On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, Fool wrote:
Ratification is a legal fiction. Lacanist obscurity implies that the goal of
the participant is deconstruction, but only if consciousness is distinct from
language; if that is not the case, we can assume that discourse must come
from the masses. In a sense, several narratives concerning a mythopoetical
totality exist.
Consciousness is part of the defining characteristic of truth, or rather the
absurdity, and eventually the stasis, of consciousness. Thus, the rules are
interpolated into a posttextual libertarianism that includes narrativity as a
whole.
It could be said that the example of Lacanist obscurity exists already in
rule 217, although in a more postsemantic sense. The rules are contextualised
into a textual subcultural theory that includes language as a reality.
Therefore, a number of theories concerning Lacanist obscurity may be found.
OK, please tell which Markov chain generator did you use for this.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
