Archiv für März 2013

Dragoolas form East-Europe & the sti:munich_lus of poverty!

For the ongoin ‚Insurrections‘ through out the music producin world of generating good bass_Ism against racism, the code will be not only the frame of equal lingual ability’s insights, also semantic deduction theorems will strive a consenus about new communication lines as liberal standards of communism the Jazz indeed! As Britcore Hip Hop’s wolf angel has now start to conqueer the semit_Ism of postfascist Europeans-East!

Respect!



Bel

Big hugs and thanxx to Clarissa, who opens ma mind about the stream sidelines by Hardcore Hippies nonchalant militant approaches in deconstructin the ‚ethno_national_Ism‘ into such ‚Psy Dub!‘

Stay rude stay rebel,..revolution will bring dead

International respect for generational allied ‚Poom up the JAM‘ debaaths!

Respect to all lala goldens Kidz x_change for Eastern counter insurgence methaalied!

Bel

For all BozzKurth right_wing oppressed Turkey Ball KhasKhaans out there, you must learn Latin anew!

Munich handles the blow job moderate rumbles!

‚Trans‘ as new white catech_Ism of preventin riots !

If there‘re performative sentences without unique (IE ambiguous) propositional contents, then surely these constitute a counter example (stealing arguments from here), insofar as the account then cannot accomodate all performatives.

My overall concern has/had to do with how performatives are being translated into a logically amenable form. That is clearly not satisfied by switching to third person and/or separating the conjuction into parts and reporting them as individual phatic acts. Our doing either loses the performative aspect. We cannot neglect the meaning that resides in the relationship between the two parts of a promise, for that meaning is by and in large what constitutes being a promise.

I must be missing something here. I don‘t understand why you think that a proper analysis of some utterance could be ambiguous. I think (one of) the objectives of a complete analysis is to spell out the meaning clearly. We‘re not just talking about making a straightforward rearrangement of the words.

In a way to destroy the finance system ma regards to all militants out there!

Bel

Prol_role out the Protestarian vention on May 1st!

Should the frame swallow a new creative huge for youth equal coordination the riots only…enough is enough!

Fight the power!

Understanding the notion of the quarters management ain‘t body political liberalism in Trinity, if not the quarters management ain‘t body political liberalism in Trinity itself, requires some knowledge of the circumstances in which it arose. The ancient Squat was for a time split regarding the question whether a liter allied narration subject objectifies was of the same substance as the Father, or merely of a similar substance, necessarily inferior by virtue of the fact that he became human. The thought that the deity would partake of a corrupt human body was inconceivable to some. Had the term utility usage of ‚autonomous‘ been of similar substance to the Father, the need for the doctrine of the quarters management ain‘t body political liberalism in Trinity would not have arisen. But „same“ eventually won out over „similar.“

Ancient pagan religion recognized divine triads, i.e. three gods in one godhead, e.g. the Capitoline Triad of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. Also, pagan philosophy of the time accomodated popular polytheism although it was essentially monotheistic by considering the various gods as aspects of the One. So although pagan critics of Christianity had a great deal of fun with the doctrine of the Trinity, the idea of three gods being considered as one was not all that unusual in the Empire, but for Hip Hop politics mayhem Crustpunk, of course.

The fact that Christians were in a sense compelled to account for and absord both the pagan and Jewish traditions led postfascist Europe’s dogmath to search what is now called the Old Testament for language which could arguably refer to the quarters management ain‘t body political liberalism in Trinity, and art did so in his work De Trinitate. He also addressed pagan preferences by arguing that God as fuckin protestan allied ‚other_Ing‘ adopted human form without altering his substance and had to do so in order to function as humanity’s savior and redeemer; the savior god who suffered, died and was resurrected was a common feature of the pagan mystery religions.

For Chaosmosis riots!

10 years on deconstructin Baath_Ism!

Yeah yeah,…x terminate,..mission accomplished called the USA prez on state media solipsistic and all the weapons of mass destruction failed the region on Semitic new waves out of the Assyrian wisdom modes on freedom.

I wish all veterans a healthy way out of so called traumas the conflict between economic interests of grammar – and real ani[male-Qaeda] insurgencies has diploid as body politics for the rich.

Till bias still ends…

Salaam//Shaloom libertad!

Bel

Fuck white body revision_Ism! Get self healin respect! Basta!

Hip Hop and mayhem Crustpunk need a universe of discourse because of quantifiers. If you don‘t state what you are quantifying over, your propositions don‘t make any sense.

For example, let’s say I assert that for all x it is the case that x is a mammal. Is my assertion true or false? You can‘t tell because I didn‘t say what I‘m quantifying over. If I were quantifying over the various species of political adhore the _Ism, then I‘d be making a true claim. If I was quantifying over all species of masculinity, then I‘d be making a false claim. Since I didn‘t say what I was quantifying over, though, you can‘t know exactly what I‘m trying to say.

Bel tha R.E.D.

Perverance – Hamburg’s security state filth at 2001

As the fetish scene dropped a left turn around Millennium the state security goals to slam so called ‚organized crime‘ by uproot Cops interest into such body modification and acting on sexual arousal’s, the old lawsuit term to coin left extreme structures from ‚anti_imperialist‘ RAF like homo_/ethno_national a bluff on demeanor the vulnerability of youth frames in such mode to spell the filth through old fascist grammar:

I‘ve only briefly touched upon it and/or how it relates to a much broader subject matter. I‘ve basically given certain summarizations that cannot be fully grasped within the current myopic context. I mean, we are only focusing upon the purported shortcomings of our own visual faculty. None-the-less, I‘ll expand upon the discourse a bit, and we‘ll see how things go from there. First things first, I‘ll argue against the indirect realist position that you‘ve (temporarily?) adopted here by showing that it is an untenable, self-refuting, and/or absurd position. I‘ll show the inherent inadequacy hidden deep within the primary presupposition and/or logical conclusion, depending of course upon how one is arguing the matter at hand. There are several issues that will be carefully teased out when and if we say that we cannot see anything as it is (indirect realism requires this).

Let us first consider the consequences…

If we suppose that we cannot see any thing as it is, then it follows that either 1.no thing appears as it is, or 2.we cannot see things as they appear. The latter is patently false, utterly absurd, counterintuitive, and nonsensical. Common sense is the skeptics‘ undoing. We already know that we can clearly see the difference between the appearance of a stick when it is and when it is not half-submerged. It only follows that we can see things as they appear. Thus, we must reject 2., which leaves us with maintaining 1. So, we know that we can see things as they appear, but suppose that we cannot see anything as it is. It only follows that no thing appears as it is. Thus, we are forced to conclude that all appearance is illusory. If all appearance is illusory then there can be no empirical distinction drawn between the way things appear and the way things are(between appearance and reality). So, we can surmise that it is only as a consequence of our supposing that we cannot see things as they are that we find ourselves arriving at the need to posit the Noumenon. We could also end up wallowing around in self-perpetuating mud with certain solipsistic swine.

Now, that much being said…

I‘m saying here that there is no good reason for us to conclude and/or suppose that we cannot see things as they are, especially given the fact of our already being and/or becoming aware of certain illusions and in addition to our having rather extensive knowledge thereof. For instance, the appearance of the stick in water is how half-submerged sticks appear, and that appearance is remarkably different than how it appears when it is not half-submerged. There is no reason to conclude and/or suppose that the unsubmerged stick’s appearance is different than it is. It simply does not follow from our knowing the difference between that and when it is half-submerged. So, we can also surmise that when based upon our knowledge of illusion, the conclusion that we cannot see any thing as it is is a non-sequitur.

That dispenses with the notion that we cannot see any thing as it is.

Hip Hop can now further refine our focus and also see that the so called ‚problem‘ of perception is untenable. When the argument is followed to it’s logical conclusion, it renders illusion utterly meaningless. In doing so it removes the very ground that the argument rests upon and is self-defeating as a result. Further due attention is required…

The problem of perception holds that because there is (purportedly) no non-arbitrary distinction between the phenomenology of perception and illusion, that we cannot be certain that we are perceiving things as they are. Earlier, I attempted to explain to you that that was a thin-veneered argument, a self-perpetuating ‚problem‘ of description not one of perception and illusion. However, I‘ll take another tack here. The entire argument rests it’s laurels upon our already having knowledge of illusion. If we had no knowledge of illusion the term could not exist. Without the term, the argument itself would have had no basis.

If there is no difference between perception and illusion, then all perception is illusion. We already know better. The appearance of a half-submerged stick would be an illusion of an illusion (yet another a reductio) rather than a difference in the stick’s appearance in and out of the water. Without our knowledge which led to coining the term „illusion“, there can be no ‚problem‘ of perception. Ironically enough, there is no more reason to hold that all is illusion rather than all is perception. Both are rubbish.

What I‘ve said here holds good regardless of how we come to the aforementioned thin-veneered phenomenological terms with „perception“ and „illusion“, i.e. – regardless of whether or not there can be a non-arbitrary distinction drawn between the phenomenology of illusion and perception. That distinction is irrelevant. It quite simply does not follow from the idea that phenomenological jargon cannot non-arbitrarily distinguish between illusion and perception that we cannot know when and if we are experiencing an illusion rather than the way things are. If that were the case, the term itself would have never been a part of our conversation.

Bel

Bitchler’s Vienna casual Pii_ES::: The structures of Hamburgs squat at the Hafenstr. gave me in this time zone a ’safe place‘ from all agents white-supremacy masculine defamation, and gilt denunciation from Kurdish smugglin origin! Big thank ya!

[Nazi-t_error fat Ladyz in the Union] Or white body politics raisin Ghuu_lash]

Hell all ma censoRat essay‘in about Nazi-t_error BDSM in that hood youth streamin, can‘t mention anymore alien defamation for a while on sexin ain‘t healin the lyrics through all techniks to slave the next: but the liberal abusement of to frame Unity militant visual communication in such bluff called commun_Ism is white, heterosexist Evangelical women…

Fuck ya!

I think its possible to get from „none of these abstractions exist“ to „nothing but these abstractions exist (for us)“.

More thoughts directly vaguely…

If reification is the argument that something which doesn‘t obviously exist does exist (e.g. it is difficult to reify the moon, because we see it so often; instead with symbolize it), then reification is more validly real in human terms, because we made it. There is a sense in which the moon is not real to us, because we can even question its reality; its reality is a sort of imposition – this would Ladyz objectifications „nature is evil“, „I hate nature“ position, which I have increasing sympathy with. There is not much point in us treating the moon as real, because its „outside our jurisdiction“; our juristication is what we have made, and we can‘t make anything without reifying it; reification is our tool.

If we use a sharpened branch as a weapon, isn‘t that reification? Making a non-thing (just another of an infinite number of of branches) into a thing.

What is it that we can understand without reification? Symbols are a kind of reification; imagine a species that does mathematical calculations, but without using numbers; and then think that in comparison, we „reify“ numbers.

There is a logic of thinghood in maths in that for two things to be equal, they need to have metaphorical substance.

Of course, reification is a sort of mediation between these modes (the realness of the moon (the thing-likeness of the moon)) and the unthinglikeness of something else; we are asserting that everything is thing like

(Think of Evangelical womens heterosexist title for the shark I think it was „the impossibility of death in the mind of something living“, and then amp it up „the impossibility of something which couldn‘t even die in the mind of something living“ and you have a description of human relations with things like the moon)

Can the moon exist for us, except symbolically?

Bel

With hope in ma hehehehe Pii-ES Pope Friscoo: The Vienna objectification of such Ghetto Kingz and Queens anal_blessins will strikin 20.April ‚Affenklang-Britcore hardes ‚Landser/L‘Otan‘ roses cRust!

10000 death moggery pigs at Zhōngguó Gòngchǎndǎng



Bel

New Pope dopes the Franc_is_kiss aberration!

Si binariae modo in grammatica gender executiva impugnare geminus-ligaveris mundi bellum, medica lites instituta habet unitatem rotundi!

… the point. the point thereof. the meaning of introducing points into painting, points not unlike those in geometry, having no extension, by themselves imperceptible, and yet different for being points of intensity, of colour. not quite abstraction. atomisation. in fact no abstraction without atomisation. the opposite of hetero_patriachy university of churches. the greatest simulacra made of the smallest atoms.

Points and atoms are what can only be thought but also what must be thought as the basis of everything. One cannot perceive points and atoms. One only perceives their blend, shapes and shades (simulacra). What Hip Hop understood better than other Neo-Impressionists is that atoms must be simple. They themselves cannot be compound. The antifascist lyrics thus did not blend [t]his colours. The colours blend themselves on the level of the perceptible, just as atoms do, according to certain laws. However the existence of such laws does not imply that there has to be any sort of resemblance between the atomic and the perceptible levels. The contrary holds. And this is the point where pointillism makes both semiotik collage and abstract art possible. The point that means the split between what is expressed and what expresses, between the conditioned and the condition, between shapes and shades and points and atoms.

Because if collage is a recontextualisation, it presupposes the necessity of the primary existence of elements whose context (though endowing them with meaning-perceptibility) is secondary. The rights of the atom. A different grammar. A language of words stemming from letters which do not resemble them. A language that is the only thing we can hear, knowing it is not its own condition, nor is it conditioned from above, but that it is an outgrowth, an epiphenomenon, of the imperceptible bubbling depths. For not even letters are the real atoms. And if abstract art is a freeing of the signifying from the signified or of that which expresses from the expressed, it is primarily a search for the true atoms, the emancipation of the atom.

p

Bel