Blog:
Gucci Little Piggy
Topic: Sex to Impress
Comment: I have some admittedly childish fun with Michael and his writing style, and my own, indirectly referencing my ongoing and life long struggle to be "accessible", and hence the weak allusion to McLuhan. Any doubts that my comment was supposed to be gibberish in the postmodernism style, should have been dispelled by the links I provided at the end.
@Michael,
It appears that your inter-textual analysis of cultural
deconstruction was not sufficiently broad nor inclusive on the one hand,
and on the other the focus was weakly shifted, as it was insufficiently
opaque at the edges and margins.
Because one is generally faced with a choice: either reject
subcultural modernist theory or conclude that consensus is a product of communication, and I believe you have failed to conclusively demonstrate
a sufficiently reductionist posture for the former, while only weakly
advancing the case for the latter, and it shows an insufficient
appreciation of the transition from within being externalized, while maintaining a cohesive integrity, and to transition this sufficiently
while sufficiently populating the exterior, it is also crucial to
actualize this posture suitable to the medium it is expressed within.
I can not emphasize enough that synthesis of this dynamic tension predicates a successful strategy.
I hope that you appreciate that I have deliberately structured this
critique to be accessible to your demonstrated level of ability, and
thus have kept the technical jargon to a minimum.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
It appears that your inter-textual analysis of cultural deconstruction was not sufficiently broad nor inclusive on the one hand, and on the other the focus was weakly shifted, as it was insufficiently opaque at the edges and margins.
Because one is generally faced with a choice: either reject subcultural modernist theory or conclude that consensus is a product of communication, and I believe you have failed to conclusively demonstrate a sufficiently reductionist posture for the former, while only weakly advancing the case for the latter, and it shows an insufficient appreciation of the transition from within being externalized, while maintaining a cohesive integrity, and to transition this sufficiently while sufficiently populating the exterior, it is also crucial to actualize this posture suitable to the medium it is expressed within.
I can not emphasize enough that synthesis of this dynamic tension predicates a successful strategy.
I hope that you appreciate that I have deliberately structured this critique to be accessible to your demonstrated level of ability, and thus have kept the technical jargon to a minimum.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop