How to deal with anonymous indicts that use a pseudo-philosophical afterthought of an otherwise rigorous philosopher to confound content with ad hominem ruminations on my “pride” and “vanity”…

I would begin by suggesting that if distance (temporal or otherwise) is in any way preclusionary of criticism, then Rene Descartes should definitely avoid the amazingly phantasmic criticism of those to post-date him by a few hundred years (be that Badiou or me or whomever). To the extent that criticism can be posthumously engineered through some process of philosophical buggery by the still living Other (in the spirit of Deleuze), I applaud the author’s militant subversion of Descartes’ text. For there is no doubt but that Rene would roll in his grave at such textual misappropriation. You have taken Mr. Descartes from behind in a most magestically Deleuzian manner. Though if this is accicental, I must wonder what on earth you meant to do by inserting what amounts to a Jack Handy Deep Though into an otherwise substantive dialogue about the erosion of the Event.

As for the content…

Descartes’ comment begins from the assumption that subject is a comprehensive and fixed agent to the extent that criticism or reasoning always operates from a properly rationalist perspective. Even in the most charitable of arrangements, this assumption has had its socks rocked right off by those who in a communitarian gesture decry the inanity of a rational-choice theory in which the values at work in the model are somehow universal irrespective of the valuator. In reality, nearness to the object of evaluation [that is, the extent to which the object “matters” to the reasoning subject] would, via this rejoinder, simply cloud the reasoning process altogether with a host of inflated value estimates. From a psychoanalytic perspective, this nearness would also simply mean that the reasoning ’subject’ is irreparably lost in the fantasy-pursuit of the objet petit a (a position that is, of course, ill-suited to criticism as it is the locale of the hysterical patient herself). From a post-metaphysical perspective, this nearness would simply represent the increase of distortion as a the instruments move ever closer to the object of measurement.

As for the rest of the diatribe.. I’m unsure as to the relation between “wit” and “ingenuity” with “pride” and “vanity”. That just sounds like something unclever people say. But, one should also read it as an obscene endorsement of ‘common sense’ over and against poetic subversion. Should we also spit on Voltaire? On Derrida? On Al Franken?

Very impressed with the recourse to your handy book o’ quotes! I can only hope the next response consists of David Hume’s thoughts on how his pud always smells better in the winter with the unavoidable subtext that “Babb is too proud and witty” or “Babb does the elfen gnome race an injustice” or “Babb wears pampers.”

Anyway, what the hell.. I have all the sympathy in the world for Schiavo’s parents. There’s nothing like a parent’s unconditional love for their child in the most desperate of circumstances. And for that matter, the criticism of the circus trolls exploiting the event is made on to the end that commentary on the status of the Event might be made. Duh.

You assert and assert and reference and reference — and then reference some more, providing reasons that are unintelligable and, at the very best, difficult to understand to a person without your exact “books I’ve read” list. Your arguments, or rather, your regurgitations, exist so far out of the mainstream that they are parodies of themselves: what the hell is an Event? What the hell does capitalizing the word situation do for you? Quite frankly — WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? You sound more like a satisfied customer from the post modern generator than you do a legitimate scholar/student, and that is something of which to be extraordinarily embarrassed. Rather than electing to discuss the tragic and controversial event of Terri Schiavo in its more appropriate and readily apparent context, you drive into the margin, hoping people will believe that your “new” and “insightful” analysis with its capital letters denoting a meaning different from the usual usage will scare readers into believing that this post is not bereft of any meaning at all, and, maybe as an aside, that you’re smart. Rather than responding, as the initial quotation of Descartes (to be clear, when you take issue with the “afterthought,” you take issue with Rene, and not me) would provoke you to do in regular, laymans terms, you again heap pile after pile of bullshit onto it. The response is even less understandable than the initial post — and I suspect that this has a motive behind it. Either YOU are SO SMART that the vast majority of people simply think on a different level than you, or, you resort to this sort of weak and referential writing to shoo away those would legitimately question your points — if they could understand it. Citing little known authors covers your ass in two ways: first, it gives you the ability to scoff at readers who seriously have no idea who the hell they are, rather than responding to their more than reasonable arguments that they don’t know what you’re saying, and secondly, it gives you the ability to advance only what others do — it’s not my point, you say, but rather the point of this man, an educated man, who is published, it is his point — and who wants to argue with an academic demigod? Not me.

Talking above everybody’s head isn’t a very good mask for illegitimate and meaningless “scholarship.” I’ve had quite enough of this fashionable nonsense. If you want to contribute something constructive to the debate community, do so in the terms and on a level in which everyone can participate, and please, next time — please have something to say first.

Cliffnotes?

Babb- I think your insight is great. Question on Levinas- did the parents actually reference the “life in the face”? If so, that would be about the most bitchin combination of “spiritual advising” and phenomenological ehtics I’ve ever seen.

If one examines neotextual objectivism, one is faced with a choice: either reject poststructural dialectic theory or conclude that government is part of the rubicon of consciousness, but only if art is distinct from reality; otherwise, we can assume that narrative comes from the masses. But Debord promotes the use of pretextual nationalism to attack sexual identity. Sontag uses the term ‘neotextual objectivism’ to denote the difference between class and language.

That is a quotation from elsewhere.org’s postmondern generator, which randomly generates semantic nonsense…sounds and awful lot like the dribble that came spilling out in that post.

Terry Schiavo was murdered by a relentless judiciary, it’s as easy as that. Sentence by sentence, phrase by phrase, analysis of your post yields the simple fact that you can push shift F7 faster than anyone else. I, for one, will not revel in such academic masturbation.

Your use of ‘clearly’ or ‘one thing is for sure’ followed by philosophical nonsense is nothing short of intellectual terrorism. Put it do rest.

Maybe you do have a point, but argue your point intelligently, don’t just asssert it like an ass.

Maybe you don’t have a point.

Maybe you are a point.

Maybe the point is the object of your fetish.

Maybe you are the object of the point’s fetish.

…am I blowing your mind?