On 04/08/2013 4:43 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I've never seen a better case for Deconstructionism
[...]
I'll go recruit some Postmodern Literary Critics to play. Just watch me. :P.
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.
