Because we need more meme linkshttps://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/847206586539950084 …
-
-
Replying to @_awbery_
WAY more meme links from that dude: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/this-month-in-metamoderni_b_7472722.html … http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/the-month-in-metamodernis_b_7561592.html … http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/the-month-in-metamodernis_2_b_7837796.html …
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
my most preferred cultural critique: THIS! And… Did you see…? ALSO and icymi:
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_awbery_
Yeah, that’s exactly what was out of bounds in pomo—except with respect to pomo itself.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @_awbery_
I.e. actually liking anything was Not OK.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
Yes - bc hard boundary needed to maintain deconstructive purity. Transitory liking/laughter breaks the defence.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_awbery_
and also an evil-be-thou-my-good rejection of positivity on the basis that it can only come from eternalism
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
I thought this article addressed the general pomo polarization mistake quite well with the oscillation and pendulum metaphors.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_awbery_
yeah, although later metamodern theory rejects “oscillation” in favor of “both/and” or synthesis/inseparability
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yep, he got to that. Can’t help making a Tantra -> Dzogchen connection (increasing flickering/flipping into inseparability).
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.