Bioschock fanpage

[Oarfish]

Consensuses of meaninglessness

In the works of Tarantino, a predominant concept is the distinction between creation and destruction. But Sartreist absurdity suggests that culture is used to oppress the proletariat. Derrida suggests the use of Foucaultist power relations to modify sexual identity.

The characteristic theme of the works of Tarantino is the common ground between society and truth. However, Sontag uses the term ’subtextual rationalism’ to denote not construction as such, but preconstruction. If neotextual feminism holds, we have to choose between subtextual rationalism and capitalist nihilism.

“Class is fundamentally impossible,” says Foucault; however, according to Parry[2] , it is not so much class that is fundamentally impossible, but rather the dialectic, and therefore the fatal flaw, of class. It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a Sartreist absurdity that includes art as a totality. Long[3] states that we have to choose between neotextual feminism and precultural appropriation.

Therefore, Lacan uses the term ‘Sartreist absurdity’ to denote a self-supporting whole. The premise of neotextual feminism holds that truth is part of the futility of consciousness.

But the main theme of Buxton’s[4] model of subtextual rationalism is the role of the artist as participant. Sartre’s essay on neotextual feminism states that context is a product of the masses, given that Sartreist absurdity is valid.

However, a number of dematerialisms concerning neotextual feminism may be revealed. Lacan uses the term ‘Sartreist absurdity’ to denote the paradigm, and eventually the stasis, of capitalist sexual identity.

Thus, Debord promotes the use of subtextual rationalism to deconstruct hierarchy. The characteristic theme of the works of Eco is the role of the artist as reader.

More postmodernist fun at http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo

 

[Seboss]

Please stop it or I'll have to turn this thread in another TES fanboys vs Codex Naysayers flame war :p

 

[Shagnak]

Holy fucking derailment Batman!

 

[kingcomrade]

To give a silly example, the mere fact that existing within this societal group makes us think of gravity makes the existence of gravity an extension of its power. Yet it is impossible not to accept it as truth. It cannot but be true.

Doesn't that make the whole theory both superfluous and useless?
My idea of collective subjectivity conjures up a room full of potheads. "Hey guys! Dudes, listen to this. What if...the universe...doesn't really exist?!" and the potheads go, "whooaaaaa! deep dude!"

 

[Oarfish]

Doesn't that make the whole theory both superfluous and useless?

Damn fucking right. Unless you define utility as "being able to get tenure in a social studies department".

The physicist Alan Sokal outed these clowns by getting a parody article "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" published in a major journal. They lapped it up.

You can read about it http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/ here.

Rather, they cling to the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook, which can be summarized briefly as follows: that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in ``eternal'' physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the ``objective'' procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-called) scientific method.

But deep conceptual shifts within twentieth-century science have undermined this Cartesian-Newtonian metaphysics1; revisionist studies in the history and philosophy of science have cast further doubt on its credibility2; and, most recently, feminist and poststructuralist critiques have demystified the substantive content of mainstream Western scientific practice, revealing the ideology of domination concealed behind the façade of ``objectivity''.

Not that it stopped them, there are still a stream of shitty articles with titles such as "The egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on sterotypical female roles" coming from people who never got past calculus.

 

[Oarfish]

Game looks like it may not suck however.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Better Off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse

I'm a minarchist, not an anarcho-capitalist, by the way.

 

[iago]

Sokal's work was not intended as a wholesale criticism of postmodernism.Sokal's main gripe is with the use of physics and mathematics by social scientists. And he's right. By the way, the whole affair is quite hilarious.
Moreover, I don't think you'd consider Gramsci postmodern, and even on Foucault I have my doubts.
He's not some mindless bullshitter like Derrida. Yes the gravity example was stupid and it was meant to be. But it puts things in perspective. If you start thinking about how political or economic systems accepted as valid and working may be conceptualized in an entirely different manner in a different society, and analyze those societies, it gives you an idea about what load of bullshit can be spewed by saying Capitalism is the best and most free system. I don't like postmodernism. I just think it's a good thinking tool sometimes.

 

[NeVeRLiFt]

BioShock takes place in a mysterious genetic laboratory... BioShock is not a sequel to any of the System Shock games, nor does it have any official relation to those games. But like the previous games, this one will offer a horror-themed gameplay experience in which what you observe, and what happens to you, will be tempered by your own choces. "[At Irrational], we think emergence is the future," says Levine.


So maybe this thread is talking about a different game?
http://www.sshock2.com/bioshock/