A Reply to the Theory Sharks
Recently, my newest article, “How to be Domestic in a Neonihilistic Nebulous Nation,” has grown much criticism in its validity and applicability, or what was deemed (by critics) as intro-egotistic psycho-babel. First off, my book is not meant to be a pejorative attempt of a careful neo-consideration towards any justice of logical fallacies or rectified reifications resulting in domicile disparity or hopelessness. Instead, the conceit of the article is simple. It’s about doing when there is nothing doing—in the sense of non action—primarily transcended from acting solitary without a notion of communal solidarity. We tend to see life as indifferent, objective, and often without flaw or those ambiguous situations, sexual or psychological, of provisional ineptness and falling into unstable hollow men. More so than Eliot’s modern-man, is the antique, but always relevant Job. Job is an invocation of righteousness, a spellbinder of harmonious entertainment perpetuated by Satan—Lord Lucifer —Prince of Darkness—patron of the babelnish and discreet charm of indoctrination. Wholly, our friend Job was averse to his imagination, but the secret rooms, the biblical invaginations, tell us there is an eternal disposition, and the disposition does not amount to much insight. So what does this have to do with Neonihilism and nations? Easy. Sometimes we may lose a fight, but with practical ways of being, we can confront lonely mortality. We must restart philosophical inquiry, we must create a novel vocabulary, we must undertake criticism to mute the basic ways we ultimately derive the idea that we face these facts and entail an anxious, nebulous distortion of a non dualistic logic which refuses synthesis and dynamic tension between the thing and its other—predicate logic.
0 Response to "A Reply to the Theory Sharks"
Post a Comment