GO INSANE Survivor Rounds 4-7

[ontheEdgeof17]

Originally Posted by David

"Play in the Rain," after all, is the only link this album has with the work of Varèse & Salzedo. If we get rid of it, there goes the only connection in all of Lindsey Buckingham's music to the pioneers of the "Liberation of Sound" movement & their break from European influences & their paralysis of the tempered system.

So?

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by David

ROFL!!! That's one of your favorite songs on that album, isn't it? I forgot!

I suppose I could sum up my views thus, Chili: The track has orchestral strengths, undoubtedly. It's just that the textuality presupposes a certain static yet pre-lingual obsession with naive sexual guilt & hegemonic discrimination. It turns in on itself in an endless dismantling of its craving for origins: truth & presence. But outside this metaphysics of presence, the song seems too encased in its receding aporia, & I can't help thinking that Lindsey is fixated on the epoch of the full speech, suspended from the metal strings of his Turner Model 1 between a free reflection on the origin of writing-qua-writing & the subsuming of that fixated transcendence.

So, as you can see, I really had to vote it out.

Your assessement is certainly eloquently phrased, yet I think there is a elemental flaw in it. What you regard as the song's textual presupposition is a problematic supposition in itself. The psychological implications you derive from the text are hardly clear-cut - this song appears far from naive to me. Yes, sexual guilt is apparent, but it is that of the world-weary cynic who's been around the block enough times to identify his destructive behavior even if he seems unable or unwilling to put an end to it (at least at that point). I think your metaphysical leanings have made you create your own metatext that is not necessarily true to authorial intent. If your poor opinion is the result of an arguable misreading of Lindsey's psyche, that would be a pity - but certainly, such a judgment is your right.

[David]

Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17

So?

Excellent point, Curtis. And while I fully agree, allow me to posit these additional views:

Based on your response, I would expect your expounded view to have two aspects: 1) the diagnosis of logocentrism, & its nature & its characteristic error, & 2) the exposition of a viewpoint that transcends the limitations of logocentrism. Implicit in your view is that a proper grasp of speech situations would also not allow that error to occur. As I implied in an earlier post (above), the very problem of a relationship between thoughts & words implies an illusion that universal substances exist -- an illusion which, by the way, you yourself have verbalized within your very eloquent critique of transcendence, Curtis.

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

Your assessement is certainly eloquently phrased, yet I think there is a elemental flaw in it. What you regard as the song's textual presupposition is a problematic supposition in itself. The psychological implications you derive from the text are hardly clear-cut - this song appears far from naive to me. Yes, sexual guilt is apparent, but it is that of the world-weary cynic who's been around the block enough times to identify his destructive behavior even if he seems unable or unwilling to put an end to it (at least at that point). I think your metaphysical leanings have made you create your own metatext that is not necessarily true to authorial intent. If your poor opinion is the result of an arguable misreading of Lindsey's psyche, that would be a pity - but certainly, such a judgment is your right.

Actually, I think David just has a problem with Turner Model 1's.

[ontheEdgeof17]

Originally Posted by David

Excellent point, Curtis. And while I fully agree, allow me to posit these additional views:

Based on your response, I would expect your expounded view to have two aspects: 1) the diagnosis of logocentrism, & its nature & its characteristic error, & 2) the exposition of a viewpoint that transcends the limitations of logocentrism. Implicit in your view is that a proper grasp of speech situations would also not allow that error to occur. As I implied in an earlier post (above), the very problem of a relationship between thoughts & words implies an illusion that universal substances exist -- an illusion which, by the way, you yourself have verbalized within your very eloquent critique of transcendence, Curtis.

Wake me when the lecture is over.

[David]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

Your assessement is certainly eloquently phrased, yet I think there is a elemental flaw in it. What you regard as the song's textual presupposition is a problematic supposition in itself. The psychological implications you derive from the text are hardly clear-cut - this song appears far from naive to me. Yes, sexual guilt is apparent, but it is that of the world-weary cynic who's been around the block enough times to identify his destructive behavior even if he seems unable or unwilling to put an end to it (at least at that point). I think your metaphysical leanings have made you create your own metatext that is not necessarily true to authorial intent. If your poor opinion is the result of an arguable misreading of Lindsey's psyche, that would be a pity - but certainly, such a judgment is your right.

Nancy, I think you are absolutely correct, & you have very astutely ascertained the logocentric error in my position. I must confess, I have no adequate resolution to suggest, other than to offer the possibility that my error also may lie in my naive implication of a transcendental signified within the self-referential aporia I attempt to expose in "Loving Cup." My failure is nothing more than an attempt to undo the comfort of mastery & consensus that underlie the illusion that objectivity is situated somewhere outside the self.

[golden braid]

message left blank

[shackin'up]

Originally Posted by David

Nancy, I think you are absolutely correct, & you have very astutely ascertained the logocentric error in my position. I must confess, I have no adequate resolution to suggest, other than to offer the possibility that my error also may lie in my naive implication of a transcendental signified within the self-referential aporia I attempt to expose in "Loving Cup." My failure is nothing more than an attempt to undo the comfort of mastery & consensus that underlie the illusion that objectivity is situated somewhere outside the self.

Stop! I want to go to bed! You crack me up, I'm refreshing the page every minute to see if there's follow up on this dialogue! Chili sleeps and I die laughing over here!

nite dont let the bugs bite

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

Stop! I want to go to bed! You crack me up, I'm refreshing the page every minute to see if there's follow up on this dialogue! Chili sleeps and I die laughing over here!

nite dont let the bugs bite

I'm wide awake...that's Curtis snoring like a crosscut saw in the corner. Hey, Curtis...you got Apnea?

[ontheEdgeof17]

Originally Posted by chiliD

I'm wide awake...that's Curtis snoring like a crosscut saw in the corner. Hey, Curtis...you got Apnea?

I'm breathing well, thanks.

[David]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

Stop! I want to go to bed! You crack me up, I'm refreshing the page every minute to see if there's follow up on this dialogue! Chili sleeps and I die laughing over here!

I'm just running it all through this pomo translator thingy on the Web!!

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17

I'm breathing well, thanks.

Just checkin'

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by David

Nancy, I think you are absolutely correct, & you have very astutely ascertained the logocentric error in my position. I must confess, I have no adequate resolution to suggest, other than to offer the possibility that my error also may lie in my naive implication of a transcendental signified within the self-referential aporia I attempt to expose in "Loving Cup." My failure is nothing more than an attempt to undo the comfort of mastery & consensus that underlie the illusion that objectivity is situated somewhere outside the self.

David, the aporia of the song does not need to be "exposed." It's fairly obvious (well, I take that back. We probably have different ideas of what makes the song in some ways paradoxical - mine are less theoretical and more concerte, such as the paradox of speaking of self-defeating behavior as if it were a solution). In fact, I believe Lindsey's ironic dubbing of the "loving cup" as "magic" spells that out. The irony forces the acknowledgement of the aporia.

On the other hand, if your criticism of Loving Cup is some kind of social exercise designed to make Ledgies question their own personal realities, well, more power to ya.

[Dreammms]

see ya baby

[Sugar]

C'mon, Please?