Another World

TO ALL YOU POOR, unenlightened souls who still believe that the best expression of the English language is that style set by such medievalists as D.H. Lawrence and Kingsley Amis, prepare yourselves for a somewhat astonishing revelation. That is, if enlightenment is still a viable concept in this hyper-relativistic world. But, first, a digression; yes, a subversive one:

A (Meta-) Poem: Foucault on Derrida:

Derrida, Derrida

La dee da, la dee da.

La dee da, la dee da.

La dee da, la dee da.

DERRIDA!!!

--Filek

Excursis I: An Explication of Foucault (or Derrida?)

ALORS: Une examination of the above work reveals some important culturally subversive tendencies; yes, if we are ever to establish equality in this society. . . No, the above poem reveals nothing--or does it? Certainly, the work undermines the concept of authorship itself--perhaps the most important literary revolution of which we can concieve.

Although it claims to be by Foucault, it is signed by a certain "Filek." Is this "Filek" a shadow writer, or does his (non-) persona constitute a(n) hermeneutical confluence of several heretofore unknown idiolects somewhere north-northwest of the Charles? What, incidentally, is the Charles? Is it'a person, or is it a river? If it is a person, is it (he) a phallogocentric construct?

If we assume (for although there is no evidence at all in the text for this assumption, we must assume--to do otherwise would be empirical, thus logical, thus reductive, thus sexist--but never mind...) that this "Charles" is a monarch--even a British, white, Anglo-Saxon king--we are compelled to conclude that the above poem is yet another reprehensible example of sexism enshrined in the power of our fascist discourse. We must leave this discourse--abandon it--quit--non-logical. Bye-bye.

Excursis II: A new language:

1) Woman=Woperson; Person=Perchild; Woman=Woperchild. VIVE LA FEMME! VIVE LA FRANCE!

3) ["2" need not precede three anymore. To force this logical order upon mathematics would render it imperialistic and oppressive.]

5) Definition: Dephallicization: 1. n, A deconstructionist process of desiccating literature into an acceptable, gender-free model. 2. n, Removal of the genitalia. 3. n, Removal of vitality or force through expurgation.

7) She/He. S(he). (S)he. S/he. S/H. What about "It?" Sexually indeterminate-inclusive language: If we must use it, reduce it! Contract it! Thus, expand it: S/H/IT. Learn it. Peace.

BUT BACK to our original point. As Schoenberg did to music, we have in essence liberated ourselves from the cumbersome restraints of our chauvinistic and repressive society. (PENIS!)

Never before would we dare question the effectual (LOVE NOW!! LOVE CAREFULLY!! LOVE WITH LATEX!! NO GLOVE, NO LOVE!!!) mechanics of our linguistic structure, for fear of its very demise.

At long last, we have broken into a vast, untapped linguistic realm of diatonic-scale proportions. To deny this prodigious development, this long-awaited break-through, would be rapaciously antisemantic. Still, to accept this eventful flux without the genuine sincerity of welcoming emotion would be no less prejudicial.

Let us praise the worthy (mis?)- demeanor of the Modern Language Association, of Stanley Fish and Frederick Jameson, and let us revel in their... La dee da... standards of criticism.

POINT? As a mere word (as that is all it is these days) of advice to all you bright-eyed freshperchildren, take heed for there are countless brigades of evil (pseudo-) linguists and (anti-) academicians.

They linger, prepared to mentally break you with their incomprehensible esotericisms and their pestiferous hyper-sensitivities, and to comb through your every utterance for something, anything that might show you are anything but objective and sterile, and definitely not human.

Frightened? Well, welcome to the Academy. It can be a laugh a minute.