>https://medium.com/@aeonbaudrillard/on-lynchian-perversity-5cdb237fc95d
>Apropos of impossible foreboding, is Dune not the first Twin Peaks episode? Despite the film’s volume erupting in bloated self-satisfaction, there is very little to say about it. A pastiche of Old World architecture, as if the whole world was visible from the Californian coast, foreshortened such that all empty spaces in all architectural forms were filled by other forms; as if contempt was a building material. A formal density that is only matched by the equally formal (Kleinean) inanity of space: the “Newtonian” class relations which animate the film are so alien to America that they might as well be in literal — and fictional — space. Perhaps this is why the novel, written by an American, is considered as arcane as it is “unfilmable” by other Americans? Suffice to say that “Paul is Lynch” is too primitive a claim even for this film. Rather, what is remarkable is who and what is not Lynch — and how. Although the film is already haunted by the, now archetypically Lynchian, dysgenic villains and strangers, this is only a red herring. It is not so much that there is a dysgenic exception threatening Paul’s Royal journey, but that Paul’s journey constitutes the only exception to a dysgenic totality. Recall that every character but Paul is explicitly Other, either by being undignified or suffering an indignity: his father loses a tooth, his mother is pregnant, his sister is preternatural, a balding man, a tattooed man, an old man, etc. Paul’s indignities, however, are explicitly not real. That, indeed, the box is the film itself — excruciating unreality — is always already accounted for by the water of life being the screen itself — the bar past which only Paul can see and, moreover, from beyond which he now Royally directs Arrakis…and the film itself. That Lynch disowned THIS film is not even ironic, rather, it turns the actual world, the Old World, into the (proletarian) Object of irony.
>There is no metaphor here. Film supersedes reality exactly as meritocracy does: whoever has directed the Objectivity of labor has simultaneously directed the “labor of the Objective”, has relegated labor to, and as, the vacuous and cretinous form of the Object, and has rightfully (rightfully! there is no irony HERE) secured the Royal throne from beyond which he can relish the treasure of remarking this demonic irony. Paul’s dreams are a much better triangulation of Lynch’s position. Indeed, the treasury of bourgeois Subjectivity is precisely the oneiric — the terminus of the Lynchian filmography, in and of Twin Peaks. Would all eyes turn to California should filmic production cease? Quite the contrary…DON’T YOU LOOK AT ME!
What does any of this have to do with Twin Peaks?
Hard to tell since it is so poorly written.
I'd give this person a C- minus if they were in one of my courses.
now that's just fricking creepy
Too fricking long, couldnt be assed to read so made ChatGPT summarize it for me:
>The text discusses the film "Dune" and its relationship with "Twin Peaks." It criticizes the film's portrayal of architecture, class relations, and character dynamics. It highlights the contrast between the film and Lynch's usual style. The surreal nature of the film is compared to a box or screen. Lynch disowning the film is seen as making the real world ironic.
and
>The text explores how film and meritocracy shape reality, using Lynch's work as an example. It connects Paul's dreams to Lynch's perspective and questions the role of California without film production.
Literal word salad. Bad writing expressing weak ideas.
I know that Language itself is not the Lynchoids' strong suit but this is pretty basic.
by all means explain what the writer is getting at if you know so much
It's meaningless word salad. Don't worry. Most leftist analysis is. You can hide your lack of insight with comical obscurantism like this.
i guessed as much, if an idea is laced with so much loaded terminology and goes out of its way to not be approachable it's most likely self serving. i wanted to see if the samegay could even explain what it was he was defending, but probably just bait
What "terminology"?
half the text
Very sad. The text is also critical of Marx, incidentally.
highlight a part then
>What was the pornographic display of the “depth” for? Or rather, where is the pornography? What “surface”? What “depth”? Even Lynch deserves better. Having swallowed the “pornography”, the final suburbia “returns” as the true depth: the film’s end can now be connected to its beginning, however, this is not the tiresome cut-seam, rather, the surface of the initial suburbia is no more. Indeed, looking awry at the bar itself, the “inter-Continental” fetish object between end and beginning, makes something very curious show through: nothing at all. That is to say, the bar is the “spatiotemporal” body of the film itself, orthogonally, one end of the bar being the end of the film and the other its beginning. It is tremendously ironic that the Continental bar was proudly stripped of all topological dignity — not unlike Dorothy — only to reveal itself as Hollywood property. Moreover, property itself is the ultimate, and ultimately pornographic, thesis of the film: the whole world wrapped in the blue robe of a “maternal” property which “precedes what it owns”, this being disclosed from a privacy the likes of which rightly makes Marx a Lynchian village idiot. Is the shot of Jeffrey and Sandy kissing in a crime scene while surrounded by police not the true depth and destination of the joy ride? Power and desire unduly touch each other just as the end and the beginning of the film do — the only contradiction worthy of being called Material and one that “paradoxically” goes nowhere. Value is not extracted and withheld from anyone (this is absurd), rather, everyone is proactively withheld AS value, indefinitely withheld as nothing but themselves. Perhaps this is why all Continentals are so hysterical about America? Even Historically speaking, nowhere else is the occult formula of LIFE = VALUE (which upends the whole Continental edifice) as pornographically disclosed.
this is incomprehensible to anyone but you, if there really is an idea worth its salt beneath all this rubbish then it can be explained in plainer terms
yeah idk why ppl put stuff out without first running it through the moron filter and then dumbing it down even further.
I don’t care, you should’ve made it less tedious to read
And? I, in turn, don't care that you don't care.
then why bother shilling it here in the first place, you know the type of response you'll get
Because...I don't care?
you think Cinemaphile will have better engagement considering your twitter is tragic https://twitter.com/AeonBaudrillard
Not particularly, I think that Cinemaphile is on par /x/ (almost non-verbal). Also, what is "tragic" about my twitter?
despite 1000 followers you get next to no engagement and its embarrassing to shill here pretending as though someone else made the thread
Theory in general has a very small audience and one does not normally "engage" with it.
1000 followers and only a couple likes on each post means not even your followers care
I can show you many other theory accounts (even meme accounts, podcastbros, etc.) that have identical numbers, even, and especially, accounts that cover far more popular theory and far more Philosophers (I only cover one, two if you also count me).
thought you said you don't care?
I don't. You brought it up as an issue (
).
if you didn't care
then why get defensive or feel the need to correct the record
Because those are the facts.
then you do care
No. The claim that theory accounts are tragic or that, indeed, theory itself is tragic are true. The claim that my account specifically, relative to other theory accounts, is tragic is not.
You are a tragedy amongst tragedies
Why?
Well you’ve already admitted the state of this entire genre of Twitter users is tragic, the best you can say for yourself is well at least we’re all the same, but the thing is, you’re all just tragic. I can do a lot of crack or write a lot of psychobabble and defend myself by saying I do as well as other crackheads and psychobabblers, but the fact you’re all just providing terrible narcissistic content and nobody wants to read it, not even your few subscribers
Yes. I myself said so. Why are you talking to me?
Are you not meant to be spoken to, either? Is that why you don’t have any comments? Because you don’t speak expecting to be responded to? You asked me a question
a lot of cope for someone who started this off saying they didn't care and started a shill thread, the fact that you don't respond to any other criticisms shows this. i don't give a shit about relative accounts, you brought that up.
Your unprompted claim that "my twitter is tragic" (
) is absurd, as demonstrated here (
). Why are you still replying?
>my argument is I’m only as bad as all my poorly performing peers
Right, you all suck and you excuse your lack of popularity or impact by saying everyone in your peer group are losers too. I wouldn’t be saying this if your writing wasnt utter crap. It is what it is
The lack of popularity is mostly due to the abysmal state of most people's faculty of Language, theory "contents" notwithstanding, as this thread clearly demonstrates. Also, again, you are simply restating what I myself have previously said. Why?
No, your article is actually bad and you’ve always had the wrong idea about how to use language or what effective smart language is. I know the meaning of all those words you wrote, they don’t fit together, you are babbling and thinking using high language makes babble an important thought. It just doesn’t work that way
Can you explain?
I’ll explain by asking you a question, do you even know what your article is actually about? Could you quickly say what you even meant? How is Dune episode 1 of Twin Peaks? Does having an imperfection or detail on your character really make anyone an ‘other’, and how is Paul somehow exempt from this when he’s an extremely peculiar guy himself? How does the inclusion of Old World architecture imply the work is Californian, when California is the furthest place from the Old World? So many things don’t add up and you say them for seemingly no reason.
None of this makes sense, and not because I don’t know what the words mean.
It's about Lynchian perversity, as the title states.
That his outlook is clarity vs perversion, you mean? Decent observation but the article is a mess
His follows are "you follow me, I follow you" type deals. Notice the almost identical follows/following count. Nobody followed him because they liked his writing. That's why he doesn't get a lot of engagement.
I'm back to reply again, "tragic" is interchangeable with sad/pathetic here which is what your twitter is. not having even 10% of your followers interacting is abject sign of failure. you can blame the plebeians for being so dumb or realise that you're not a good writer and that's why it doesn't catch on in the slightest. be humble
Demonstrably false. Also, indistinct from your previous replies on this matter. Either make another, distinct, irrelevant claim or shut up.
then demonstrate it moron, everyone one would consider that failure. you were the one who came in here shilling your shitty article and get mad when no one likes it. You can't even defend it from the other replies in here, you just tell them to read it or give a small reply. what is it you want here?
See:
Also, what makes you say that I am mad?
the fact that you or your contemporaries get no engagement doesn't prove anything other than no one cares about your shit. the fact that you started this saying you didn't care and then latched onto the twitter thing even now says your mad, someone who didn't care would let it go. Someone who didn't care wouldn't shill their "article" pretending that it was organically posted here. now why don't you answer my question, what is it you want here?
Why would not caring correlate with not replying? Also, when did I pretend that it was "organically posted"?
Replying to someone means either you want them to read your reply, or you that you felt their post needed your input.
Yes. Both are distinct from caring, however.
Maybe it’s not in intimate care but it’s want and motive which means the action and expected reply mean something to you. You care enough to act, just like someone cares enough to brush a bug off their shoulder, or perhaps cares their self image as an intellectual is at risk
I am mostly morbidly curious if the chans have collapsed into total idiocy, as post-2021 Cinemaphile suggests. It certainly looks like it. Sad.
Do you think your article is really an IQ test in itself? Doesn’t this indicate you wrote the article intentionally difficult to read, and covered it in disruptive esoteric language knowing it would be a pain in the ass to read? Usually smart people write their work to be understood, rather than writing their work specifically to prove people can’t understand.
>David Lynch is concerned with perversion vs clarity, his dirty characters and settings are antagonists to the character who is trying to see and do things clearly
I agree
>everybody is an other not because they are simply other than the main character, but because they each have a physical feature
The real detail is they’re all incomplete, limited decision makers. From the degenerate Harkonnen to even the honored Leto, they are limited in understanding and action in a way that Paul by being awakened is not.
>but he’s not saying degeneracy is normal, he’s saying it’s corruption and clarity is truly what’s normal
In Dune, perhaps, in his other works, not as much.
>It is distinctly Californian to consider the old world grotesque and needing your clear judgement
Maybe, they certainly feel elite.
>this article is well written and clear to understand for intelligent people
No. Writing is a discipline involved in much more than advanced language
The language is not advanced.
Well I don’t know do you really expect people to know Klein and the subject/object distinction without having studied it
>the chans have collapsed into total idiocy
bruh its summer. of course its not like it's going to get better once summer ends, the worsening just slows down a little bit.
considering its the most articulate you've been, ignoring other peoples criticisms in lieu of something that matters much less says as much. also titling the thread "what did he mean by this?" implies it's organic, i know it's a bit of a phrase here but that's pushing it.
Not following. What criticism did I ignore?
literally just scroll up this is your thread i'm not doing your work for you. you can't defend any idea, you can only interact with it in your own terms which is the weakest thing a self professed "philosopher" can do.
if your litmus test for idiocy is how much people agree with your writings then you are truly narcissistic.
Scroll up for what, exactly?
Also, it is totally irrelevant (for me, chiefly) if people are with me or not. I would not mind, and would in fact prefer, not to mention jovially engage with, an 100% disagreement rate so as long as the people knew basic English.
You don’t seem jovial now and we all speak English
>we all speak English
Well...I do.
Do you believe that too much length and complication in a sentence can harm its clarity
Not really, no.
Well that might be something you’re missing from the act of writing. Sure vocabulary and ideas are hugely important, but sentence structure and delivery is what writing actually is
what you're actually saying is less words means less chance of using words a reader doesn't understand. the more words the reader doesn't understand, the higher the odds they'll disengage.
Yes I’m saying you’re designing your words to be unapproachable to more people when they don’t need to be. If this is all an exercise in your own vocabulary and litmus testing of people, fine, but you can actually make a paragraph grotesque with too much detail.
using words that have meaning and expecting the reader to know what they mean isn't "being unapproachable." its simply not caring if a moron doesn't understand whats written, as it would be entirely their fault, in such a case.
ESLs really don't count as english speakers.
Hey that’s great man I just think you and your contemporaries in this theory writing group of yours, are trying to exercise difficult language more than you are trying to share intelligent ideas. You don’t need to use the most advanced word you can think of to say what your article says, it makes me think you use hard vocabulary to push people away and say you’re smarter than them for it
its funny because that is exactly some shit niles would say, and he'd be completely right.
>I would not mind, and would in fact prefer, not to mention jovially engage with, an 100% disagreement rate so as long as the people knew basic English
>knew basic English
Writing run-on sentences doesn't make you smart, nor is it a sign of knowing "basic English". If you were so good at writing, you wouldn't have to be so convoluted.
The sentences are not particularly long and not convoluted at all.
Because you wrote them and your brain already knows how they’re to be inflected, no one else is able to know ‘objectivity’ means ‘the objective’ from the text
It...does not mean that. It means Objectivity in the most basic sense.
How can one choose the ‘objectivity’ of labor, like you said Paul does? You could choose the objective of labor by setting that labor in motion towards that objective, but you can’t alter something’s objectivity, objectivity meaning ‘lack of favoritism toward one side or another’. If you do mean changing the objective, then you would just say changing the objective or object of their work.
Suffice to say that this is not what I mean.
Right, because you used the wrong words for it.
he's using objectivity in the sense of assigning an objective, objective and the suffix to make a new word, that, for some reason, doesn't exist, and he's mostly just trying to turn the phrase.
That idea IS a word that already exists, it’s called an objective. To change the objective of work, to choose an objective. Wordplay is fun but ‘I changed my objectivity’ is just nonsense in the same way Calling Myself A Capitalist For Writing Like This would be for anything but a pun
No, there isn't a word for assigning an objective to something.
You used the word ‘directed’ for assigned, objectivity even the way you say it now doesn’t include assignment, -ity doesn’t mean assignment, it means quality state or degree. ‘The quality of having an objective’ wouldn’t work here alone, you still need the word ‘directed’ which you used because you knew it was still needed
>you
and another mistake
and you're just supporting the assertion the usage is correct via the breakdown of the suffix.
I proved that adding ‘-ity’ serves no purpose but redundancy using the wrong dictionary word for no reason.
no, you expressed the same idea as
and
but added "and that's wrong."
you're fixated on this sequences of letters because you can't wrap your head around the way it was used, because you have only a literal grasp of english. which leads me to suspect it isn't your first language.
I understood the way it was used after I had to reread the sentence and make a leap of faith because the actual meaning of the real word doesn’t apply here. Objective is the correct word to use there. Does it really make sense to say ‘I have a new objectivity’ or doesn’t everyone think you’re saying you have a new ability to avoid bias when you say that?
>i did understand it but it doesn't make sense and is wrong
... lol
I understood he was fricking around making up words that already are assigned to other meanings, because the sentence doesn’t make sense according to the meaning those word are assigned
>>i did understand it but it doesn't make sense and is wrong
>... lol
... lol
Cute
you are just repeating the same idea.
think of his usage of objectivity objectively. if you were, say, grading his essay like you were an english professor (which you pretty much are) could you deduct points on the grounds you didn't understand it, if you did understand it and why he wrote it that way?
Yes I would easily circle it and write ‘objective’, and ‘for clarity’ to explain the note
>>>i did understand it but it doesn't make sense and is wrong
>>... lol
>... lol
... lol
I would also circle typos because they’re wrong too, even if I could tell what the word was. Right no need to coreesnagslxishavaizzzhsktltoxtct something you can understand by knowing it’s an error. Writing is about leaving all those in because fzzzzzzzzkzkckckckcupck it it’s just about getting the point mesothelioma isn’t it
a typo would be a mistake. in one sentence dude created a new definition for a word and explained it.
you're really just proving your grasp of english is objectively weaker than OP's.
I had to ask him what he meant because I couldn’t be sure he didn’t actually mean objectivity in the dictionary sense. I was thinking ‘maybe he means objective as in purpose’ but I had to go beyond the text and ask him personally to make sure he didn’t mean ‘change the sense of what is true’. ‘Directing objectivity’ can easily mean teaching people to be or not to be objective
and if I take "what is true" out of context of your post, it seems like you're saying something completely different.
but yea, dude just busted this whole debate up by stating what we both thought he meant isn't what he meant. go him.
It could mean either the real definition or his made up definition in the whole context of his post, I didn’t pull it out of context to say that’s not what that word means. Depending on how you interpret that word, the sentence is entirely different, and his ‘correct’ interpretation is for you to pick the definition he just made up that isn’t in the dictionary
bruh, either
is OP or doing a good enough impersonation. if he isn't using "objectivity" in the sense of teleology then I don't know what he's saying and neither do you and possibly neither does he.
It simply means "the state of being Objective".
Which is not what OP meant in his article 😛 he said ‘direct the objectivity of labor’ to mean ‘direct labor’ or ‘direct the objective of labor’. Ask him about it
He meant objectivity to mean ‘the state of having an objective’, or just ‘objective’,
‘Direct the objectivity of’ would only either mean to reduce the bias of (which certainly doesn’t happen in Dune), or to alter the objective object, which would just be changing the object, not some nonsense like ‘directing the objectivity of’
Would not be a problem if he was honest with himself and self edited.
For
No. It simply means to direct the Objectivity, as in reality itself is already already filmic just as film itself always already forces something that is not real to "become" real.
How does this apply to ‘of labor’?
Obviously, in that work is done for the sake of an identity nothing short of filmic. The alleged "biological" necessities, too, being continuous with this self-referential identity.
Oh so Lynch is both cheaply impressing a role models and image of a hero to the public by childishly making everyone but Paul visibly flawed or gross, and Lynch is also playing a reluctant tyrant similar to Paul in his megalomaniacal ability to control public context through cheap narrative.
Yes.
Nice. Good article, wouldn’t have read it deeply enough to understand it if I wasn’t motivated to spend time on it judging it for errors
>‘the state of having an objective’
that would be related to teleology, fyi. he's trying to explain what he meant but its clearly gibberish.
so just to clarify, for clarity's sake, "makes sense" and "I understand" mean the same thing.
Understanding something of poor clarity doesn’t mean it doesn’t have poor clarity.
I am not follow your exchange on this since it's so far removed from my text, but, again, in "Objectivity of labor", "Objectivity" does not refer to Teleology.
Make that "following".
well shit, then its not clear.
>objectivity does not refer to teleology
But in English it does
Also the word ‘directing’ does mean assigning an objective
>What I wrote isn't bad because I say so
Okay well forget the word tragic then, if that’s how you see it. He meant pathetic from the beginning. He never once meant to characterize you as a sadly suffering hero, he meant you were an unpopular failure
Yeah and those channels aren’t successful or popular matter how popular the ideas they’re repeating are supposed to be
ok , and?
hermeneutics, kleinian, spatiotemporal at a glance. along with gay marx terms like bourgeois and proletariat every other sentence
Most of this makes sense, and I sped read it. Idgaf what it's saying, and even without context I could follow the actual thought process.
Most of OP makes sense, but Idgaf about Lynch, Twin Peaks, Dune, or any of that other bearded homosexual that's into craft beer-npc shit.
Most people's vocabularies suck. I've had "ion know" people snap at me for saying "ostensibly," and the examples only begin there.
Read. Learn words and think and read, you dipshits.
he's saying dune is the first time lynch showed contempt for the audience via giving the audience exactly what it thinks it wants
Fun fact: language is being intentionally dumbed down with each generation so that we lack the appropriate wording to describe higher thoughts, leaving us as little more than savages. It's an idea that was proposed in Orwell's 1984, but it's becoming more and more blatant with each new wave of ebonics permeating western culture, to the point where something like this looks like "word salad" to the zoomer eye.
Well it sounds like this homosexual who wrote this, crying because it’s somehow racist for bad guys have tattoos in a movie, would be happy to go along with plan.
It’s not leftist and it’s not criticizing the movie.
It really is not criticizing Lynch at all. Idk what OP is smoking
anything that be usin them highfalutin words am leftist
I use the word highfalutin and consider it to be a highfalutin word because it’s a rare word people don’t know for fancy
It's a perfectly cromulent word
there's nothing fancy about dropping your gs
*drops a G on the table*
Howzat fer fancy
money dont fix bad taste
Then why we always eatin so good
cuz ya aint got no sense enough to know dat is
Remarkably wrong claim.
Let me guess, it's because of the israelites right?
I'm glad you pointed out that it is indeed the israelites. I didn't want to be the one to say it.
fun fact: if the israelites were purposefully dumbing down language, the type of 'writing' you do wouldn't be so prevalent among undergraduate pseuds.
also, it looks like word salad to everyone's eye because there's no point to it. you're just repackaging banalities (e.g. 'Suffice to say that “Paul is Lynch” is too primitive a claim'; says nothing else of consequence) and expecting other brainlets take the bait. they won't. they have their own unreadable blogs.
also, you're a gay.
This, you slapped that b***h. Precise and efficient writing is always superior.
He did miss the capital letters though. Gonna have to take 2 points off his ego for that.
You need but 3 words to express any thought:
Cope, seethe, dilate.
QRD?
Brevity.
ADHD.
Too talkative. You're annoying.
I can agree on general terms but what is in the OP is pseud shit.
>people are shitting on my poorly written blog so that means the israelites made you all stupid (but not me though)
KEK
E
K
he's not entirely wrong
Yes, (You) are. Go take a course on not being autistic and try again with a new blog post later.
note, I didn't say what part he was wrong about.
>Literal word salad. Bad writing expressing weak ideas.
Felt like I was reading AI. Gave up three sentences in.
What's Lynch up to next? There were rumors of more Twin Peaks but nothing for years.
Being old and grumpy mostly
If there's ever any more Twin Peaks it'll be a Carrie Page film I think. Lynch said himself the only story that calls out to him is to do with Carrie Page and honestly sounds great to me. I'd love more fricked up shit with Laura/Carrie
sounds like a lot of fart huffing
kys you fricking twitterbrain pseud
>twitterbrain
?
huh?
Dune is lynch's best/only good film and he's too dumb and circle jerkinger too realise.
it means aeonbaudrillard likes to sniff his own farts
he really comes across like a midwit here
I only like his films, his interviews are just words full of nothing and promoting his mediation bs cult.
Its more of a scam than a cult
no one cares stop shilling your dogshit writing
Vis a vis
The architect said pretty straightforward things in hindsight
He’s saying that Lynch’s Dune show an existence dirty with compromised and poorly bred people, and that his idea of clarity and the life journey is to navigate and utilize these things to create an actual gestalt, complete environment. That the world is largely out of whack and all of these people seem to think their selves or their little physical arrangements are the point of all this, when in reality all that is physical is merely a tool of the greater spiritual happenings which should be squarely focused on. That people focus on the material and the journey of a truly conscious man is to become aware that all material is the result of the immaterial, which when recognized can be great in virtue.
if you watch a david lynch movie and you absolutely positively have to structure all your thoughts and feelings about it into essays or video explanations, you are the problem. you don't deserve lynch, and you need to be set on fire
>all your thoughts
The text covers about 5% of my thoughts, if that.
apologies, friend - was not referring to you, just analysts/lynchsplainers in general
>recall that every character but Paul is explicitly Other, either by being undignified or suffering an indignity: his father loses a tooth, his mother is pregnant, his sister is preternatural, a balding man, a tattooed man, an old man
literal pseud babble
Is he talking about how Leto gets a false tooth full of toxic gad?
he's just saying paul is the only character without a flaw baked in
lynch is overrated af, trash movies
filtered
Directors who have made better Lynch films than Lynch
Cohen Bros: Barton Fink
Cronenberg: Naked Lunch
Spike Jonez: Being John Malkovich
Any others?
David Lynch should adapt a William Burroughs work. Dead Souls
Lynch is not a nihilist/atheist, his films are about Spirit (electricity), so No.
wE aRe dEscEndEd frOm pURe AiR
Why did this moron even give up the fact he’s posting his own tweets, anyways. All you have to do is not reveal that and you can get away with not looking like you’re forcing attention to your shitty article
>give up the fact he’s posting his own tweets
What does this mean?
Are you aeonboudrillard and did you post this thread of your own article
Yes.
Okay well admitting that makes you look further like a loser looking for attention he can’t get, so I was saying why admit it
>Okay well admitting that makes you look further like a loser looking for attention he can’t get,
Totally incoherent claim. Please stop talking to me.
You’re advertising yourself, have almost no comments to your entire career in this, and the people you’re advertising to say it’s garbage. It’s just bad business, bad communication really
limit your fricking scope. the link posted here is just one run-on paragraph going through fifty concepts using needlessly esoteric language.
Even if it was 100% correct it's a pain to read. Do an analysis of ONE subject in ONE movie and you might find people who are interested.
Isn’t he just saying that Lynch is about consciousness vs man’s delusions, and the character of Paul reflects that paradigm by being a spiritual leader. And that this is perhaps Californian to do, judge the world as though you see things so clearly
I go through two or three concepts, and very quickly.
No you went on way too long, you are circumlocutious
Dude, check out his thesis.
>im a philosopher
>im a philosopher
>im a philosopher
>AeonBaudrillard
this actually made me vomit a little
The overall gist of the article seems to be seethe at Lynch not explaining his works and telling you you don't get it, which seems to be the direct opposite of your word salad.
The director saying everything he wants in his work by showing it vs the writer hiding his limitations behind convoluted sentences
>seethe at Lynch not explaining his works
Not at all, I explicitly say that this is a red herring.
How are perverse characters a red herring when you say Lynch’s outlook core to the movie is his battles against perversion
What does this mean?
How is it a red herring that all the characters but Paul are dysgenic others, when you immediately say the whole point is Paul is an exception opposed to the dysgenic. That wouldn’t be a red herring, the existence of dysgenic characters actually leads directly to the idea that Paul is opposed to them
what's the point of writing if it's a slog to read through? jeez.
https://medium.com/tag/schizoposting
I didn't watch Dune, so I don't know.
Please post cool David Lynch photos
I know the feeling, seriously, as an avid action figure collector and miniaturist
I don’t care who cares or is mad, the article just sucks and the response and view count reflect that
>Apropos
I bet he just wanted to start a sentence with that word.
Nonsense. Lynch productions even upon one single viewing, make vastly more sense than this paragraph of bullshit. Pardon my French.
> whoever has directed the Objectivity of labor has simultaneously directed the “labor of the Objective”, has relegated labor to, and as, the vacuous and cretinous form of the Object, and has rightfully (rightfully! there is no irony HERE) secured the Royal throne from beyond which he can relish the treasure of remarking this demonic irony.
Could you clarify what is meant here? You’re saying that those in control choose the purpose of labor and therefore they are tyrants in judging others for the meaning of the labor you assign to them?
Something like this, yes.
Isn’t ‘objective’ the proper form in this phrase ‘objectivity of labor’, not ‘objectivity’? Since ‘objectivity’ only means the quality of being objective, not the quality of having an objective
he's using the word in the literal sense of the suffix rather than the fixed definition of the sequence of letters.
Could affect clarity, especially when objective as a noun means objective as a noun, while objectivity is a noun form of the adjective. I mean really, why ‘objectivity of labor’ for ‘the objective of labor’, you would never say ‘okay what’s the objectivity here’ when asking what the objective was. Playing with word forms is fun, but OP’s changed the word form twice just to get back to the original part of speech
givin man jerb make man bad and giver bad
Hold up sweaty, did you just claim that a Beautiful Pregnant Womyn is a slight, is an indignity?? Go frick yourself fascist scum, whoever wrote this is going to get punched in the face.
OP aren’t you displaying massive contempt for the world in the exact same way Lynch does, by litmus testing the public for intelligence you think belongs to you? Is this article a sublimation of your own belief the public are undignified fools in the face of your enlightenment, and how would that reflect on your distaste for Lynch in this article for doing the same thing
There is, indeed, always a danger of being grafted onto what one condemns. Alternatively, the condemnation is the only means by which one can cut oneself from what one condemns.
>the public are undignified fools
yes
>in the face of your enlightenment
this is projection.
#
You’re saying they’re stupid and dirty and you know more than they do, that they know less than they should and are in dark, and you know more than them, are less in the dark, and therefore are more enlightened. The light dark metaphor stands for awareness vs lack of knowledge
#
Only when I call you out on it and you stop immediately forever. But I think you firmly believe it and will sooner ally with Lynch over this than forgive people for saying you write like a mess
>ally
Strangely enough, yes.
Exactly. So you really completely support Lynch elitism when the cards are down, you do actually believe you and Lynch and Paul have a rightful disgust for the stupid masses
There can be more than two ends, or at very least one can hold Lynchoids in contempt while holding Lynch in greater contempt.
>Writes every post with an extra space between the post number and the text
why
So are you like the Uber Paul above Lynch, are we on a Lynch hierarchy where you are above Lynch and disdain rolls down
I consider myself a castrating, so to speak, intervention between them.
Like Paul, who intervenes and destroys the false dynamics between the undignified galactic forces
Not quite. Recall that Paul becomes "the phallus" (if you prefer Continental terms).
But you do believe it’s the intellectual elite’s duty or at least right to alter public dynamics at will
your mistake is thinking one needs to consider himself better than others to state the facts of everyone's existence.
You meant this for
, my corrected post
no, I really didn't. your meaning and mistake were clear from
Your essentially saying nothing but "No, you!" in desperate attempt to refute something completely factual.
I’m not saying you’re a bad person, you’re the only one who’s blamed Lynch for having the very common idea of intellectual authority. It wasn’t a ‘no you’, it was a ‘how can you be so hard on Lynch when you basically express the same ideas as he does’. There’s not really a stretch at all to say you wish you could decrease the stupidity of the world in the same way Paul does. If you are smarter than the layman, then you are either satisfied with that (due to either power over them or forgiveness for their flaws) or dissatisfied with it (meaning you see this as an error in the public that in a just world would be corrected). It sounded like you were pretty disappointed people were as stupid as you thought, so I assume you relate to Lynch and Paul’s understanding more than you initially let on
Just conversing with you about your interesting article, you having said you’d be happy to.
Do you consider yourself amongst the dirty laymen or do you differentiate yourself by knowing these things? Even if you don’t differentiate yourself consciously, you do mean there’s a difference between you and the public, so what is it? Your difference from them is merely a fact? And if you say so, that’s you differentiating yourself, no? Either way if you have disdain over this, it’s disdain for the public for knowing less than you do
you have to be aware of a problem before it can be fixed. one pig saying to the next "we're covered in shit" isn't refuted by the other saying "you are too!"
Well what’s the fix and who’s doing it? It would be nice to say we all educate ourselves better at once, but this requires direction no? Perhaps infrastructure?
I’ll spill the beans now and say clearly, I’m talking about the utility of elite leadership in elevating a people
>you can't point out a problem unless you have a solution ready to go
where does this type of thought come from?
>Apropos of impossible foreboding
stopped reading
pseudo intellectual bullshit
Speaking of Twin Peaks, get ready for some pure kino
Unnecessary to read. Lynch, while reserved in “explaining” his work, is nothing but honest. He’s stated Dune was a mistake, had too much studio control, and was generally unhappy with the finished product and refuses to watch it to this day. He doesn’t agree with or enjoy the finished product, even if it has his pathos written all over it connecting it emotionally to his other works.
"Twin Peaks: A Hyperreal Odyssey Through the Veil of Simulacra"
In Twin Peaks, David Lynch masterfully deconstructs the conventional boundaries of reality, immersing viewers in a treacherous labyrinth of hyperreality. The show's portrayal of the titular small town serves not as a mere representation of Americana but as a simulacrum.
The eponymous town becomes a microcosm of the hyperreal, a spectral dreamscape where the veneer of normalcy conceals an intricate web of secrets, deceptions, and doppelgängers. With a sardonic nod to Baudrillard's concept of the hyperreal, the show's creators unveil a world where the copy precedes the original, where the map supplants the territory itself.
Lynch's deft manipulation of symbols and signs beckons viewers to peel back layers of illusion, transcending the realm of mere entertainment into an abstract metaphysical inquiry. The owls, the Red Room, and the hauntingly cryptic visions amalgamate into a visual rhetoric that transcends reality's limitations, prompting introspection into the very nature of existence.
In Twin Peaks, the murder of Laura Palmer becomes a metaphor for the murder of reality itself, symbolizing a society devoured by its own insatiable appetite for the simulated. As Baudrillard surmised, the murder no longer signifies a one-time occurrence but simulates a thousand murders, proliferating in the collective imagination as a simulacrum of the original event.
Ultimately, Twin Peaks invites us to question the validity of our own perceptions, to dance upon the precipice of the hyperreal, and to navigate a world where the simulacra reign supreme. Lynch's masterpiece transcends the confines of television, enveloping its audience in a kaleidoscopic tapestry of signs and simulations, alluding to a world where reality itself is but a fading echo in the corridors of hyperreality.
So if I call people who refurbish bars republicans, it’d be the readers fault if they were confused because I didn’t put quotes around the words ‘re’ and ‘pub’?
only if you, somehow, only used the word republican once in that specific context with no other cues to its usage.
How would they know even in an article about Bar Rescue I wasn’t just talking about the hosts political leanings? The only reason I knew to re-evaluate your word is because it didn’t make sense in the sentence, it just makes your sentence not make sense on first read
I don't know man, but calling bar renovators republicans is pretty clever and you should be proud of that.
How is this thread still going?
I have a lot of time to waste.
I have a degree in Classics and read most of the Ancient Greek and Roman authors in their original language. I have endured years and years of reading preposterous prose in research papers. Please take my word for it that this is indeed 'word salad'.
>I have endured years and years of reading preposterous prose in research papers.
It would have been a lot less painful if you knew English.
That’s all correct, if a little purple
you're unbelievable.
>NOOOOOOO YOU DISLIKE POSTMODERNIST WORD-DIARRHOEA, YOU MUST BE AN ESL!!!
Understanding does not equal approval you pompous pseud.
I know.
i just spent two hours defending a word salad phrase in what is objectively word salad.
lol.
No I understand it completely now, it’s really smart, if overblown and long winded. Movie heroes are conscious and subliminal role models to people due to the sheer narrative and presentation of film, and David Lynch directs the audience’s morals to both love Paul and have disdain for all other characters in a way that mirrors Paul’s own ascension to narrative builder and director of the setting’s peoples’ life stories.
>tfw it took hours to get one sentence and understand the most common meaning of one word
the phrase OP was trying to turn obfuscated the intended meaning of said phrase.
I received conflicting information when asking the author which definition he meant by this, including that he specifically didn't mean teleology. It's also not natural to me to refer to the masses simply as labor. I assumed he meant either the workers behind the film, or just Paul's manipulations of an army in the movie.
>Movie heroes are conscious and subliminal role models to people due to the sheer narrative and presentation of film
this concept has been around for as long as oral history. the characters of every story influence the listener. the characteristics of the heroes become what people subconsciously require for themselves (or others) to have agency.
of course OP isn't decrying this or even really addressing it, its just a window hanging in his pretentious dribble.
an interesting tidbit is about the time of the mcveigh trial, suddenly superhero movies are coming out every year. movies specifically built around the idea you need superpowers to accomplish anything.
Of course, I would say that it mainly happens formally. For example, the sitcom introduces (totally unseen, naturally) a world of perfect unison where, disturbingly, Evil people and acts are reduced to jokes referring to off-screen things. Does sitcom form leak into "reality" or is "reality" always already sitcom-like, its Historical obscenity being its off-screen space, etc.?
neither. sitcoms tap into a desire for banality and reinforce said desire. they influence only how someone who desires banality interprets their reality.
look at superstore, for example. on every level this show is depicting pure and unending hell for all characters. but since the characters aren't screaming and satan is always off screen, they normalize and minimize elements that should send people running and screaming were they ever to encounter them in reality.
journalists are a disease
that's not a journalist that's a blogger.
I realize there isn't much difference now, but there used to be.
he meant if you can't make it good, make it weird