deconstructionalism

vimeo

OBSOLETE - Nick Gentry

His portraits use a combination of obsolete media formats, making a comment on waste culture, life cycles and identity. Using old disks as a canvas, these artefacts are combined to create photo-fits and identities that may draw connections to the personal information that is then forever locked down underneath the paint.

A German word you have not heard about - be­deu­tungs­schwan­ger

[bəˈdɔ͜ytʊŋsʃvaŋɐ]
be|deu|tungs|schwan|ger

Yet again I introduce you to a word which represents a constant theme in German language and culture.

Bedeutungsschwanger consists of two words: “Bedeutung” (meaning) and “pregnant” - Pregnant with meaning. An adjective applied to words whenever a they have one or several deeper meanings regardless of the context they are used in.

To please some philosophy nerds: it can be described as the opposite of the French deconstructionism. Where a word is always to be seen in its context and hardly can have even a singular definitive meaning at all. 

And to please the rest of you, I will now explain the bedeutungsschwanger name of one of Germany’s top export products.



In Germany Rammstein is cherished for their family friendly and romantic tunes….no just kidding :P

Most Metal fans already know that they are named after the airshow disaster in 1988 on the grounds of the Ramstein airbase. The base in return is named after the nearby town of Ramstein in Rhineland-Palantinate.

Little do they know that it is actually already a very suitable name for a Metäl band since it literally means ramming-rock. A fitting description for Ramsteins music even if you have never heard of the disaster it refers too.








gravemind-official replied to your post:I’m torn between writing anti-Helsa fic or playing…

I’m literally having a “there’s two things i want to work on” moment too, and surprise! None of it is homework ._.

Argh, that bites. DX I was totally feeling that earlier, too.

(… Though it’s probably better that I ended up choosing “homework”, ‘cause that delayed the inevitable DP spam that’s gonna come at some point.)

vimeo

Casa Guardiola in reference to Site and Time
David Franck

Huh? : A 365 Writing Prompt

Huh? : A 365 Writing Prompt

The 365 Days of Writing Prompt Entry for today, January 19th is:

Apply yourself: Describe your last attempt to learn something that did not come easily to you.

Well, I am sure that I have had these moments since the graduate school episode I am about to describe which took place in 1989 but one has not come to mind as much as this situation did over 25 years ago! After nearly a decade of no…

View On WordPress

Who believes what today?

I think this is an interesting question, much more complex than it may appear. The first myth to be abandoned, I think, is the idea that we live in a cynical era where nobody believes no values and so on, and that there were some times, more traditional, where people still believed, relied of some sort of substantial notion of belief, and so on and so on. I think it’s today that we believe more than ever, and, as fuller develops it in a nice, ironic way, the ultimate form of belief for him is deconstructionism. Why? Again, I’m going back to that question of, quote, Marx, no? Look how it functions, deconstructionism, in its standard version, already at the texture of style. You cannot find one text of Derrida without (A) all of the quotation marks,and (B), all of this rhetorical distanciations. Like… I don’t know.
To take an ironic example, if somebody like Judith Butler were to be asked: “What is this?” she would never have said, “This is a bottle of tea.” She would have said something like: if we accept the metaphysical notion of language, identifying clearly objects, and taking all this into account then may we not, (she likes to put it in this [rhetorically]), risk! the hypothesis, that in the conditions of our language game - This can be said to be a bottle of tea, so on and so on.
So it’s always this need to distanciate. It goes even for love, like nobody almost dares to say today I love you. It has to be, “as a poet would have put it, ‘I love you,’’’ or some kind of a distance. But what’s the problem here? The problem is that… why this fear? Because I claim that, when the ancients directly said “I love you,” they meant exactly the same. All these distanciations were included. So it’s we today who are afraid that, if we were to put it directly, “I love you,” that it would mean too much. We believe in it.

— 

Slavoj Žižek

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGBXvf-vba4)