's "you know who"
I got the "you know what"
I stick it "you know where"
You know why, you don't care.
And now it's "you know who"
I got the "you know what"
I stick it "you know where"
You know why, you don't care.
Babble babble bitch bitch
Rebel rebel party party
Sex sex sex and don't forget the "violence"
Blah blah blah got your lovey-dovey sad-and-lonely
Stick your STUPID SLOGAN in:
Everybody sing along,
Are you motherfuckers ready
For the new shit?
Stand up and admit,
tomorrow's never coming.
This is the new shit.
Stand up and admit.
Do we get it? No.
Do we want it? Yeah.
This is the new shit,
Stand up and admit.
So,
LET US ENTERTAIN YOU
LET US ENTERTAIN YOU...
Blah blah blah blah everybody sing along.
Bonus:
Marilyn Manson - Sweet Dreams (Live Ozzfest 2003)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVyH80GNpnw
Marilyn Manson - Sweet Dreams (Live Ozzfest 2003)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVyH80GNpnw
marți, 17 noiembrie 2015
luni, 26 ianuarie 2015
Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars
or " the TM-SW7905.1 manual"
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Weapons_for_Quiet_Wars
http://www.syti.net/SilentWeapons.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23125306/Silent-Weapons-for-Quiet-Wars-Operating-Research-Technical-Manual-TM-SW7905-1#scribd
http://www.rexresearch.com/dyke/slntwpn.htm
http://www.stopthecrime.net/docs/SILENT%20WEAPONS%20for%20QUIET%20WARS.pdf
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_cooper2.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_38tsQ4p0I
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Weapons_for_Quiet_Wars
http://www.syti.net/SilentWeapons.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23125306/Silent-Weapons-for-Quiet-Wars-Operating-Research-Technical-Manual-TM-SW7905-1#scribd
http://www.rexresearch.com/dyke/slntwpn.htm
http://www.stopthecrime.net/docs/SILENT%20WEAPONS%20for%20QUIET%20WARS.pdf
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_cooper2.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_38tsQ4p0I
sâmbătă, 17 ianuarie 2015
marți, 13 ianuarie 2015
"Systems of Exclusion Governing Discourse" from Michel Foucault
http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Foucault-Discourse_on_Language-Summary-excerpts.html
Michel Foucault, "Discourse on Language," Key Excerpts
(from Michel Foucault, L'Archéologie du savoir (1969, L'Ordre du discours, 1971; trans. The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language, trans. A. M. Sheridan-Smith, 1972)
I am supposing that is every society the production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organised and redistributed according to a certain number of procedures, whose role is to avert its powers and its dangers, to cope with chance events, to evade its ponderous, awesome materiality. In a society such as our own we all know the rules of exclusion. The most obvious and familiar of these concerns what is prohibited.
This should not be very surprising, for psychoanalysis has already shown us that speech is not merely the medium which manifests-- or dissembles-- desire; it is also the object of desire. Similarly, historians have constantly impressed upon us that speech is no mere verbalisation of conflicts and systems of domination, but that it is the very object of man's conflicts. But our society possesses yet another principle of exclusion; not another prohibition, but a division and a rejection. I have in mind the opposition: reason and folly.
Of the three great systems of exclusion governing discourse -- prohibited words, the division of madness and the will to truth -- I have spoken at greatest length concerning the third. With good reason: for centuries, the former have continually tended toward the latter; because this last has, gradually, been attempting to assimilate the others in order both to modify them and to provide them with a firm foundation. Because, if the two former are continually growing more fragile and less certain to the extent that they are now invaded by the will to truth, the latter, in contrast, daily grows in strength, in depth and implacability.
True discourse, liberated by the nature of its form from desire and power, is incapable of recognising the will to truth which pervades it; and the will to truth, having imposed itself upon us for so long, is such that the truth it seeks to reveal cannot fail to mask it
I believe we can isolate another group: internal rules, where discourse exercises its own control; rules concerned with the principles of classification, ordering and distribution. It is as though we were now involved in the mastery of another dimension of discourse: that of events and chance.
I believe there is another principle of rarefaction, complementary to the first: the author. Not, of course, the author in the sense of the individual who delivered the speech or wrote the text in question, but the author as the unifying principle in a particular group of writings or statements, lying at the origins of their significance, as the seat of their coherence.
Of course, it would be ridiculous to deny the existence of individuals who write, and invent. But I think that, for some time, at least, the individual who sits down to write a text, at the edge of which lurks a possible oeuvre, resumes the functions of the author. What he writes and does not write, what he sketches out, even preliminary sketches for the work, and what he drops as simple mundane remarks, all this interplay of differences is prescribed by the author-function. It is from his new position, as an author, that he will fashion-- from all he might have said, from all he says daily, at any time-- the still shaky profile of his oeuvre.
The organisation of disciplines is just as much opposed to the commentary-principle as it is to that of the author. Opposed to that of the author, because disciplines are defined by groups of objects, methods, their corpus of propositions considered to be true, the interplay of rules and definitions, of techniques and tools.
Disciplines constitute a system of control in the production of discourse, fixing its limits through the action of an identity taking the form of a permanent reactivation of the rules.
There is, I believe, a third group of rules serving to control discourse....This amounts to a rarefaction among speaking subjects: none may enter into a discourse on a specific subject unless he has satisfied certain conditions or if he is not, from the outset, qualified to do so. More exactly, not all areas of discourse are equally open and penetrable; some are forbidden territory ... while others are virtually open to the winds and stand, without any prior restrictions, open to all.
Every educational system is a political means of maintaining or of modifying the appropriation of discourse, with the knowledge and the powers it carries with it.
I suspect one could find a kind of gradation between different types of discourse within most societies: discourse "uttered" in the course of the day and in casual meetings, and which disappears with the very act which gave rise to it; and those forms of discourse that lie at the origins of a certain number of new verbal acts, which are reiterated, transformed or discussed; in short, discourse which is spoken and remains spoken, indefinitely, beyond its formulation, and which remains to be spoken.
Western thought has seen to it that discourse be permitted as little room as possible between thought and words. It would appear to have ensured that to discourse should appear merely as a certain interjection between speaking and thinking; that it should constitute thought, clad in its signs and rendered visible by words or, conversely, that the structures of language themselves should be brought into play, producing a certain effect of meaning.
Whether it is the philosophy of a founding subject, a philosophy of originating experience or a philosophy of universal mediation, discourse is really only an activity, of writing in the first case, of reading in the second and exchange in the third. This exchange, this writing, this reading never involve anything but signs. Discourse thus nullifies itself, in reality, in placing itself at the disposal of the signifier.
The critical side of the analysis deals with the systems enveloping discourse; attempting to mark out and distinguish the principles of ordering, exclusion and rarity in discourse. We might, to play with our words, say it practises a kind of studied casualness. The genealogical side of discourse, by way of contrast, deals with series of effective formation of discourse: it attempts to grasp it in its power of affirmation, by which I do not mean a power opposed to that of negation, but the power of constituting domains of objects, in relation to which one can affirm or deny true or false propositions. Let us call these domains of objects positivist and , to play on words yet again, let us say that, if the critical style is one of studied casualness, then the genealogical mood is one of felicitous positivism.
True discourse, liberated by the nature of its form from desire and power, is incapable of recognising the will to truth which pervades it; and the will to truth, having imposed itself upon us for so long, is such that the truth it seeks to reveal cannot fail to mask it.
At all events, one thing at least must be emphasised here: that the analysis of discourse thus understood, does not reveal the universality of a meaning, but brings to light the action of imposed rarity, with a fundamental power of affirmation. Rarity and affirmation; rarity, in the last resort of affirmation -- certainly not any continuous outpouring of meaning, and certainly not any monarchy of the signifier.
I believe we must resolve ourselves to accept three decisions which our current thinking rather tends to resist, and which belong to the three groups of function I have just mentioned: to question our will to truth; to restore to discourse its character as an event; to abolish the sovereignty of the signifier.... One can straight away distinguish some of the methodological demands they imply. A principle of reversal, first of all.... Next, then, the principle of discontinuity .... Discourse must be treated as a discontinuous activity, its different manifestations sometimes coming together, but just as easily unaware of, or excluding each other. The principle of specificity declares that a particular discourse cannot be resolved by a prior system of significations... We must conceive discourse as a violence that we do to things, or, at all events, as a practice we impose upon them; it is in this practice that the events of discourse find the principle of their regularity.
The fourth principle, that of exteriority, holds that we are not to burrow to the hidden core of discourse, to the heart of the thought or meaning manifested in it; instead, taking the discourse itself, its appearance and its regularity, that we should look for its external conditions of existence, for that which gives rise to the chance series of these events and fixes its limits.
In the sense that this slender wedge I intend to slip into the history of ideas consists not in dealing with meanings possibly lying behind this or that discourse, but with discourse as regular series and distinct events, I fear I recognise in this wedge a tiny (odious, too, perhaps) device permitting the introduction, into the very roots of thought, of notions of chance, discontinuity and materiality.
I believe we can isolate another group: internal rules, where discourse exercises its own control; rules concerned with the principles of classification, ordering and distribution. It is as though we were now involved in the mastery of another dimension of discourse: that of events and chance.
And now, let those who are weak on vocabulary, let those with little comprehension of theory call all this-- if its appeal is stronger than its meaning for them-- structuralism.
Michel Foucault, "Discourse on Language," Key Excerpts
(from Michel Foucault, L'Archéologie du savoir (1969, L'Ordre du discours, 1971; trans. The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language, trans. A. M. Sheridan-Smith, 1972)
I am supposing that is every society the production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organised and redistributed according to a certain number of procedures, whose role is to avert its powers and its dangers, to cope with chance events, to evade its ponderous, awesome materiality. In a society such as our own we all know the rules of exclusion. The most obvious and familiar of these concerns what is prohibited.
This should not be very surprising, for psychoanalysis has already shown us that speech is not merely the medium which manifests-- or dissembles-- desire; it is also the object of desire. Similarly, historians have constantly impressed upon us that speech is no mere verbalisation of conflicts and systems of domination, but that it is the very object of man's conflicts. But our society possesses yet another principle of exclusion; not another prohibition, but a division and a rejection. I have in mind the opposition: reason and folly.
Of the three great systems of exclusion governing discourse -- prohibited words, the division of madness and the will to truth -- I have spoken at greatest length concerning the third. With good reason: for centuries, the former have continually tended toward the latter; because this last has, gradually, been attempting to assimilate the others in order both to modify them and to provide them with a firm foundation. Because, if the two former are continually growing more fragile and less certain to the extent that they are now invaded by the will to truth, the latter, in contrast, daily grows in strength, in depth and implacability.
True discourse, liberated by the nature of its form from desire and power, is incapable of recognising the will to truth which pervades it; and the will to truth, having imposed itself upon us for so long, is such that the truth it seeks to reveal cannot fail to mask it
I believe we can isolate another group: internal rules, where discourse exercises its own control; rules concerned with the principles of classification, ordering and distribution. It is as though we were now involved in the mastery of another dimension of discourse: that of events and chance.
I believe there is another principle of rarefaction, complementary to the first: the author. Not, of course, the author in the sense of the individual who delivered the speech or wrote the text in question, but the author as the unifying principle in a particular group of writings or statements, lying at the origins of their significance, as the seat of their coherence.
Of course, it would be ridiculous to deny the existence of individuals who write, and invent. But I think that, for some time, at least, the individual who sits down to write a text, at the edge of which lurks a possible oeuvre, resumes the functions of the author. What he writes and does not write, what he sketches out, even preliminary sketches for the work, and what he drops as simple mundane remarks, all this interplay of differences is prescribed by the author-function. It is from his new position, as an author, that he will fashion-- from all he might have said, from all he says daily, at any time-- the still shaky profile of his oeuvre.
The organisation of disciplines is just as much opposed to the commentary-principle as it is to that of the author. Opposed to that of the author, because disciplines are defined by groups of objects, methods, their corpus of propositions considered to be true, the interplay of rules and definitions, of techniques and tools.
Disciplines constitute a system of control in the production of discourse, fixing its limits through the action of an identity taking the form of a permanent reactivation of the rules.
There is, I believe, a third group of rules serving to control discourse....This amounts to a rarefaction among speaking subjects: none may enter into a discourse on a specific subject unless he has satisfied certain conditions or if he is not, from the outset, qualified to do so. More exactly, not all areas of discourse are equally open and penetrable; some are forbidden territory ... while others are virtually open to the winds and stand, without any prior restrictions, open to all.
Every educational system is a political means of maintaining or of modifying the appropriation of discourse, with the knowledge and the powers it carries with it.
I suspect one could find a kind of gradation between different types of discourse within most societies: discourse "uttered" in the course of the day and in casual meetings, and which disappears with the very act which gave rise to it; and those forms of discourse that lie at the origins of a certain number of new verbal acts, which are reiterated, transformed or discussed; in short, discourse which is spoken and remains spoken, indefinitely, beyond its formulation, and which remains to be spoken.
Western thought has seen to it that discourse be permitted as little room as possible between thought and words. It would appear to have ensured that to discourse should appear merely as a certain interjection between speaking and thinking; that it should constitute thought, clad in its signs and rendered visible by words or, conversely, that the structures of language themselves should be brought into play, producing a certain effect of meaning.
Whether it is the philosophy of a founding subject, a philosophy of originating experience or a philosophy of universal mediation, discourse is really only an activity, of writing in the first case, of reading in the second and exchange in the third. This exchange, this writing, this reading never involve anything but signs. Discourse thus nullifies itself, in reality, in placing itself at the disposal of the signifier.
The critical side of the analysis deals with the systems enveloping discourse; attempting to mark out and distinguish the principles of ordering, exclusion and rarity in discourse. We might, to play with our words, say it practises a kind of studied casualness. The genealogical side of discourse, by way of contrast, deals with series of effective formation of discourse: it attempts to grasp it in its power of affirmation, by which I do not mean a power opposed to that of negation, but the power of constituting domains of objects, in relation to which one can affirm or deny true or false propositions. Let us call these domains of objects positivist and , to play on words yet again, let us say that, if the critical style is one of studied casualness, then the genealogical mood is one of felicitous positivism.
True discourse, liberated by the nature of its form from desire and power, is incapable of recognising the will to truth which pervades it; and the will to truth, having imposed itself upon us for so long, is such that the truth it seeks to reveal cannot fail to mask it.
At all events, one thing at least must be emphasised here: that the analysis of discourse thus understood, does not reveal the universality of a meaning, but brings to light the action of imposed rarity, with a fundamental power of affirmation. Rarity and affirmation; rarity, in the last resort of affirmation -- certainly not any continuous outpouring of meaning, and certainly not any monarchy of the signifier.
I believe we must resolve ourselves to accept three decisions which our current thinking rather tends to resist, and which belong to the three groups of function I have just mentioned: to question our will to truth; to restore to discourse its character as an event; to abolish the sovereignty of the signifier.... One can straight away distinguish some of the methodological demands they imply. A principle of reversal, first of all.... Next, then, the principle of discontinuity .... Discourse must be treated as a discontinuous activity, its different manifestations sometimes coming together, but just as easily unaware of, or excluding each other. The principle of specificity declares that a particular discourse cannot be resolved by a prior system of significations... We must conceive discourse as a violence that we do to things, or, at all events, as a practice we impose upon them; it is in this practice that the events of discourse find the principle of their regularity.
The fourth principle, that of exteriority, holds that we are not to burrow to the hidden core of discourse, to the heart of the thought or meaning manifested in it; instead, taking the discourse itself, its appearance and its regularity, that we should look for its external conditions of existence, for that which gives rise to the chance series of these events and fixes its limits.
In the sense that this slender wedge I intend to slip into the history of ideas consists not in dealing with meanings possibly lying behind this or that discourse, but with discourse as regular series and distinct events, I fear I recognise in this wedge a tiny (odious, too, perhaps) device permitting the introduction, into the very roots of thought, of notions of chance, discontinuity and materiality.
I believe we can isolate another group: internal rules, where discourse exercises its own control; rules concerned with the principles of classification, ordering and distribution. It is as though we were now involved in the mastery of another dimension of discourse: that of events and chance.
And now, let those who are weak on vocabulary, let those with little comprehension of theory call all this-- if its appeal is stronger than its meaning for them-- structuralism.
Abonați-vă la:
Postări (Atom)