Postconceptual Constructions: Modernism in the works of Pynchon
G. Charles la Tournier
Department of English, University of California, Berkeley
1. Modernism and dialectic Marxism
If one examines the neocapitalist paradigm of expression, one is faced with
a choice: either reject dialectic Marxism or conclude that the raison d’etre of
the reader is social comment, given that the dialectic paradigm of narrative is valid. In a sense, the subject is interpolated into a modernism that includes sexuality as a paradox. Foucault uses the term ‘Baudrillardist simulation’ to denote the economy of cultural society.
Therefore, if the dialectic paradigm of narrative holds, we have to choose
between posttextual semantic theory and subcultural deappropriation. Marx’s essay on dialectic Marxism holds that discourse comes from the collective unconscious.
But Lacan suggests the use of Marxist socialism to attack sexual identity.
The premise of modernism suggests that class, surprisingly, has significance.
2. Contexts of collapse
“Society is impossible,” says Lacan. In a sense, Debord uses the term
‘dialectic Marxism’ to denote not narrative, as dialectic capitalism suggests, but neonarrative. Lyotard’s critique of the dialectic paradigm of narrative implies that reality is capable of intentionality.
But McElwaine[1] suggests that the works of Stone are
empowering. The subject is contextualised into a textual neocapitalist theory that includes culture as a whole.
Thus, Foucault promotes the use of the dialectic paradigm of narrative to
deconstruct the status quo. Baudrillard uses the term ‘dialectic Marxism’ to
denote the role of the observer as reader.
It could be said that the dialectic paradigm of narrative holds that academe
is intrinsically used in the service of archaic, sexist perceptions of class,
but only if reality is equal to culture; if that is not the case, we can assume
that consciousness may be used to disempower the Other. Sartre uses the term ‘dialectic Marxism’ to denote the stasis, and some would say the paradigm, of textual society.
3. Stone and predialectic construction
The characteristic theme of Brophy’s[2] analysis of
dialectic Marxism is the bridge between culture and society. However, the main theme of the works of Gibson is a self-justifying reality. In Count
Zero, Gibson reiterates modernism; in Mona Lisa Overdrive, however,
he affirms the dialectic paradigm of narrative.
“Sexual identity is dead,” says Foucault. Therefore, a number of discourses
concerning not theory, but neotheory may be discovered. If modernism holds, the works of Gibson are not postmodern.
If one examines the dialectic paradigm of narrative, one is faced with a
choice: either accept capitalist structuralism or conclude that consensus is a
product of the masses. But the premise of modernism implies that art is used to reinforce capitalism. The subject is interpolated into a dialectic Marxism that includes narrativity as a totality.
It could be said that in Pattern Recognition, Gibson deconstructs the
dialectic paradigm of narrative; in Virtual Light, although, he examines
modernism. The primary theme of Scuglia’s[3] model of dialectic Marxism is a postconceptual whole.
However, Sartre suggests the use of capitalist Marxism to modify and analyse reality. Long[4] suggests that we have to choose between the
dialectic paradigm of narrative and preconstructivist narrative.
It could be said that Debord uses the term ‘deconstructive postcultural
theory’ to denote not discourse as such, but neodiscourse. The subject is
contextualised into a dialectic paradigm of narrative that includes narrativity as a reality.
Therefore, Bataille promotes the use of modernism to attack hierarchy. If
the dialectic paradigm of narrative holds, we have to choose between dialectic Marxism and modern nihilism.
1. McElwaine, Q. Z. (1986)
Rationalism, modernism and the postdeconstructivist paradigm of
consensus. Yale University Press
2. Brophy, P. ed. (1970) The Absurdity of Context: The
dialectic paradigm of narrative in the works of Gibson. Panic Button
Books
3. Scuglia, W. D. (1991) Modernism in the works of
Koons. Cambridge University Press
4. Long, P. ed. (1988) Deconstructing Constructivism: The
dialectic paradigm of narrative in the works of Eco. University of
Massachusetts Press
The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this link.
If you liked this particular essay and would like to return to it, follow this link for a bookmarkable page.
The Postmodernism Generator was written by Andrew C. Bulhak using the Dada Engine, a system for generating random text from recursive grammars, and modified very slightly by Josh Larios (this version, anyway. There are others out there).
This installation of the Generator has delivered 27,934,644 essays since 25/Feb/2000 18:43:09 PST, when it became operational.
More detailed technical information may be found in Monash University Department of Computer Science Technical Report 96/264: “On the Simulation of Postmodernism and Mental Debility Using Recursive Transition Networks“.
More generated texts are linked to from the sidebar to the right.
If you enjoy this, you might also enjoy reading about the Social Text Affair, where NYU Physics Professor Alan Sokal’s brilliant(ly meaningless) hoax article was accepted by a cultural criticism publication.
The only thing that can spew more shit than a Liberal Progressive Woke SJW is AI
Had to read the last paragraph to get it. Boys have flashlight and gurls have a cave was what I learned in 2 nd grade
Well it became clear to me within the first paragraph that the text is complete bullschiff, and is likely computer-generated.
But that the Generator became operational in 2000? Respect (if true), I would never have guessed that.
Likely not computer generated – some folks (myself included) have a knack for spewing B.S. This can be used for whatever means (good, evil, neutral, etc). But it is indicative of that category of person which just accepts any crap if it “sounds” oh-so-intelligent, so they might signal that they themselves are oh-so-much-better……
Further proof that there will never be a singularity, nor that we will ever be replaced by technics.
Code in, code out.