Feminist Word Mangler: recipes for tender dead babies, and cheaper shoes..

Posted: August 26, 2011 in Uncategorized
Sigmund Freud, founder of psychoanalysis, smok...

Sigmund F.asks the question: "where DID I put my mind and all of it's blurry, overlapping inter-sectional, digressions???" <------------------------------------------ Julia Kristeva replies.

The word-mangler machine below is currently proudly owned and operated by feminist theorists and rhetoricians, although it was once the property of other cannon fodder suppliers, enablers, and other Global oppression producers.

If you would like to use the word mangler, insert your word below :

INPUT:                   [—-individuality-—]
“the source of the concept of intertextuality, while at the same time underscoring the difference between this concept and that, for example, of dialogism. I see the following differences. In the first place, there is the recognition that a textual segment, sentence, utterance, or paragraph is not simply the intersection of two voices in direct or indirect discourse; rather, the segment is the result of the intersection of a number of voices, of a number of textual interventions, which are combined in, the semantic field. but also in the syntactic and phonic fields of the explicit utterance. So there is the idea of this plurality of phonic, syntactic, and semantic participation. I think that what is new with regard to Bakhtin is seeing this intervention of external plurality at different levels—not oniv at the level of meaning but at the level of syntax and phonics, too. What interested me even more—and this seems to me unique—was the notion that the participation of different texts at different levels reveals a particular mental activity. And analysis should not limit itself simply to identifying, texts that participate in the final texts, or to identifying their sources. but should understand that what is being dealt with is a specific dynamics of the subject of the utterance, who consequently, precisely because of this intertextuality, is not an individual in the etymological sense of the term, not an identity. In other words, the discovery of intertextuality at a formal level leads us to an intrapsychic or psychoanalytic finding, if you will, concerning the status of the “creator,” the one who produces a text by placing himself or herself at the intersection of this plurality of texts on their very different levels—I repeat, semantic, syntactic, or phonic. This leads me to understand creative subjectivity as a kaleidoscope, a “polyphony” as Bakhtin calls it. I myself speak of a “subject in process,” which makes possible my attempt to articulate as precise a logic as possible between identity or unity, the challenge to this identity and even its reduction to zero, the moment of crisis, of emptiness, and then the reconstitution of a new, plural identity. This new identity may be the plurality capable of manifesting itself as the plurality of characters the author uses; but in more recent writing, in the twentierh-century novel, it may appear as fragments of character, or fragments of ideology, or fragments of representation. Moreover, such an understanding of intertextuality—one that points to a dynamics involving a destruction of the creative identity and reconstitution of a new plurality—assumes at the same time that the one who reads, the reader, participates in the same dynamics. If we are readers of intertextuality, we must be capable of the same putting-into-process of our identities, capable of identifying with the different types of texts, voices, and semantic. syntactic. and phonic systems at play in a given text. We also must be able to be reduced to zero, to the state of crisis that is perhaps the necessary precondition of aesthetic pleasure, to the point of speechlessness as Freud says, of the loss of meaning, before we can enter into a process of free association, reconstitution of diverse meanings, or kinds of connotations that are almost undefinable—a process that is a re-creation of the poetic war. I think. then, that this kind of writing, whose formal aspects I try to stress along with its intrapsychic aspect—and I think we must never discuss the one without the other—can be accounted for only by a reader who enjoys the complexity of the text and who places himself or herself on both levels at once. This logic and dynamics, which may also be applied to classical texts seem to me to be absolutely necessary for modern texts. This is true for poetic texts, which are characterized by great condensation and great polysemia: as examples I can cite the writings of Nerval or Mallarme in particular. It is also true for the modern novel. The texts of Joyce are a very special example of this type. It is impossible to read Finnegan’s Wake without entering into the intrapsychic logic and dynamics of intertrextuality.”


     OUTPUT : [—-national security threat—-]

Note: If anyone can turn the word mangler into an “active” working computer software program, I would appreciate the help.

  1. […] to track down everything that feminists claim as truth, and I have learned the hard way that truth to them is not factual, or even ascertainable by standard methodology. Truth is monolithic, not individual, and collective, not personal, so collective lies become […]

  2. […] coming from someone who claims they are a humanist.  Ah–but therein lies the rub–she was a feminist first!  Which explains why she makes her money through aggressively pursuing other women, and policing […]

  3. […] once they get you trained to see it and say it their way–  onward to imperialist wars for capital!–but there is no reason involved in emotional responses to words, only control impulses and […]

  4. […] the old fashioned way: by acknowledging that we are all different, and individual, despite what the feminist word mangler would have us […]

  5. […] thought invades the body at the site of moral crusades to regulate thought, and co-opt meaning by false narratives of power, and hysteria around racial, gender, or other class […]

What do You think about that?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s