6 replies to this topic

[Just.Fuck.It.All]

of my signiture? Just wondering since my friend said it was funny. And I hate going for extremely funnny.

[Resonance.]

/pointless topic.

That is all.
I couldn't be bothered saying anything else.

[Just.Fuck.It.All]

/pointless topic.

That is all.
I couldn't be bothered saying anything else.

That's what I thought too. like after reading it a few times it's not funny anymore.

[djwolford]

My what interesting and thought provoking conversations you have with your friends.

[Act_Naturally]

I think that this was a pointless topic.
Also, about the signature, it reminds me of my friend Tyler... Not overly funny.

[Guanine]

Well, I think it all depends on whether we're going to be analysing this from a Post-Feminist standpoint, or from a Marxist literary critique. Now personally I'm given towards the latter, as I feel that some of the points Lefebrve brought up in his Critique of Everyday Life would be quite relevant to any meaningful discussion of this signature. As you know his fundamental issue was that of 'Alienation', and the role it plays in a modernist consumer society; now if we take this signature with its casual reduction of people to mere letters, actors devoid of character, the similarities are really quite inarguable.

At this point I'd just like to go on a slight detour from the main thrust of this critical reading to open up a dialogue on whether humour can really be said to exist in any meaningful way. Taking a strictly physical-determinist view I think we have to agree that no, humour is not possible as a thing-for-itself. If we take Laplace's hypothetical demon, then your future responses to any "humour" are known to it in advance, they're a purely mechanical reaction; you're not laughing because humour has happened, you're merely exhibiting an inevitable response to the position of various atoms. And of course this is entirely before we get into the issue of qualia zombies and physicalism, which raise the possibility that some people may laugh and show all signs of humour, without actually having any sense of self inside them, merely the appearance of human behaviour.

In conclusion: No. Or yes.

[Drummer da Attention Whore]

Well, I think it all depends on whether we're going to be analysing this from a Post-Feminist standpoint, or from a Marxist literary critique. Now personally I'm given towards the latter, as I feel that some of the points Lefebrve brought up in his Critique of Everyday Life would be quite relevant to any meaningful discussion of this signature. As you know his fundamental issue was that of 'Alienation', and the role it plays in a modernist consumer society; now if we take this signature with its casual reduction of people to mere letters, actors devoid of character, the similarities are really quite inarguable.

At this point I'd just like to go on a slight detour from the main thrust of this critical reading to open up a dialogue on whether humour can really be said to exist in any meaningful way. Taking a strictly physical-determinist view I think we have to agree that no, humour is not possible as a thing-for-itself. If we take Laplace's hypothetical demon, then your future responses to any "humour" are known to it in advance, they're a purely mechanical reaction; you're not laughing because humour has happened, you're merely exhibiting an inevitable response to the position of various atoms. And of course this is entirely before we get into the issue of qualia zombies and physicalism, which raise the possibility that some people may laugh and show all signs of humour, without actually having any sense of self inside them, merely the appearance of human behaviour.

In conclusion: No. Or yes.

+3 internetz.