Contexts of coalition ‘real politik’
Professor Theodosius Farrago
If one examines coalitionism, one is faced with a choice: either reject dialectic theory or conclude that the collective is part of the absurdity of sexuality. The subject is interpolated into an objectivism that includes consciousness as a whole. However, in ‘Modern Real Politik under the Conservative-Liberal-democrat Axis’, Professor RD Charon analyses dialectic theory; in The Post-Ironic Crash, however, he denies coalitionism and develops his theory of ‘crass amateurism’ exemplified by career politicians, with little experience of the reality of the world, let alone, the dynamics of economics, taking over a country, “advertising same on Facebook and then trashing the place”. (A borrowing from a rather amusing article Charon saw in the Indie the other day) .
Hegal uses the term ‘dialectic theory’ to denote the role of the artist as observer. Thus, a number of constructions concerning precultural desublimation may be discovered when one looks at the attritional dialectic being pursued by the present coalition government in their pursuit of deficit reduction.
La Fournier states that we have to choose between objectivism and Cameronardist hyperreality. Therefore, the main theme of the works of Professor R.D. Charon is a mythopoetical totality. The failure of objectivism prevalent in Charon’s ‘Modern Real Politik under the Conservative-Liberal-democrat Axis’ is also evident in The Post-Ironic Crash, although in a more capitalist sense. In a sense, the characteristic theme of Hanfkopf’s analysis of precultural desublimation is the absurdity, and hence the failure, of cultural coalitionism.
The primary theme of the works of Professor R.D. Charon is a self-referential paradox. Many narratives concerning the difference between society and sexual identity exist. It could be said that objectivism implies that narrativity is capable of truth….
All of the above is, of course, complete and utter bollocks. I got it off a random essay generator (and modified it) which someone on twitter tweeted about earlier today.
The trouble is…I have spent much of my life reading law articles which read like the above - particularly in the field of Jurisprudence or ‘legal philosophy’. Some of the stuff is spectacularly opaque. It reminds me of the story of a student coming out of a lecture given by a ‘great law professor’ and saying “He was brilliant… I couldn’t understand a single word he said.”
As the link to the ‘Generator’ reveals… there is a wonderful story about a Professor of Physics who wrote a lot of fantastic bollocks and got it published ! I quote from the Generator article I found….. ” If you enjoy this, you might also enjoy reading about the Social Text Affair, where NYU Physics Professor Alan Sokal’s brilliant(ly meaningless) hoax article was accepted by a cultural criticism publication”
I do like a bit of hubris in the morning…and schadenfreude with my glass of wine later in the day!